We are former senior Department of Homeland Security officials with experience in immigration enforcement, counterterrorism, and national security. Our public service was shaped by September 11, 2001, grounding us in the twin obligations of security and constitutional restraint. Today, we are deeply alarmed by what we are seeing from our former department.

Let us be clear at the outset: we support strong borders and lawful immigration enforcement. Law enforcement deserves respect; society cannot function without it. But enforcement that treats the public as the enemy and abandons constitutional limits does not make us safer. It puts the entire system at risk — legally, operationally, and morally.

Over the past year, we have watched repeated violations of Americans’ First, Second, and Fourth Amendment rights.

Free expression and peaceful protest are core to our Constitution, and the government has a duty to protect those rights even — especially — when speech is uncomfortable or critical of authority. At the same time, protections against unreasonable searches and seizures must be honored;  law enforcement should not bypass judicial oversight when entering private homes or conducting operations.

And in just the last three weeks, federal immigration officers have been involved in three shootings, resulting in two deaths — an unprecedented pattern in modern immigration enforcement. Any serious law enforcement institution confronted with that record would pause operations and reassess training and tactics.

That has not happened, and it raises legitimate questions about proportionality, judgment, and respect for constitutional limits.

These outcomes did not occur in a vacuum. Over the past year, DHS leadership has driven a dramatic shift in tone and culture. Federal officials publicly labeled Renee Good — a mother and U.S. citizen — and Alex Pretti — a nurse who cared for U.S. veterans and also a U.S. citizen — as “terrorists” before investigations were initiated and without evidence of terrorist ideology or motive.

Official DHS social media accounts routinely post inflammatory content glorifying paramilitary enforcement. This rhetoric has influenced operations, encouraging escalation rather than restraint against American citizens.

When senior officials treat Americans as adversaries — not as neighbors and citizens with rights — it poisons the workforce. Officers are taught to see the public they serve through the prism of fear rather than duty, and that mindset can become self-fulfilling. Law enforcement that views the public as the enemy, rather than as fellow citizens to protect, and that abandons constitutional limits, does not make us safer. It normalizes escalation, erodes legitimacy, and increases the risk of violence for civilians and officers alike.

History offers a cautionary lesson: when enforcement institutions lose accountability and are insulated from meaningful oversight, their use of power tends to expand rather than contract. That reality should concern all Americans, regardless of where they stand politically.

Equally concerning is the lack of independent accountability. The administration declined to open an investigation into the shooting of Ms. Good and indicated it would investigate the shooting of Pretti internally. Across the country — in red states and blue states alike — officer-involved shootings are reviewed by independent authorities for a reason: public trust depends on it.

As tensions with protesters have escalated, it is essential to remember where responsibility lies in a constitutional democracy. Citizens have a duty to exercise their First Amendment rights peacefully. But the greater burden of restraint rests with the state. Whistling, shouting, filming arrests, or verbally criticizing officers is not violence. It is annoying — but it is protected speech. Courts have been clear for decades: speech does not become violence simply because it provokes irritation, anger, or discomfort in law enforcement. The public has a right to expect that officers will respond to lawful protest with professionalism and restraint, not force.

Mission of Homeland Security

DHS argues that officers are simply doing their duty by enforcing immigration laws during these operations nationwide to detain immigrants; that they have no choice. That framing is misleading. The executive branch exercises discretion in whom it prioritizes and how operations are conducted. Their choices are directly tied to the outcomes we are seeing. Officials also claim these operations target “criminals,” yet as of late November, roughly 73% of those detained had no criminal conviction, according to an analysis of publicly available ICE data by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC).

Having immigration officers walk residential or commercial streets in broad daylight is not how violent criminals are apprehended. Rapists, murderers, and drug traffickers do not announce themselves or surrender voluntarily. Identifying dangerous offenders requires investigative work, intelligence, and coordination — capabilities ICE already possesses. If the objective were to focus on genuinely dangerous individuals, the executive branch could do so. The outcomes suggest something else: an emphasis on meeting numerical targets, regardless of the human or constitutional cost.

Congress recently approved an unprecedented expansion of ICE — a 120% increase in workforce and a tripling of their budget – making it the largest federal law enforcement agency, with a budget larger than many other nation’s militaries. Rapid growth at this scale carries predictable risks, including reduced vetting of new hires and weakened institutional culture. According to an investigation by Government Executive, training for new hires has been cut by nearly 77%.

Colorado could be a target for enforcement

Some may wonder why events unfolding hundreds of miles away should matter to Coloradans. The truth is that federal enforcement priorities and tactics that are normalized in one place tend to spread unless checked. Throughout history, unchecked power has expanded and carried out similar or worse activities elsewhere — first here, then there. Colorado already sits among the metropolitan areas experiencing one of the highest rates of immigrant arrivals per capita behind only a handful of  U.S. cities.

Colorado’s state and local policies have also drawn federal scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice has targeted Colorado and Denver in litigation challenging local immigration-related laws, framing them as inconsistent with federal enforcement priorities.

This combination of factors means that Colorado could be next on the list. If so, it is critical that protestors and citizens do two things:  document law enforcement actions in line with the law and remain peaceful.  The latter, in particular, is absolutely vital.  There can be no violence against law enforcement.  That will undo all that has been sacrificed.

The executive branch does not have unfettered power, and Congress is not a bystander. It is a co-equal branch with a constitutional duty to conduct oversight and set limits.

