Stockholm Syndrome? Maybe that explains Gov. Jared Polis’ willingness to bow to the man who has held our state hostage.

For more than a year, Colorado has been the target of President Donald Trump’s abuse. Leaving Polis off the guest list of a recent governors’ dinner at the White House was the latest slap in the face of many that include rescinded federal grants, a vetoed water bill, rejected disaster fund requests, and the loss of two federal agencies.

Our tormentor is angry the state chose Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024 and has not met his demands to stop mail-in voting and release his supporter and fellow election denier Tina Peters from prison.

Polis seemed to be bearing up okay under the strain until this week, when he inexplicably signaled that he might grant Peters clemency. The former county clerk is serving nine years for illegally granting a fellow election conspiracy theorist access to voting equipment to advance Trump’s false narrative about the 2020 election. Her failed scheme to discredit the county’s voting equipment violated multiple laws and cost Mesa County taxpayers $1.4 million. This figure does not reflect the human toll of her crimes. Election officials received death threats, and her lies continue to undermine faith in democratic processes to this day.

Polis’ attempt to compare Peters’ nine year sentence to the lighter sentence of probation and community service received by former Colorado state Sen. Jaquez Lewis does not add up. She treated her aides poorly, and when caught attempted to influence members of the Senate Ethics Committee with fake letters of support.

Peters received a tougher sentence within the sentencing guidelines because her crimes and their impact were far worse.

Matt Crane, the head of Colorado’s bipartisan County Clerks Association, told me that the symbolism behind a pardon is dangerous.

“If Polis grants Peters clemency, that would signal that it’s okay for people to undermine election integrity and break the law so long as Polis and Trump can issue a get out of jail free card. Rather than worry about appeasing the president by siding with a convicted felon, Polis should stand with election officials who uphold the law and conduct reliable elections for the people of Colorado,” Crane said.

Peters’ sentence also reflects her complete lack of remorse and contempt for the law. On Twitter, she calls herself the “Fmr Election Official Whistleblower with 7 Felonies and 5 misdemeanors for exposing the traitors of our country” and either she or someone connected to her continues to post lies about elections. Freed, she will no doubt claim exoneration and will continue to undermine confidence in American democracy as we head into an election.

A blue wave of disaffected voters will pulverize the seawall of Republican hegemony in Washington this November, and MAGA will be desperate to blame losses on nonexistent voter fraud. Sowing doubt in our election systems and division among Americans will be all the easier for election conspiracy theorists with a celebrity denier in their midst.

Better to let Peters serve her sentence until she is up for parole in 2028. Perhaps she can manufacture some remorse before the parole board and walk out a free woman.

Until then, Polis must remain steadfast in upholding justice. Trump has granted clemency to all manner of criminals from violent January 6 rioters to corrupt politicians and fraudulent businessmen. No matter how much pressure he puts on our state, we must hold out against his demands.

Krista Kafer is a Sunday Denver Post columnist.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Vietnam Syndrome — the deep reluctance to project American power abroad after the trauma of the Vietnam War — was first widely recognized as a driving ideology within Democratic circles just as I arrived in Washington, D.C., to begin my career. The mood of the city then was shaped by the revelations of the Vietnam War, the publication of the Pentagon Papers, and the findings of the Church Committee, chaired by Frank Church, on which Colorado’s freshman senator, Gary Hart, served. Americans learned of CIA overreach, covert interventions, and hard truths about government deception. The national psyche shifted.

By the time the Iran hostage crisis unfolded under President Jimmy Carter, the Democratic Party was deeply wary of military force. Carter chose negotiation and restraint as 52 American diplomats were held for 444 days by the new Islamic Revolutionary regime. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his approach, it reflected a broader hesitancy shaped by Vietnam’s shadow.

That hesitancy has never fully disappeared.

Today, as the United States and Israel act together to degrade the military capabilities of the Iranian regime — a regime that has funded and armed proxy militias across the region for decades — I am struck by the cautious, almost antiseptic language coming from many Democratic leaders.

For example, Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet said this week: “Any use of military force must be consistent with our constitutional framework and avoid drawing the United States into another open-ended conflict in the Middle East.” That concern is understandable.

