Emotions and pride ran high as the sun was coming up over Gowen Field on Saturday, as families and friends waved goodbye to just over 300 Airmen from the 124^th Fighter Wing of the Idaho Air National Guard.

For security reasons, the Pentagon doesn’t release too many details at deployment; that said, the Guard did say the Airmen were headed for southwest Asia (i.e. the Middle East) “in support of combat and peacekeeping operations within the U.S. Central Command’s area of responsibility.”

Command Chief Master Sergeant Lehi Hartwell knows all too well about deployments. He’s been on nine himself.

“I always pass on to our Airmen that a deployment is where you get to do your actual job” said Hartwell. “Every weekend we drill… we prepare to go and actually do our job. There are stresses to it. But when we go and deploy, we overcome those stressed by getting hands-on… well, everything.”

But then there is the very real issue of leaving their loved ones back home.

“I think the biggest stresses we have is leaving our loved ones and our civilian jobs in Idaho,” said Hartwell. “But we have a lot of resources. We have a Yellow Ribbon program that we walk through. And there are plenty of us at home that are well positioned to take care of that for them.”

The 124^th Fighter Wing has deployed often in recent memory – twice in 2003, plus in 2007, 2008, 2016, the largest in 2020, and others. Nearly 1,300 Airmen comprise the Idaho Air National Guard.

Find reporter George Prentice @georgepren

Copyright 2025 Boise State Public Radio

BOISE, Idaho — One of the most heated debates at the Idaho Capitol this session centers on who belongs in which spaces—and who gets to decide.

House Bill 264 aims to restrict access to bathrooms, changing rooms, dorms, and shelters based on biological sex, not gender identity. Supporters argue that the bill is intended to protect privacy and safety.

“Protecting female spaces really is a continuation of a lot of the things that we have done as Idahoans… men should not be in our private spaces,” said Rep. Barbara Ehardt (R). “Imagine if you sent your daughter to go to the university and she found out that for a year her roommate was going to be a biological male who identified as a female. That’s not right.”

Critics, however, counter that the bill targets an issue that is not grounded in Idaho reality and could create more problems than it solves.

“I don’t think they’re going to increase women’s comfort level by forcing trans men into women’s bathrooms, which is what this bill does,” said Rep. Ilana Rubel (D). “This one in particular on the bathrooms is… extremely misguided. I think a lot of the folks in here are legislating without ever having really known a trans person in their life.”

Rubel also noted that there is no record of assault by a trans woman in Idaho bathrooms and expressed concerns that the bill could lead to costly lawsuits. “At best, it’s a total waste of time that is a distraction from the real needs of the people of Idaho,” she added.

Another bill, HB 239, is gaining attention as it would require parents to actively opt their child into any sexual content in classes, as opposed to the current system that allows them to opt-out.

“The opt-in is really about consent, not content,” Ehardt said. She believes the change empowers parents after hearing what she described as alarming stories from families. “The subject matter being taught really was about self-gratification… My child cannot unsee that,” she continued. “They were role-playing sexual situations… I have story after story.”

Rubel warned that the bill could unintentionally block teens from learning important lessons about their bodies due to possible administrative delays or parents forgetting to opt in. “Whenever you flip things from opt-out to opt-in, you end up losing roughly half the people along the way just from paperwork and administrative hurdles,” she stated.

Additionally, HB 352 would ban any classroom instruction touching on sexual orientation or gender identity from kindergarten through high school. Supporters assert that the classroom is not an appropriate setting for such discussions.

“We don’t want teachers… allowing the kids to choose another name, other pronouns… this is not something for the school to decide,” Ehardt expressed.

Rubel argued that the line between what is banned and what is allowed is too blurry and risks erasing many students’ identities. “It’s been a disappointing session… very silly culture war issues… not responsive to the actual needs of the people of Idaho,” she concluded.

If you had plans to slap a pair of truck nuts on the back of your F-150 and haul ass to Idaho in hopes of maybe catching some publicly exposed breasts, I’m afraid you may want to change your plans…

The State of Idaho, renowned for its potatoes and… lots of other cool stuff, has passed a new law that has criminalized the public exposure of breasts.

SIGN UP for The Daily OutKick. New Look, Same Attitude.

House Bill 270 as it’s known — although I’d argue that it was a real missed opportunity on the part of the Idaho State legislature not giving it a funny name like the “No Nipples Act” or something — was signed into law by Governor Brad Little this week and is effectively an updating of the state’s pre-existing indecent exposure laws, according to EastIdahoNews.com.

The law states that a person will be charged with a misdemeanor if one exposes “his or her genitals,; exposes developed female breasts, including the areola and nipple; exposes adult male breasts, including the areola and nipple, that have been medically or hormonally altered to appear like developing or developed female breasts; exposes artificial breasts, including the areola and nipple, intended to resemble female breasts; or displays toys or products intended to resemble male or female genitals.”

Wow… they really covered every conceivable base in there, didn’t they? The “It was only my areola and/or nipple” defense will not fly in the great state of Idaho.

But it’s that last part that rules out truck nuts because they count as a toy or product that resembles genitals. This could lead to police getting calls about them, according to Idaho Senate Minority Leader Melissa Wintrow.

“They’re gross, they’re offensive, and kids on the road see them. So why wouldn’t the police get a call and say, ‘That offends me, pull it off the truck?’” Wintrow said. “Because now this bill will allow it. And I talked to police and they said, ‘Indeed it would.’”

There’s an interesting gray area here. Are truck nuts protected speech? Boobs aren’t; especially not on CNN as OutKick founder Clay Travis famously learned.

I don’t know. I’m not a truck nuts guy. They’d look a little goofy on my 2022 Kia Forte… although I’ve never given them a shot; they might look awesome.

Since I don’t live in Idaho, I can still give them the ol’ college truck nuts try.