Members of Congress must act. Yes, they should immediately hold oversight hearings, demanding accountability from DHS leadership, and using the power of the purse to impose conditions tied to constitutional compliance. But we need more. CBP, ICE, and DHS are no longer agencies with the credibility to keep the nation safe. Congress should create a blue ribbon commission to both hold them accountable and issue recommendations of how the agency should be reconstituted. Nothing short of that will be trusted by the American people.

We continue to care deeply about the mission of DHS and the professionals who serve there — many of whom cannot speak publicly without risking their careers. When leaders promote escalation over restraint, they endanger both civilians and officers.

To our fellow Coloradans: If this can happen in Minneapolis, Chicago and Portland, it can happen in Denver, Durango and the Western Slope. Call your senators and representative and demand that Congress insist on the rule of law. Law enforcement and liberty are not opposing values. In America, they must stand together.

Eric Balliet is a retired Homeland Security Investigations special agent who spent over 15 years on the Arizona/Mexico border combatting international drug and human smuggling organizations, he worked under five administrations and served as the law enforcement advisor to Department of Homeland Security secretaries Jeh Johnson and John Kelly. Elizabeth Neumann is a former DHS assistant secretary for counterterrorism and deputy chief of staff who served in national security roles across three administrations, including the Trump administration. 

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.

Colorado cannot remain dependent on the federal government to support the child care needs of Colorado families.

Colorado families are already doing everything they can to stay afloat. Parents are juggling two or three jobs. Caregivers are burning out, barely making minimum wage. And child care providers — especially those trusted family, friend, and neighbor caregivers — are being pushed past the breaking point.

Now, just when support is most needed, the Trump administration tried to hit pause on billions of dollars in child care, family assistance, and social services funding to five states, including Colorado as a punishment for Colorado upholding the law.

The cuts included federal funds for the Colorado Child Care Assistance Program (CCCAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and Social Services Block Grants — lifelines for working families across Colorado.

President Donald Trump’s goal of sewing chaos in Colorado is only successful, not because of his efforts, but because Colorado is unable to invest what we should in our own childcare infrastructure. Colorado’s child care budget, the funds that go to families who need tuition assistance, the funds that support centers in remaining open, the funds that support professional development, early intervention, home visiting, are 80% reliant on the federal government.

This should be a lesson to every Coloradan that the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) makes it impossible to invest in our own. We are unable to responsibly budget to the real needs of families to support making child care more affordable, or health care. We are unable to pay teachers a livable wage where they can afford child care so they can go to work and teach other people’s kids.

TABOR is failing our families. TABOR requires a flat tax rate for every income earner in the state. That means that the majority of the families in Colorado who are barely making ends meet and those who are not, are carrying a heavier tax burden than those who make $500k or more! How?

Besides having more discretionary funding, the wealthy can take advantage of many tax tools that help them pay less in taxes than someone who makes $75,000 a year. With this flat tax system, we are leaving billions of dollars on the table that could be used to invest in our own child care infrastructure.

The graduated income tax proposal that the Protect Colorado’s Future coalition is working to get on the ballot would raise more than $2 billion for child care, health care, and K-12. Importantly, it would cut state income taxes for everyone making less than $500,000 a year, and raise income taxes for people making above that. A graduated income tax system, which Colorado had until 1987, is fairer and will help pay for the things Coloradans need.

Child care is not a luxury. It is how single moms keep jobs, how low-wage families stay housed, how children with disabilities receive care, and how our smallest businesses — child care providers — survive. It’s what makes our local economies prosper. Over reliance on the federal government puts Colorado families at risk to vendettas and grudges. Freezing these funds doesn’t just stall support; it rips the rug out from under communities already hanging by a thread.

And the damage spreads quickly:

• Parents are forced to choose between work and caregiving.

• Employers lose reliable workers overnight.

• Providers — mostly women of color — face closure, laying off staff and displacing children.

• Children lose critical early learning and safety.

At Colorado Statewide Parent Coalition, we see this every day. We work with hundreds of families and friend, family and neighbor providers who rely on these programs to keep going. These are not numbers — they are neighbors, teachers, grandmothers, and essential workers.

Let’s also be clear about what this funding freeze is not: It’s not about fixing fraud. It’s not about fiscal responsibility. And it’s not about improving services.

It is about punishing families — especially immigrant, low-income, and communities of color — for political disagreements they had no part in creating.

This moment demands more than technical solutions. It demands moral courage.

The moral courage to change TABOR and create a graduated income tax in Colorado so we can reduce our reliance on the federal government and generate the funding we need to take care of Coloradans.

Mirla De Low Coronado is the director of early childhood programs at the Colorado Statewide Parent Coalition.

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.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife employees are in the crosshairs, caught between mountain lion lovers on the left and anti-wolf advocates on the right. The news this week that CPW employees are facing a variety of threats from radical elements in both groups of Coloradans strikes us as ironic sad — and frightening.

But in the face of unnecessary radicalism, we urge policymakers not to entrench themselves in their positions but to take a moderate approach that accepts the reality that, on both sides of the issue, there is ground to give.

CPW acting director Laura Clellan told The Colorado Sun that her staff has received anonymous threats over two mountain lions who were euthanized following a fatal attack on a runner. And after the release of 15 gray wolves into Colorado, CPW staff were followed during operations and threatened with violence.