No American wants another Iraq or Afghanistan. But when constitutional process becomes the primary lens and the strategic objective becomes secondary, it echoes the old reflex: avoid strength for fear of entanglement.

Rep. Jason Crow, a former Army Ranger, emphasized that “Congress must be consulted before further escalation,” underscoring the need for oversight and warning against “another prolonged regional war.”

Rep. Joe Neguse similarly stressed that “the administration must clearly articulate its legal authority and strategic objectives before expanding military engagement.”

Process, process, process. Deflection from the embrace of American strength to rid the world of the worst of the worst.

I write this not as a detached observer. I spent formative years in Washington working in pro-Israel politics, engaging both Democrats and Republicans, and watching firsthand how internal party debates over strength and restraint played out. In the year 2000, I ran as the Democratic nominee in Congressional District 6 now held by Jason Crow. Yet today, I view these events from the front row.

Six years ago, I became a dual U.S.–Israeli citizen and now spend most of my time in Herzliya, just north of Tel Aviv. Since Saturday morning, much of our community life has shifted underground. We move between home and reinforced shelters as Iranian ballistic missiles — fired from roughly 2,000 miles away — target civilian neighborhoods. These are not symbolic gestures; they are designed for mass casualties. The families in these shelters are not abstractions in a policy debate. They are neighbors.

From this vantage point, the debate in Washington feels tone-deaf.

When Iran’s leadership vows Israel’s destruction and arms groups who are committed to that goal, deterrence is not theoretical. It is existential. The current joint operation — undertaken by President Donald Trump in coordination with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — may be politically controversial, and both leaders are undeniably flawed. But the strategic objective of preventing a violent theocratic regime from expanding its destructive reach is neither reckless nor novel. It is long overdue.

This is where Vietnam Syndrome still lingers — not as a slogan, but as a mindset. The instinct to lead with caution rather than clarity. To emphasize process before principle. To worry first about overreach rather than about the consequences of inaction.

I do not expect unanimity. I do not expect cheerleading. But I do expect moral clarity when civilians are under sustained attack and when a regime that has destabilized a region for nearly half a century is finally facing meaningful consequences.

From Washington, these questions are strategic. From Herzliya, they are personal. The Democratic Party once prided itself on combining moral leadership with pragmatic strength. The challenge now is whether it can rediscover that balance — not abandoning caution, but refusing paralysis. History shows the costs of both overreach and retreat. The test of leadership is knowing the difference.

Ken Toltz is a 3rd-generation Denverite, long-time political activist, and a former Democratic nominee for Colorado’s 6th Congressional District. He now lives in Herzliya, Israel.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Trump is reversing the many years of rising crime and chaos inflicted on families under Democrat rule. The American people asked for safer streets and secure borders, and today, GOP-led policies are delivering measurable results.

A new report from the Major Cities Chiefs Association shows violent crime is plummeting across major U.S. cities between 2024 and 2025. Homicides fell 19%, robberies dropped 20% and aggravated assaults were down nearly 10% in 2025 across 67 of the nation’s biggest police departments. These improvements came after Americans rejected soft-on-crime and defund-the-police policies, which resulted in a spike in crime over the previous 4 years. Denver saw one of the highest drops in homicide rates in the nation.

In just one year, the Trump Administration has captured six of the FBI’s Top 10 Most Wanted fugitives who collectively evaded accountability for their crimes and delaying justice for half a century – that’s more than were captured the entire four years under Biden. In Washington, D.C., the city went three weeks in the New Year without a murder, one of the lowest monthly totals recorded.

These trends are not happening by accident.

Empowering federal law enforcement to do their jobs in soft-on-crime cities and states, supporting cops, and holding criminals accountable sets a precedent that Republicans are serious about their promises to Make America Safe Again.

GOP-led immigration policies are keeping American citizens safe from bad actors, including murderers, rapists, and traffickers who pose serious threats to our communities. In fact, a drug and immigration enforcement operation in Adams County resulted in the arrest of dozens of Tren de Aragua gang members running a makeshift nightclub where weapons, cash, and drugs, including cocaine and Tusi, were seized. For those criminals, there is zero tolerance — they should be immediately deported or imprisoned, and sanctuary jurisdictions that give them safe harbor must be held accountable.