We expect healthy and robust debate about Colorado’s wildlife management practices, but both sides of these issues have gone crazy. This outlandish and harassing behavior must stop.

Hunting is a vital part of our wildlife management, our economy and our Western culture as is Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s ability to euthanize animals who pose a threat to humans. The Denver Post editorial board opposed a ban on mountain lion hunting in 2024’s Proposition 127. But we also supported the reintroduction of wolves in Colorado in 2020’s Proposition 114. The wolves are native to Colorado and could help our ecosystems find the right balance between predator and prey.

From this middle-ground position, we can call for both sides to simmer down.

Because from our vantage of impartiality, we can see plainly that mountain lion hunting needs much more regulation to protect the apex predator from being overly culled. The ban simply went too far.

And we can see plainly that the reintroduction of wolves has not gone well for the wolves or for the ranchers whose livelihoods have been impacted by wolf depredation.

Neither of those realizations requires a revolution. A strongly worded letter to state officials or reintroduction of ballot measures to change state law could suffice in both instances of policy failure.

Accusations that CPW staff is acting inappropriately or that they are out to get Coloradans who have different ideas for how our wildlife should be managed are both inappropriate and inaccurate. There is no conspiracy to protect mountain lion hunters or the guides who make money pursuing the big cats for clients. There is no conspiracy to chase Colorado ranchers off of public lands with marauding bands of gray wolves.

What we do know is that a Colorado woman was recently killed by a mountain lion while on a heavily used trail near an established neighborhood in Estes Park. The tragic death followed months of reports of mountain lions that appeared to no longer fear humans. Euthanizing those animals was the right decision.

Hunting lions can contribute to the animals retaining a natural fear of humans and dogs. Not banning hunting was the right call. However, the tragic death also shouldn’t lead to vehement anti-lion sentiment like we are seeing with gray wolves.

Apex predators are a critical part of our ecosystem, and while they always pose a risk to humans, managing them, not eradicating them, is the right path.

Gray wolves were naturally entering Colorado’s northern territory before voters decided to accelerate their reintroduction in 2024. Last winter 15 wolves were released in Colorado, and since then, 11 have died. Of the 10 wolves that were released in 2023, an unknown number have survived. The state tracks 19 wolves via collars and knows of at least four packs that are having pups. The mortality of introduced wolves is unacceptable, but so are the continued threats to hunt and slaughter the wolf population. We support hunting lions because the population is stable and needs to be managed. Until the wolf population stabilizes, the animals must be protected.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife officials are doing their best to manage our wildlife and protect our ecosystems. Any conversations about wolf and lion populations and protections must start and end with that truth.

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.

Food, Honestly is a monthly column discussing how people actually eat right now – not through reviews or recipes, but through real talk about cost, convenience and everyday food decisions. We want you to participate in that discussion, by telling us what matters to you. Email allysoneatsden@gmail.com to keep the conversation going.

My house used to have Thai Tuesday.

We’d order takeout from our favorite local spot, happily trading time at the stove and a sink full of dishes for curries and noodles that arrived hot and delicious. At a little more than $10 a plate, it felt like a splurge — but a manageable one. An easy-to-rationalize indulgence on a random weeknight when everyone was tired and hungry and no one wanted to talk about quinoa.

But Thai Tuesday has gone the way of free bread at restaurants and anyone but me changing the rolls of toilet paper at my house. Not because we stopped loving Thai food, but because dinner now comes with a side of financial anxiety. As someone who loves to eat and try new restaurants, but who also loves paying her (thankfully-locked-in-at-2.5%) mortgage on time, I keep coming back to that age-old question, but for different reasons these days: What’s for dinner?

Ordering takeout used to feel like opting out of effort. Lately, it feels like opting into credit card debt. I do the quiet mental math while waiting in drive-thru lines: $13 meals times four people adds up to nearly $60 for my family’s beloved Good Times burgers and fries.

And that’s just for fast food. Somewhere along the way, the dinner middle ground disappeared. Picking up to-go food from the local Chinese spot or even Chipotle was once the compromise between cooking at home and sitting down at a restaurant. It cost a little more than a home-cooked meal, but not so much that it felt out of reach. But now it’s adding up.

I’ve had this conversation with pretty much everyone I know lately. A friend tells me her Chick-fil-A lunch ran $16. Someone else grabbed drinks and appetizers at The Cherry Cricket and left $60 lighter. Scroll Denver Food Reddit for five minutes and you’ll find the requisite “Can you believe this sandwich cost $20?” thread.

Dinner choices, like so many things right now, feel increasingly stratified. There’s the cheapish and labor-intensive cooking at home and stretching leftovers, or the takeout/eating out experience that’s increasingly expensive. What’s missing is that once-reliable in-between option that made weeknights easier without blowing the budget. Middle-ground food, like the middle class itself, feels like it’s slipping away.

Takeout used to be the pressure valve, the thing that kept us from burning out after returning from work, out of energy and willpower. Too tired to cook? Too broke for a sit-down restaurant? No problem, have some takeout tacos. But lately, even fast-casual feels like a decision you have to justify.

How did that happen? Not because restaurants suddenly got greedy, or because we all collectively broke Apple Wallet when money stopped feeling real. It’s not like restaurant owners banded together at their Annual Restaurant Owner Meeting and decided to spike prices for the heck of it. I don’t see the owner of my local pizzeria driving around town in a Ferrari.

If anything, it was inevitable. Restaurants are dealing with the same things the rest of us are — runaway rents, soaring food costs and, at least in Denver, a tipped minimum wage that’s nearly $5 higher per hour than that in notoriously expensive New York City. And all of this is happening in an industry that’s always operated on famously thin margins.

Unsurprisingly, a 2025 Expert Market Food & Beverage Industry Report, which surveyed restaurant professionals, found that 85 percent believe labor issues affect their business, with more than half pointing to wages and benefits as the single biggest threat to profitability. To cope, nearly two-thirds have raised prices. Almost one in five have raised them significantly.

So, yeah, this is why the math stops working at mealtime. A recent Newsweek article called the food and beverage sector “the canary in the coal mine,” one of the first sectors where economic anxiety shows up when people start tightening their belts. Which means that that $20 pad thai could be just the beginning.

The real loss isn’t any one dish or restaurant, but the ease of it all. Thai Tuesday didn’t disappear at my house because it stopped being good; it disappeared because it stopped being reasonable. The middle ground it occupied ghosted us, along with the idea that a weeknight meal could be both convenient and affordable.

Tonight, “What’s for dinner?” is about more than just food. It’s about time, money, burnout and what we’re willing to give up. Cooking means more work. Eating out means more money. And somewhere between the fridge and the menu board, we’re realizing, often with a side of sticker shock, that the way we eat now says as much about the economy as it does about our appetites.

Allyson Reedy is a Denver-area freelance writer, cookbook author and novelist. She is also a former Denver Post food writer. 

Subscribe to our new food newsletter, Stuffed, to get Denver food and drink news sent straight to your inbox.

What readers saw: The killing of driver in Minneapolis

Re: “ICE officer kills driver,” Jan. 8 news story

On Wednesday, a 37-year-old citizen was shot by agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. We don’t know why she was where she was; that will come out in the days ahead. And there is plenty of video. So Homeland Secretary Kristi Noem, Vice President JD Vance, and even President Donald Trump can spin their lies, but we will know what occurred.

What’s disturbing is the rush to cover their asses and disparage the victim. Makes me want to throw up. This is what our nation has to face daily: an administration of liars and an agency that appears to believe they can do whatever they want and face no accountability. What’s next?

Deborah Harvey, Thornton

I am writing to express serious concern about recent public attacks on Immigration and Customs Enforcement following an incident where a woman attempted to use her vehicle to strike an ICE agent and completely disobeyed law enforcement instructions. Regardless of immigration policy views, attempting to injure or kill law enforcement is a grave act of violence and must be unequivocally condemned.

What is troubling is the rhetoric from some Democratic officials and commentators appearing to excuse violent conduct directed at ICE personnel. This is deeply problematic. The rule of law depends on consistent moral standards: violence and attempted homicide are unacceptable regardless of the identity of the victim or the political controversy surrounding their role. Clearly the vehicle was driven toward the agent.

Social science research on political violence and moral disengagement shows sustained rhetorical delegitimization of institutions increases the likelihood of real-world harm. When elected officials frame federal agents as inherently illegitimate or malicious, it erodes public trust and lowers social inhibitions against attacking them. This dynamic has historically preceded escalations in political violence, domestically and internationally.

Criticism of federal agencies is legitimate in a democratic society. However, ethical leadership requires a clear boundary between policy disagreement and the normalization — or tacit justification — of violence.

I urge our society to publicly affirm attempted vehicular assault against any law-enforcement officer is indefensible, and to encourage responsible rhetoric that does not endanger public servants or the public at large.

Silence or equivocation in moments like this is itself consequential. Clear moral leadership matters.

Kriss Perras, Colorado Springs

As a former member and chair of our city’s police Citizen Review Board, I am sharing thoughts on the Minneapolis ICE shooting videos I have watched. It did not appear to me that the ICE agents were in any physical danger unless they placed themselves in it.

I did not hear any commands from the agents to the driver who was killed. There were no de-escalation tactics, instead they escalated to the lethal use of force.

There are rules for the Department of Homeland Security and other law enforcement agencies that direct officers not to pursue fleeing cars unless life is in danger or similar.

The assessments from the president and his administration do not comport with the evidence I have seen.

To me, this was an unnecessary escalation of the use of force that resulted in an unnecessary death.

As to the protesters who were maced, if you impede the legal actions of law enforcement, you can be arrested, or they can use non-lethal means such as mace.

The killing leaves me wondering whether ICE agents have been trained properly and I suspect there will be civil and criminal litigation to sort out officer immunity issues.

John W. Thomas, Fort Collins

Interfering with a federal ICE agent is a serious federal felony that can result in substantial fines and imprisonment. Assuming that the Colorado resident driver had a Colorado state driver’s license, the recommended actions when stopped by law enforcement are to stay calm, keep hands visible, provide your physical license, registration, and insurance when asked, but politely decline searches and self-incriminating answers. Comply with exiting the vehicle if ordered, but do not argue; dispute violations later in court. This AI-Gemini generated advice does not recommend trying to run the officer down!

The Colorado resident, nice as they might have been, made a fatal error in judgment.

No one should be defending activists who engage in the most foolish and dangerous actions! These activists would be much wiser to write letters to the editor of local papers or to relevant federal and state legislatures and officials. Officials should not be supporting kinetic protestors at all!