Through the implementation of strong border policies, fentanyl trafficking across the southern border has been slashed in half, leading to fewer overdose deaths devastating American families. Every 15 days under the previous administration, more Americans died as a result of drugs than were killed on 9/11. As a combat veteran of the Global War on Terror, this fight is personal. Republicans and President Trump are putting a stop to the peddling of deadly drugs coming through our southern border and poisoning Americans.

While our public safety policies are delivering results, there is still more work to be done. Safer streets require sustained leadership and cooperation from state and local governments who are equally vested in the security of our nation, but our direction is clear. President Trump and Republicans in Congress are leading the country in a renewed effort to support law enforcement, protect or communities, and save American lives.

As the nation listens to President Trump’s State of the Union address, Americans will hear a record of measurable progress. From declining crime rates to strengthened border enforcement, the policies shaping today’s public landscape are making a tangible difference.

As your Congressman, I remain committed to advancing common-sense legislation to maintain border security, secure our streets, and ensure the United States remains a nation where communities can live, work, and raise a family without fear.

U.S. Rep. Gabe Evans represents Colorado’s 8th Congressional District in Adams, Weld and Larimer counties.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

More than 100 years later, Colorado voters could be left out of the process of selecting our representative to the upper chamber of Congress.

That’s not how democracy should work. And the Colorado General Assembly should do something about it.

Colorado will elect a new governor this fall. If that governor turns out to be Sen. Michael Bennet, voters will have no say in who serves them in the Senate. That’s because Sen. Bennet  says he “will be in the position to pick the replacement.”

No ballots will be cast. Voters likely won’t even know the names being considered for our state’s highest federal office until after the decision has been made. If Bennet is elected governor, that decision will fall to him alone – taking advantage of a flaw in the current system that must be corrected.

Bennet has been routinely pressed on the issue on the campaign trail, and campaign supporters were recently directed to tell anyone who asked: “There will be some really great, young Democrat who is there to vote exactly the same way that Michael votes.”

Voters deserve better. Bennet should either say now who intends to appoint or — to remove even a hint of impropriety — promise to resign his Senate seat should he win the governor’s race and let Gov. Polis make the appointment before leaving office. Then, the legislature should come up with a fix moving forward that puts the decision in the hands of voters — which is already how it works in Colorado for U.S. House vacancies.

It’s my view that once Sen. Bennet thinks on it a bit — he will agree.

Colorado law gives governors the authority to fill Senate vacancies without any restrictions other than that the appointee satisfy constitutional requirements for the office. Sen. Bennet, whose third full term isn’t up until 2028, has confirmed his intention to make use of that authority upon election — foregoing even the marginally preferable option of allowing current Gov. Polis to appoint a replacement — and retaining his Senate seat should he lose the gubernatorial election.

One of the major problems with the current system is it gives Bennet an unfair advantage over his competition – anyone who would like to be the senator of our state (which is a lot of people) will feel huge pressure to support Bennet for senator.

Although I have no reason to doubt his good intentions, one cannot help but think of the debacle of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who was sentenced (and ultimately pardoned by President Trump) on charges of trying to profit from his power to appoint someone to President Barack Obama’s vacated Senate seat.

While Bennet’s decision — should he be elected governor — to select his replacement falls within the legal authority of the governor’s office, the perception of a conflict (in which those considered or, ultimately, appointed must kiss the proverbial ring) is simply too great. Anyone and everyone with a desire to be chosen to serve as senator (which comes with a huge, unearned incumbency advantage in the next election cycle) will feel pressure to play along.

I believe voters, not politicians, should have the final say on who represents them in Washington, D.C. A special election was held when Rep. Ken Buck vacated his Congressional District 4 seat in 2024, and the state legislature needs to give voters the right to pick their senator back.

Following the Blagojevich saga, several states passed laws either removing the power of appointment from governors entirely or allowing brief placeholder appointments until voters could fill the vacancy through a special election. Methods vary, and details like election timelines and whether custodial appointees are eligible to run must be considered before passing such laws in Colorado. Polling shows the commonsense point you would expect: A clear majority of Coloradans want to vote to pick their senator, not have them appointed.

As a starting point, I would suggest a special election be held to fill the vacancy as soon as practical, and a placeholder appointed – either by the governor or the legislature – only to ensure Coloradans are represented in the Senate until voters quickly select the replacement to fill the remainder of the term.

While some might decry the cost of holding a special election, I assert that a democracy that’s in the hands of voters – not politicians – is worth it. At least 15 other states have proven that by already establishing such a system, several in response to the Blagojevich mess. But let’s get serious: It does not take being a criminal to want to use this absolute power without creating in the appointee some sense of obligation or without having them commit to policy positions they would not otherwise.

The infringement upon the democratic process that vacancy appointments impose must be recognized and addressed without any further delay. Bennet’s gubernatorial run has brought this issue to the forefront, but it’s hardly an isolated incident. We’ve seen a plethora of vacancies in our state legislature (so much that in the last few years as many as one in three lawmakers arrived via appointment) and it’s not out of the realm of possibility that U.S. Senate vacancies could surge as well.

Bennet was appointed to his own Senate seat in 2009, going on to be democratically reelected three times. For democracy’s sake, I hope he’s one of the last appointments.

Kent Thiry has co-chaired multiple successful Colorado citizen ballot initiatives including the 2016 efforts to restore the state’s presidential primary election (Proposition 107) and to open Colorado’s primary elections to unaffiliated voters (Proposition 108), and 2018 efforts to ban political gerrymandering and create independent commissions to draw Colorado’s congressional and legislative voter maps (Amendments Y and Z, respectively). He is the former chair and chief executive officer of DaVita.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

At a time when federal worker protections are under attack, the National Labor Relations Board is being gutted, and Americans live with such financial stress that they are often too intimidated to speak up at their workplaces, it’s time for state leaders to make it easier for working people to win the life-changing benefits of a union.

As the president of Office and Professional Employees International Union Local 30, I’ve seen these challenges firsthand, as we recently won a first contract for workers who support refugees and people in conflict zones at the International Rescue Committee’s Denver office.

Through steadfast organizing, these OPEIU members won pay increases, more sick days and a voice in their workplace. But these wins did not come without additional challenges that deter workers across the state from organizing unions of their own. Not only did they have to win an election to form a union, but they then had to win an election to charge union dues, and will have to do so again for each future contract, an onerous requirement that none of the other twelve IRC offices we represent have to deal with.

Due to the so-called Labor Peace Act, Coloradans have never enjoyed the full benefits of the National Labor Relations Act, which protects Americans’ right to unionize, bringing them salaries 10% higher on average than their non-union counterparts. The state’s rampant inequality is the direct byproduct of outdated laws that created a system designed to impede the growth of unions with the explicit original purpose of quelling interracial organizing. These laws leave Colorado’s union density lagging behind the national rate and have inspired anti-union legislation nationally.

To bring these contract wins to workers throughout Colorado, it is essential that we amend the so-called Labor Peace Act now and pass House Bill 1005, a bill spearheaded by Representatives Javier Mabrey and Jennifer Bacon and Senators Jessie Danielson and Iman Jodeh. We call on Gov. Jared Polis to start listening to workers across the state and sign this vital legislation when it lands on his desk again this year.

By forcing workers to constantly re-vote on whether dues can be deducted, employers can easily undermine the will of their employees by prioritizing anti-union hires and undermining the financial stability of the union. This law also forces workers to endlessly focus on rallying their colleagues around the very preservation of their union, diverting limited resources that could be used to fix workplace issues.

Despite Colorado’s law being positioned as a “compromise” between workers and management, the Labor Peace Act actually plays out more like the famously anti-union “right-to-work” laws seen elsewhere. In these states, union density is lower and workers earn an average of $1,670 less than their counterparts in states that protect union security.

This is the difference between a family being thrown out on the streets or having enough money for rent, parents having the resources to send their children to college, or a senior being able to enjoy a dignified retirement. For people who must work for a living, who don’t have hundreds of millions to sustain them as they bounce between political offices, this $1,670 can mean everything.

The amendment would remove this burdensome extra vote and bring Colorado’s labor laws up to the standards of states ranging from California to Montana, sending a message that Colorado is serious about developing an economy that provides working people access to a comfortable middle-class life.

At a moment when 70% of the country approves of labor unions and our federal government has waged a full-on war against workers, amending this backwards law is essential for working Coloradans to win what they are owed.