Take note of successful non-violent protests that worked (i.e., Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.). Once violence is initiated by the protester, much of the argument is lost.

In this case, a life was lost by not complying with law enforcement. One can contest law enforcement in court, but not adjudicate from behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. To support such actions is irreverent and, for an elected official, malicious.

Steven D. Kalavity, Fort Collins

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.

President Donald Trump would like Coloradans to know this holiday season that he wants our governor to “rot in hell” and that he wishes Mesa County’s district attorney, Dan Rubenstein, “only the worst.” All that anger directed at Coloradans is because our justice system is refusing to release a woman who was tried and convicted of fraud in relation to Trump’s illegal attempt to remain in office in 2020.

Trump’s embarrassing temper tantrums would be tolerable if they didn’t also come with real-world actions that hurt Coloradans — costing them their livelihoods, and yes, access to clean drinking water.

Gov. Jared Polis’ and Rep. Lauren Boebert’s responses to Trump give us hope that Americans can unite after Trump leaves office, as required by the U.S. Constitution, in January 2029. Trump will not succeed in his effort to divide Coloradans who love one another despite our political differences.

Trump is hurting our more liberal-minded residents in Boulder County with his decision to first cut dozens of jobs at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and then his pledge to dismantle the headquarters entirely.

And now Trump will hurt more conservative-minded Coloradans with his veto of $1.2 billion in federal funding for a clean-drinking water pipeline to residents in eastern Pueblo County who have been advised for years not to drink well water because of contamination.

Gov. Jared Polis’ response to all of this has been calm, dignified and dedicated to preserving the integrity of our justice system.

“I hope the President’s resolution this year is to spend less time online talking about me and more on making America more affordable by stopping his disastrous tariffs and fixing rising health care costs. Finally, I wish all Americans, including the President and all the wonderful people across the political spectrum, a happy, healthy and productive New Year,” Polis said Wednesday.

Boebert shot back at Trump’s veto of her bill, telling 9News that: “If this administration wants to make its legacy blocking projects that deliver water to rural Americans, that’s on them … Americans deserve leadership that puts people over politics.”

Before the New Year, Trump ordered his administration to move the work at the National Center for Atmospheric Research from Boulder to “another entity or location.”

The administration attempted to blame the move on NCAR’s work studying climate change. The White House issued a statement to The Denver Post calling NCAR “the premier research stronghold for left-wing climate lunacy.”

We disagree strongly with both of the assertions in that statement. First, the global climate is warming, and a vast amount of scientific research indicates that the trend is being driven in large part by the increase in greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide and methane, among others) in our atmosphere.

Second, NCAR’s work is professional, scientifically based and doesn’t carry a hint of the “alarmism” that we see from many politicians who talk about an extinction-level event occurring in a few years.

But we also don’t believe for a moment that “climate change alarmism” is the real reason behind Trump’s decision to dismantle NCAR — a federal agency we must remind the president that was created by Congress and funded by Congress and protected from unilateral termination by the executive branch.

Trump’s decision came rapidly after Colorado officials refused Trump’s demand that Tina Peters be released from jail. Peters, a former clerk and recorder from Mesa County, was convicted of using fraudulent means to give a random man access to the county’s voting equipment. Peters believed Trump’s lies that the 2020 election had been stolen. She stole credentials from one of her employees and brought a man into a secure area where he accessed data from vote-counting machines. Later, she tried to cover up her actions.

The data did not show any evidence of voter fraud.

But that hasn’t prevented Trump from trying to pardon her and now from retaliating against Colorado officials who are merely upholding the work of a jury of Peter’s peers who found her guilty.

Hundreds of federal workers in Colorado have already lost their jobs as a result of Trump’s policies. Then those employees who remained suffered under the federal shutdown. Now, Trump is coming again for federal workers, claiming he is trying to reduce the federal debt and deficit. But Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill added more to the federal deficit than what he has cut so far.

Which brings us to Trump’s most recent retaliatory action against Colorado, which he says was done in the name of cutting the federal budget and “restoring fiscal sanity.”

We cannot argue with Trump that the $1.3 billion price tag to bring clean drinking water to 50,000 residents is steep. But it is not wasteful. This is a necessary and long-awaited public infrastructure project. The project has been thoroughly vetted and is shovel-ready.

Trump’s veto is a black eye on his administration, and his outlandish words and actions only underline why he is wholly unfit to serve as president of the United States of America.

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.

Jamallstar.

Turns out it is not just a cool hashtag, but a mindset. This is how it looks on social media: #JAMALLSTAR.

This is how it looks on the court:

24.9 points per game. Career high.

6.8 assists per game. Career high. 44.7 % on 3-pointers. Career high.

Entering Thursday night against Orlando, the Nuggets boasted a 19-6 record, their best mark after 25 games, despite the monthlong absences of starters Christian Braun and Aaron Gordon.

Reasons to believe the Nuggets would unseat the Oklahoma City Thunder this season began with Mr. Nugget, aka Gordon, getting more shots with Michael Porter Jr. in Brooklyn and the deep bench, most notably Jonas Valanciunas.

But the explanation was more obvious. Standing right in front of us.

Jamal Murray.

He is no longer treating stardom like an accidental tourist, waiting until late spring before wandering into the spotlight with his passport.

If we are being honest, even if this was foreshadowed in July, we all worried that Murray the Magnificent would be reduced to a memory only in our streams.