And at a time when insurance premiums are soaring and Medicaid, as we know it, could disappear, workers need the employer-provided health insurance that they are almost twice as likely to receive through a collectively bargained contract. Our recent victory at IRC exemplifies this, bringing Denver workers higher incomes, better work-life balances and increased job stability.

The law as it stands does not reflect Coloradans’ values, and OPEIU encourages Polis to follow Michigan’s 2023 repeal of right-to-work and make it easier for Colorado workers to win the better wages, benefits and working conditions they are entitled to — and that union membership makes much more likely.

Marianne Giordano is a vice president at OPEIU who serves as executive director and CFO of Local 30, where she is also a Coalition Tri-Chair of Kaiser Permanente’s Regional Labor Management Council, a member of the National Labor Management Council Steering Committee and a delegate to the Coalition of Labor Union Women. She is an echo technologist in the Internal Medicine Cardiology Department at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. 

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

This is something the headlines often miss when describing what it’s like to be living with ICE in Minnesota.

We know that federal agents shot and killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti. We’ve learned that agents have approached and detained residents who appear to be “foreign” at grocery stores and bus stops. We’ve seen the picture of 5-year-old Liam, with his Spider-Man backpack and animal snow hat, before he and his dad were taken by federal agents. We’ve watched the horrific videos of masked agents tackling, cuffing and dragging U.S. citizens through the street — or parading them into the arctic chill in their boxers — and later releasing them, without apology.

On Saturday morning, Pretti, an ICU nurse, was killed by a Border Patrol agent while holding his phone to record a chaotic scene. It shouldn’t be forgotten that Pretti lost his life on Eat Street, a corridor revived by immigrants. Believe the video that shows Pretti was a helper. He was helping a woman whom an agent violently shoved to the ground. He was helping document the actions by federal agents so that the truth could be preserved.

Maybe Pretti knew how difficult life was becoming for those around him. A quiet, pervasive fear that has taken root in the Twin Cities, forcing some people of color who are not even immigrants to change our behaviors. We take extra precautions. We carry the passport. And we question our belonging.

Federal agents have been recorded on video, acknowledging that they’re homing in on individuals who speak with foreign accents. In one encounter, a man named Ramon Menera had just returned home to Columbia Heights with his daughter after getting ice cream when he was approached by a Border Patrol agent.

“Now, talking to you, hearing that you have an accent, I have reason to believe you are not born of this country,” the agent says in the video.

In other videos, shot at my local Costco parking lot, agents are seen politely asking random shoppers unloading their carts if they are U.S. citizens.

These interactions with agents are almost as chilling as footage of their violent tactics. Such videos normalize unabashed racial profiling by our federal government. It’s clear that anyone who looks or sounds anything but “American” is now viewed with suspicion.

This comes at a heartbreaking cost. Last week a video of an Asian American boy from Iowa circulated widely on social media. He’s 12, his name is Max and he wears a soccer uniform and a tournament medal around his neck. But instead of celebrating his team’s victory, he breaks down crying, describing to his mom the jeers he heard from the other team’s goalie.

“These guys told me I’m an illegal immigrant, even though I was born in America,” he said. “He said Trump is gonna get me and send me back to where I used to live. I was born in America!”

He’s trying to apply logic here, but the math won’t math.

We’re living in a nightmare where a kid who should be elated over his team’s win is processing that some of his peers see him as a second-class citizen. He is feeling the humiliation and denigration that can come with being different, which is something all people of color have experienced. But this time the hate is powered by a schoolyard bully who happens to be the president of the United States.

Somali Americans in Minnesota, says Trump, should “go back to where they came from,” a slur that so many kids from immigrant families have heard. Only now, it is repeated by children who cite the leader of the free world.

What troubles me is how far we are regressing.

Asian Americans, in particular, have always struggled with being perceived as perpetual outsiders, no matter how long we’ve lived in the country. When immigrants of my parents’ generation started families here in the 1970s, many of them figured their children would fit in and thrive here, so long as they gave their children Western names and made sure they could speak perfect American English. I always felt they went overboard, that we didn’t have to whitewash ourselves to gain acceptance. A half-century later, I’m thinking maybe my parents were onto something.