At 28, in his 10th season, Murray has abandoned mystery for consistency. It all started with an offseason conversation with co-general manager Jon Wallace. Then others in the organization.

The respect for Murray is real. His jersey will hang from the Ball Arena rafters when he retires. But for another championship banner to accompany it, the Nuggets needed Murray to perform like he was being paid — as a top 15 player.

Wallace challenged Murray to shut up the critics. And David Adelman served the role of part coach, part couch.

“It’s not really the physical side for guys, maybe just the mental. We have seen some of the pressure he has felt, (to) just to become more of a leader with the guys,” Adelman explained. “It is about going through the summer and understanding what working too hard means going into an 82-game season, what feeling fresh means, and be mentally stronger. And I think that stuff does translate. I feel like I am writing a self-help book. But it really is true.”

Murray had led the Nuggets to countless postseason victories, but they needed him to become a rudder over the summer with Nikola Jokic out of the country. He responded by organizing pickup games in Las Vegas, connecting teammates in Denver, showing up for training camp with the entire bag of Doritos on his shoulder.

We have all seen Murray play like this. Just never this early in the season. He recently won player of the week honors for the first time.

“I am happy we are off to a good start. Glad I am off to a good start as well. I am pretty happy with the way things are going right now,” Murray said. “It’s great recognition for the three games I had. I appreciate it.”

Looking back, the reasons for Murray’s slow start last season were there all along. He was hurt, and needed rest rather than to represent Canada in the Olympics. There was the $208.5 million max contract extension that Murray never took ownership of, spending his first press conference after it was signed talking more about his love of UFC than his understanding of accountability.

And there was the urgency to perform in Jokic’s championship window as coach Michael Malone’s message became increasingly stale and ignored. In mid-January, the overall numbers were alarming, his points (19.8) and 3-point percentage (39.2%) were his lowest since 2019.

Eleven months later, Murray has channeled the strain into his game. He has become #JAMALLSTAR.

Now, all we have to do is wait to see if he gets the honor.  Wallace mused recently with a smile, “He better.”

This is not bias. These are the facts. Murray should be a lock for the World Team against the United States. He probably won’t be among the top five vote getters required for starters, regardless of position, but should easily be among the top seven reserves. Murray ranks 16th in scoring, 11th in 3-point percentage and assists.

If that isn’t an all-star, what is?

“Just his poise sticks out. The way he is picking and choosing his spots. He and Jokic do an amazing job of playing off and reading off each other,” guard Tim Hardaway Jr. said. “It is been great to witness.”

The improved numbers are rooted in nuance. Murray is creating better angles, finding cleaner paths to the basket, though “No Call Jamal” remains a thing as refs continue to diss him. He is not relying on step-backs. The way he has played off-ball for his teammates has been eye-opening.

And yet, he has not lost his aggressiveness. In Monday’s overtime victory over the Rockets, Murray poured in 35 points. At one point, he backed down Reed Sheppard, drained a jumper and blew a kiss instead of shooting a blue arrow into our hearts.

It was easy to love, nonetheless.

“Open communication sometimes leads to positive things. From what I saw this summer, mentally, physically, all those things were at such a high level, and it’s cool to see it translate into the season,” Adelman said. “Jamal has been a special player forever. I don’t really judge the starts to his season, but obviously this has been one that will stand out. Not just because of the way he has scored, but the efficiency.”

Is this the year that Murray changes the narrative, plays with excellence from tip-to-tip from October to June?

A third of the way into the season, he has provided the answer in the form of a hashtag.

#JAMALLSTAR.

Want more sports news? Sign up for the Sports Omelette to get all our analysis on Denver’s teams.

When Congressman Jason Crow and five Democratic colleagues with military and intelligence service released a video on social media urging troops to refuse orders “that violate the law or our Constitution,” detractors complained the message was dangerously ambiguous; it implied the administration was giving illegal orders but provided no specific examples.

These critics had a point, that is, until The Washington Post exposed one such incident, a potential war crime no less. Turns out, the video’s warning about illegal orders was right on target.

Whether the episode will garner the bipartisan scrutiny it deserves, time will tell. Republicans in Congress have been hesitant to criticize the Trump administration, fearing retribution — a Trump-backed primary opponent, an agency investigation, or a lawsuit.

With President Trump’s approval rating dropping to a near-low of 36% in the most recent Gallop poll, they might find the courage to defy their leader. Let’s hope so. The illegal order exposed by The Washington Post isn’t the only one worth questioning.

According to the news story, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth commanded “kill them all” before a September 2 military strike on an alleged drug boat that slew 11, including two who survived the first strike and were clinging to the wreckage. Firing upon shipwrecked combatants is a violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Department of Defense’s own Law of War Manual.

Hegseth assailed the allegation as “fake news” on a social media post that also boasted “Biden coddled terrorists, we kill them.” He was referring to the 80-plus suspected drug traffickers whose boats the military has blown up in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific since early September.

Hegseth also tweeted a meme of Franklin the Turtle firing missiles at drug boats further undermining his credibility and assuring him another cameo on South Park. The Canadian publisher of Franklin the Turtle has since condemned the misuse of their children’s storybook character to depict violence. Later, Hegseth tried to distance himself from the incident, claiming he had left the room after the first strike, and then by saying the “fog of war” prevented him from seeing the survivors.

U.S. House and Senate Armed Services Committees have opened investigations into the incident. To do it justice, they need to examine the wider situation. While killing the incapacitated is a war crime, we have not declared war on Venezuela. Moreover, the alleged drug traffickers targeted by these missiles are not soldiers; they are civilians. They pose no imminent threat to troops. Labeling them “narco-terrorists” doesn’t negate military rules of engagement. Even if they are guilty of drug trafficking, killing them isn’t a justifiable use of the military power. Their deaths are extrajudicial executions.

And if they aren’t guilty? This week, the family of a Colombian man who was killed in a strike made an official complaint against the U.S. with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. He was a fisherman, they say, the primary breadwinner for a family of six and they want compensation for their loss. It’s hard to secure evidence of guilt or innocence post-obliteration. Bomb first, ask questions later doesn’t work.

There are lawful ways to intercept drugs and bring drug traffickers to justice that assure due process, protect the innocent, and maintain the integrity of the armed forces. The U.S. Coast Guard, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the U.S. Border Patrol regularly seize illicit drugs and arrest smugglers who are then prosecuted in federal courts.

One such drug trafficker, Juan Orlando Hernández, former president of Honduras, was arrested by the DEA in 2022, extradited to the U.S., tried, and convicted of moving more than 400 tons of cocaine into the U.S. Although sentenced to 45 years in prison, he walked free this week thanks to a pardon by President Donald Trump.

During the upcoming hearings on Hegseth’s “kill them all” moment, senators and representatives should inquire why suspected, low-level smugglers get death without due process and convicted kingpins walk.

They should also ask Hegseth if he plans to bomb civilian targets on the Venezuelan mainland, as Trump alluded to this week.

Is the man who renamed the Department of Defense, the Department of War, itching to start one? Is he aware that only Congress has the authority to declare war? If not, the committee could take the opportunity to show the secretary a recently-released video about the military’s responsibility to uphold the law and the Constitution.

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.

FORT COLLINS — What began as forts made of pads as a toddler ended with a hug made of tears as a senior.

His teammates clearing the field at Canvas Stadium, posing for snapshots that they can live in forever, Kellen Behrendsen raced up the stairs at the 30-yard line. He greeted both sets of his grandparents, brother and mom with an embrace decades in the making.

Behrendsen was born into the Dakota Ridge community, a bundle of energy, curiosity and light.

And on a chilly Saturday night, he became his father’s sonshine.

Behrendsen and his dad Jeremiah guided Dakota Ridge to its first state football championship, overwhelming Palmer Ridge 38-14. After six losses in the semifinals, after falling in their lone title game appearance in 2004, thirty years of Dakota Ridge dreaming awoke to a blissful reality on Sunday morning.

The Eagle has landed. DRidge Nation, you are champions.

“I have been here my whole life, raised here. I started going to practices when I was little. I was making forts out of the pads, playing with other kids,” Kellen Behrendsen said. “This is a full circle moment. Knowing I was able to bring this home with my brothers on the team and my dad, it means so much.”

Father knew this was possible before the coach. Jeremiah watched his son grow up competing with great kids who were surrounded by strong families. This is the kind of life he wanted for when moving from Akron to Littleton, and taking a job as the Eagles freshman team offensive coordinator in 2004.

“I love this community,” coach Behrendsen said. “I absolutely thought (Kellen) might win state someday because I knew this group had a chance to do something special if they came together the right way.”

The bonds begin forming on two feeders during middle school. When the players morphed into one as freshmen, the vision began to crystallize like a Polaroid picture. That season the Eagles averaged roughly 50 points per game and allowed 50.

“We still had all the same guys, and we kept getting better,” said star receiver Nathan Rodriguez. “We knew our senior year was going to be our year.”

Behrendsen felt responsible for getting the Eagles across the finish line. Consistency was paramount. As a first-year starter last season, he completed 67.6 % of his passes for 12 touchdowns and six interceptions. For a kid who wants to be engineer, he knew there were bigger numbers available if he solved the equation of work, film and calm.

Against an undefeated Bears team, Behrendsen was more accurate than a DNA test. He completed his first nine passes. He had 167 yards on his first seven attempts.

On the Eagles’ opening drive, he connected on a swing pass to Landon Kalsbeck. The one-man wrecking ball who is headed to Washington State broke three tackles and juked two other defenders for a 44-yard score.

Following a Jack Offerdahl interception, Behrendsen took the shotgun snap and fired a dart to Jaxson Arnold, who raced 84 yards untouched to the end zone.

When the Eagles were briefly threatened in the third quarter, Behrendsen climbed the pocket and launched a ball 50 yards in that air that Rodriguez hauled in for a diving touchdown worthy of SportsCenter.

His subsequent celebration – think Rob Gronkowski with the Patriots – provided an exclamation point, showing why Dakota Ridge outscored opponents 565-168 this season.

“I absolutely burned the DB. I was a little bit overwhelmed with excitement and spiked the ball. But I think it was fair to do that, don’t you?” Rodriguez said. “My quarterback puts trust in me. And he absolutely put on a show. He does this every game. He’s got the arm, and he believes in us, and it’s why he is so good.”

What makes Behrendsen special is the work performed in the shadows. He stands 5-foot-11, weighs 155 pounds. What he lacks in physicality, he makes up for with efficiency. Behrendsen finished the season with 235 completions in 286 attempts, an alarming 82.1 percent, with 42 touchdowns and three interceptions.