In the initial weeks of the ICE surge in Minnesota, I refused to carry my passport, an act of defiance in a country I no longer recognize. I worried more about my mom, who has a master’s degree in English but speaks with a Taiwanese accent, and my dad, an Army veteran who grew up in the Midwest but has Alzheimer’s and struggles with his words.

But the other night, after hearing from Twin Cities police chiefs that their officers of color have been harassed by federal agents demanding paperwork, I uploaded my passport to my Apple Wallet, just to be safe. It felt like a compromise I could live with.

A document that once made me proud of all the places I’ve traveled is now a badge to prove I belong. It speaks volumes that a person like me is scared — somebody with so many privileges, including my perfect American English.

Aren’t you scared, too?

Laura Yuen writes opinion and reported pieces exploring parenting, gender, family and relationships, with special attention on women and underrepresented communities. She looks for the deeper resonance of a story, to humanize it, and make it universal. Before joining the Star Tribune in 2021, Laura spent 13 years at MPR News, most recently as editor of a team covering race, class, communities and education. She also reported for the St. Paul Pioneer Press and the Lexington (Ky.) Herald-Leader.

___

©2026 The Minnesota Star Tribune. Visit at startribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

This week Peters’ representatives sent out a press release and went on conservative media saying she had been “assaulted” in a closet at the La Vista Correctional Facility in Pueblo. The story was that Peters had been attacked “from behind.”

The problem, of course, is that surveillance video from the facility tells a different story. The Denver Post obtained footage that shows Peters moving a large cart in a hallway and then partially pulling it behind her through a doorway. Another woman comes to the door, leans just past the cart toward the door, but does not enter. Then Peters quickly pushes the cart out of the way, comes back into the view of the camera, grabs the woman and pushes her.

The incident appears to have been a very minor scuffle, nothing that anyone would have noted, if not for Peters’ attorneys decision to blow it out of proportion and highlight it in the media.

None of this helps Peters’ case.

She is asking Gov. Jared Polis for clemency from a fair conviction imposed by a jury of her peers and a harsh sentence imposed by a judge thoroughly annoyed by her courtroom demeanor. Clemency is reserved for people who show contrition, growth, reform. The scuffle caught on camera would never prevent someone from getting clemency, but lying about it underlines the exact behavior that got Peters in trouble in the first place. She engaged in deception and fraud to try and prove that President Donald Trump had won the 2020 election, and that Biden had been the beneficiary of corrupted voting machines and software. Despite her continued assertions of the opposite, the data that she presented to the public did not prove that the voting machines in Mesa County had been altered to give Biden false votes.

Peters was sentenced to nine years in jail for her crimes. The sentence was absolutely harsh, but judges impose harsh sentences for a variety of reasons every single day. That alone doesn’t make her a worthy candidate for clemency. She is likely to get released early on parole through good behavior credits and could be free as early as March 2028, even without Polis taking action to reduce her sentence. That timing seems perfect as Trump is guaranteed to leave office 10 months later in January 2029, and his corrupting influence on Peters will wane as he surrenders the White House to the winner of America’s free and fair election that November.

What would make Peters a worthy candidate for clemency in the public eye is an apology for her breach of public trust, and maybe, just maybe, a long overdue admission that she was wrong about Colorado’s secure, paper-ballot election system.

Polis could move her mandatory release date to January 2029 if he feels moved by her appeals for mercy, which would likely move up he eligibility date for parole after good time credits to something much more imminent.

Megan Schrader is the editor of The Denver Post’s opinion pages. This appeared in the weekly Sound Off newsletter. To subscribe sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Who wouldn’t want to see Delicate Arch in the morning and casks of plutonium in the afternoon?

Like the radioactive waste itself, some bad ideas won’t disappear. Southeast Utah is in the crosshairs once again, aided by a $2 million Biden-era grant given to two pro-nuclear nonprofits based in California, Mothers for Nuclear and Native Nuclear, along with North Carolina State University.

San Juan County, where I live, is Utah’s only majority-Indigenous county and the state’s poorest. Last year, the county hosted a number of meetings as part of the Energy Department’s “consent-based siting consortia,” an attempt to get buy-in from residents for accepting radioactive waste. At local meetings, Mothers for Nuclear argued that the nuclear industry is much safer than the public has been told.