He added more helium to statistics on Saturday, going for 14-for-16 for 259 yards and four scores.

“He is really smart and an incredible decision maker. Experience is the difference this season. And he has grown into being a leader,” coach Behrendsen said. “As he played better, his teammates started to believing in and his confidence grew tenfold.”

Father and son tried to keep this past week as normal as possible. They lived in cliches. Kept everything the same even when they knew the stakes were higher, the end was closer. The pair tries to avoid football talk at home, where coach estimates he is dad “90 percent of the time.” And this week, they were not about to let stress steal their joy.

“After practices we did some fun stuff,” Kellen said. “When it snowed, we went out and shoveled the ‘DR’ out front of the school so everybody still knew we were playing. … But honestly, it still hasn’t hit me that I am not going to play for him again.”

The son plans to continue to his career. He has attracted interested from five Division III and Division II schools, including CSU-Pueblo. Dad will keep coaching.

Long ago, he realized something very cool about giving up your time for children who are not your own. You gain another life.

You become part of something bigger. As the Dakota Ridge players celebrated, as tears rolled down cheeks, Jeremiah basked in the glow of his son, overcome with gratitude on what they had done.

“We have worked really hard to cultivate the type of community where everyone has your back. We have worked really hard to get to this point. I have watched great coaches and players try. We were building and building and building,” coach Behrendsen said. “This was for DRidge Nation. This championship was built on the backs of 30 years of people. A lot of them are here today. It is special.”

Editor’s note: Features coordinator Barbara Ellis takes a side in the “real vs. fake” Christmas tree debate. Look for the counterpoint by Editorial Page editor Megan Schrader.

I can still see my dad, hand slapping his forehead, looking exasperated, as my mom instructed (OK, bossed) him on how to “fix up” the live Christmas tree they had brought home from a hardware store lot in our small Massachusetts town.

She made him purchase extra branches “to fill the tree out.”

“Drill a hole and insert this branch there, Joe. And then that one goes there. No, there.”

“OK, now take this branch out and put it on top.”

Related: Colorado’s national forests open for Christmas tree cutting — with strict rules

And most years, it was too wide to fit through the door, and too tall to stand in our living room. More amending.

It’s amazing that dad (the most patient man on Earth) didn’t turn into the Grinch right before our eyes.

When I started my own family, I, too, insisted on a real tree. We would trudge out into the snowy wild (permit in hand) with hand saws, kids in tow, to select and cut down a Colorado fir or spruce under which to place our wrapped gifts.

Then we’d return home, fight to get the tree in a stand in front of the fireplace (sometimes having to hack away at it to make it fit), make hot cocoa and watch old animated versions of “Frosty the Snowman” or “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” while the kids hung their favorite ornaments on the lower branches. So cozy, so familial. Visions of sugarplums, and all that.

And every year, I fought to keep that tree from drying out and turning brown, begging it to hang on until at least Dec. 25. But constant watering, and even a humidifier nearby, never seemed to be enough in Colorado’s arid climate. Before too long, the tree skirt was littered with needles — which would then hide in the carpet to be stepped on in March.

After the holiday was over, we had another burden: Back then, some 25 years ago, it wasn’t as easy to dispose of live trees as it is now. There was no tree recycling program that we knew of. So we would hack the tree up into chunks and cart them down to our cabin in Fremont County to burn in a campfire. (The sap and needles would spread over the inside of the truck and get inside all the gear and bins of food we carried down, just one more mess to deal with.)

Oh, I bought into the romanticized vision of cutting down a live tree. “Stopping by woods on a snowy evening,” etc. Family unity. Creating traditions. Teaching the kids to appreciate the outdoors and bring them closer to nature, fa la la la la.

To that I say: Bah, humbug.

When we finally bought a fabulous fake, I breathed a sigh of relief.

No watering. No messy needles everywhere. No sap. No disposal (just storage).

No problem.

We still were able to teach the kids about nature and the beauty of the land, just in other ways: at the cabin, at parks, during visits to the mountains, in our backyard and through books.

As I entered my 40s, I was happy to trade in the tree-cutting tradition to spend more time with the family on other things: Decorating the house, making popcorn strings to hang on the (fake) tree, baking hundreds of cookies, pinching dozens of pierogi, visiting with friends, and trying to cut down on the frenzy.

And our artificial tree really is lovely. It’s not perfectly shaped (that would look too fake, you know); its uneven branches are sturdy enough to carry the weight of dozens of ornaments, all heavy with memories; its needles are soft, not pokey (yes, they drop off, but not obnoxiously so); the color is rich and natural, not washed out or garish. A couple of pine-scented ornaments add to the ambiance, and voila! My fabulous fake is a thing of beauty.

And easy to store, since it breaks into three pieces. As long as I have some help getting it in the bag and up in the rafters of the garage, that is.

Of course, some will argue that an artificial tree isn’t as environmentally friendly as a real one. And they would be right.

Still, I’ve had the same fake tree for more than 20 years now, so haven’t (yet) polluted a landfill with a plastic stem and branches. And it still looks as good as any real tree, IMO. With any luck, it’ll last another 10 years or more.

Not bad for an investment of $129 for an 8-foot fake fir in 2001. Even Scrooge would approve of that.

Subscribe to our weekly newsletter, In The Know, to get entertainment news sent straight to your inbox.