It’s true that 40 years ago some locals eagerly pushed for a nuclear dump. One pro-repository activist in Moab even called it preferable to national parks, because parks attracted “drugs, homosexuals, and environmentalists.” Utah’s governor opposed the dump plan, however, and after it was defeated, the town of Moab worked to create a new identity, Now, the Moab area has become an international tourist destination.

Yet the question of what to do about spent nuclear fuel remains, and the area surrounding Bears Ears National Monument and Canyonlands continues to be targeted as a suitable dumping ground.

Would welcoming radioactive waste lead to an economic revival? Probably not.

Though the Cold War rush for uranium created economic booms for San Juan County and Grand County’s town of Moab, prosperity spawned public health crises. Residents of Monticello, San Juan County’s seat, and the site of a uranium mill from 1942 to 1960, awoke to a fine yellow dust on windowsills during the mill’s heyday. Decades later, rates of lung and stomach cancer in the town were found in one study to be twice the state average.

The Navajo Nation experienced widespread uranium mining in the 20th century, followed by one of the highest incidences of uranium-linked health issues in the United States. In 1979, Tribal land was also the site of the second-largest accidental release of radioactive material in history, after a wastewater pond burst near Church Rock, New Mexico. Only the Chernobyl meltdown seven years later surpassed that disaster.

Mills for processing uranium are also harmful. After a mill site in Halchita, Utah, was capped in the early 1990s, workers who cleaned it up fell victim to some of the same diseases as uranium miners of the previous generation. Still contaminating air, livestock and humans are more than 500 unreclaimed uranium mines on Navajo land.

The Navajo Nation banned uranium mining in 2005 and uranium transport in 2012. But Energy Fuels, the company that operates the White Mesa uranium mill just outside San Juan County, secured an exemption from the transport ban in early 2025. The mill has been accepting radioactive waste for years, including waste from Japan and Estonia. Recently, it began processing ore from a mine the company owns just outside Grand Canyon National Park.

Around 10 trucks leave the Arizona mine each day, crossing unceded Havasupai and Hopi lands, the Navajo Nation, and the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation before reaching the mill–all over the objections of Tribal leaders and members of the tribes along the route.

But that waste and ore is far less radioactive than the spent nuclear fuel that Mothers for Nuclear promotes at San Juan County meetings. There, the group stays away from discussing cancer rates or birth defects, instead showing slides of pregnant, smiling women sitting next to containers of nuclear waste.

It is going to take time and vigilance, but once again my fellow residents of San Juan County intend to fend off the Department of Energy, which has adopted even more pro-nuclear policies under President Trump.

Zak Podmore is a contributor to Writers on the Range, an independent nonprofit dedicated to spurring conversation about the West. He is the author of Life After Deadpool and lives in Utah.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Ben Nighthorse Campbell, the former Colorado U.S. senator and congressman who served first as a Democrat and then as a Republican, died of natural causes Dec. 30 at his ranch in Ignacio, Colorado at age 92.

A member of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Campbell grew up poor and spent part of his childhood in a California orphanage, yet he led a life of excelling. He became a judo champion in 1963, winning a gold medal at the Pan-American Games; served in the Air Force for four years where he earned his GED; went on to get degrees in physical education and fine arts at San Jose State University; and honed skills as a silversmith and jeweler. His Western belt buckles were prized.

He entered politics in 1982, first serving as a state legislator. He was next elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, serving rural Western Colorado from 1987 to 1993, then was elected to two terms in the U.S. Senate.

When Senator Campbell switched from being a registered Democrat to a Republican on March 3, 1995, “the switch was shocking and traumatic to his staff,” said Ken Lane, his longtime chief of staff. He quit soon after Campbell’s announcement.

Lane said there was lots of speculation about why Campbell became a Republican. A major irritant for Campbell, Lane recalled, was what the senator called the “elitist” attitude of Democratic leaders in Denver and Boulder, who found him too moderate. Campbell’s main support always came from the union stronghold of Pueblo, in southern Colorado.

It was known that Republican Senator and majority leader Bob Dole courted Campbell to make the switch, and once he did, Campbell was appointed chair of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. Campbell relished the job, advocating for Tribal rights and spurring the creation of the Sand Creek Massacre National Historical Site in Colorado, where two of his ancestors had been killed by U.S. soldiers.

Dea Jacobson, who worked in his Grand Junction, Colorado office when he was a Democrat, called him a force of nature. “He could do anything he put his mind to,” she said. He was a licensed pilot, and he also earned a commercial driver’s license, which he used in 2000 and 2012 to drive huge Colorado Christmas trees to the Capitol in Washington, D.C.

Though his party changed, Jacobson said, Campbell’s politics remained the same: “He was pro-choice, pro-union and, despite criticism from some environmentalists, he backed key legislation protecting Colorado’s public lands.” Over the years, Campbell became known as someone who’d horse trade to get the bills he cared about passed.

One of his major victories was passage of the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993, which designated or expanded 19 wilderness areas. The landmark legislation had been 13 years in the making. Campbell also worked on the creation of Great Sand Dunes National Park and helped make the Black Canyon National Monument a national park.

Campbell had a major impact on Colorado’s Four Corners region. Working with the Tribes he changed the Animas–La Plata water project to protect the free-flowing Animas River, despite criticism from environmentalists over the pumping of water uphill into a dry basin. The deal fulfilled long-overdue water rights held by the Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute Tribes.

I’d called Campbell last October when I was writing a column about changes coming for the reservoir named after him — Lake Nighthorse — authorized by Congress in 1968 as part of the Animas-La Plata Project. I’d been told Campbell was in poor health, but he answered the phone, later telling me, “I’m suffering from old persons’ problems so I’m not following water wars these days. But don’t forget what Mark Twain said about water: ‘Whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting.’”

Jacobson wasn’t surprised that Nighthorse was affable in our conversation. “He loved newspaper people,” she recalled, and when they were on the road in rural Colorado, “he liked to stop in at a town’s weekly paper.” Though he didn’t drink, he might also visit a local bar or café to start a conversation with locals. Before long, she said, “he was holding court.”

Lane’s recollection was equally warm. “Ben was funny, irreverent and endearing, and he connected with people of all backgrounds.”

A private memorial service will be held by his family at their ranch in Ignacio, Colorado. He is survived by his wife Linda, his children Colin and Shanan, and four grandchildren.

Dave Marston is the publisher of Writers on the Range, an independent nonprofit dedicated to spurring lively conversation about the West. He lives in Durango, Colorado.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Unit 1 was on track to cease operations at the end of 2025. While this was a win for the public health and the environment, the five utilities that own it had decided in 2016 that the cheapest option was to retire and replace the aging plant. In the decade since utilities decided to retire Craig 1, they have been busy building new resources to replace the plant. Our Colorado health and safety, as well as affordability of power for consumers, is dependent on making steady progress towards our clean energy goals: retiring dirty and expensive coal plants and moving towards a clean, breathable future.

Colorado has transition plans in place that have been negotiated with our utilities, environmental advocates, workers, and residents. The Public Utilities Commission’s decisions and the energy-generation plans of our utilities are carefully considered to take into account the costs to rate-payers, just transitions for workers, and the necessary steps towards a clean energy future.

The Trump Administration doesn’t appear to care about any of that. As with the recent similarly ill-conceived and heavy-handed veto of the Arkansas Valley Conduit clean water project funding, Trump prioritizes superficial, punitive, Executive actions.

All of us suffer from his callousness and idiocy whether our Congresspeople are from his party or not, whether we voted for him or not. Our beautiful Colorado air, land and water must be protected. Our children don’t deserve record asthma rates, our residents deserve clean drinking water, and our outdoor enthusiasts deserve safe recreation.

Trump’s actions are not well thought-out, careful policy decisions. From dismantling scientific research institutions in Colorado to increasing our utility rates, his revenge tour will have real impacts on people’s lives, including those who voted for him.

It is worth noting that Venezuelan crude oil will not lower energy costs. We are years away from having the capacity to refine this very heavy, dirty petroleum and we do not use oil to power our electric grid.

Our environmental organizations have sought legal recourse and will continue to do so. As Legislators we will also continue to protect our State from his disastrous whims.

Meg Froelich is a state represenative in the Colorado Genearl Assembly and Mike Weissman is a state senator.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.