Western Politics in 2025: Pain, Pragmatism, and Surprising Bipartisanship

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

Key Takeaways

  • 2025 was a turbulent year nationally, but western states showed pockets of pragmatic, values-based leadership across party lines.
  • Colorado’s Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene took unexpectedly constructive positions on releasing the Jeffrey Epstein files.
  • Deep-red states like Wyoming and Montana advanced policies focused on social support and wildlife conservation rather than partisan talking points.
  • Western Republicans and Democrats often prioritize community, land, and responsibility differently than their coastal counterparts.
  • There is still space in American politics to praise opponents when they get it right — and that might be key to healthier democracy in 2026.

Table of Contents

A Candid Look Back at 2025

From a political science perspective, 2025 was rich with case studies — yet for many people, it was also marked by frustration and pain. The column at the heart of this post, written by retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and political science professor Hal Bidlack, takes a reflective, sometimes sharply critical, but ultimately hopeful look at the year.

Rather than drilling down on a single issue, Bidlack offers a whirlwind tour: national embarrassment over certain members of Congress, flashes of integrity from unexpected places, and a reminder that western politics often break the mold set by Washington, D.C.

Lauren Boebert, Epstein Files, and a Rare Moment of Agreement

Bidlack is explicit in his disdain for U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, calling her a “carpet bagging” and “national embarrassment” to Colorado. Yet, in a move that underscores the article’s theme, he pauses to acknowledge when she gets something right.

Both Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene — politicians often associated with far-right theatrics — added their names to a discharge petition to force the release of the full Jeffrey Epstein files. A discharge petition, as Bidlack explains, is a rarely used parliamentary tool requiring 218 signatures, a majority of the entire House, to pry a bill out of committee when leadership refuses to act.

This alignment on transparency around Epstein represents a surprising moment of cross-ideological agreement. Bidlack stresses that when opponents do the right thing, citizens and commentators alike should be ready to praise as quickly as they criticize.

Trump, the Situation Room, and the Limits of Persuasion

Another memorable anecdote involves former President Donald Trump “summoning” Boebert to the White House Situation Room in an apparent bid to flip her stance on the Epstein files. Drawing on his own experience in the Situation Room and Oval Office, Bidlack notes the irony: conventional wisdom is that a president’s strongest “home field advantage” is in the Oval Office, not the Situation Room.

His aside underscores a larger point — even the most powerful settings and symbols of office have limits when confronting members of Congress who see benefit in publicly breaking with a president, especially on issues as radioactive as Epstein.

Wildlife, Jaguars, and Western Land Ethics

Shifting gears, Bidlack highlights reporting from Colorado Politics’ Out West Roundup, including the sighting of a jaguar in Arizona, likely moving north from Mexico. For readers who care about ecology, this is significant: the reappearance of top predators can signal healthier ecosystems — but it also raises real concerns for ranchers.

Bidlack takes a balanced view, arguing that predator recovery is positive so long as ranchers are properly protected and reimbursed for any livestock losses. That kind of nuance captures a core western value: embrace conservation, but not at the expense of the people who live and work on the land.

Want to dive deeper? Consider exploring related topics like predator-livestock coexistence programs, compensation schemes for ranchers, and how Arizona and New Mexico manage big-cat conservation.

Wyoming & Montana: Red States, Pragmatic Choices

Bidlack then turns north to Wyoming, where he was first stationed in the military. Politically, Wyoming is about as red as it gets — the last Democrat to hold any statewide office left in 2011. Yet the current Republican governor’s proposed $11.1 billion budget contains measures that don’t fit neatly into national GOP talking points.

The plan includes:

  • Funding to offset SNAP benefit cuts previously enacted by Trump.
  • Increased support for people with developmental disabilities.
  • Additional help for children at risk.

Bidlack frames this as a “reasonable response by a true conservative” to what he sees as reckless presidential actions. It’s a reminder that at the state level, even very conservative leaders may choose pragmatism over ideology when real people’s well-being is at stake.

In neighboring Montana, the Fish and Wildlife Commission has started limiting non-resident mule deer licenses after significant population declines. Non-resident hunters have long flocked to Montana, but the new approach prioritizes sustainable wildlife management over short-term revenue or tourism.

For readers interested in policy design, both case studies show how red states can still pursue robust social and environmental protections when grounded in local realities.

What Makes Western Politics Different?

For Bidlack, these episodes illustrate how western Republicans and Democrats diverge from their eastern and coastal counterparts. He suggests that western politicians are often more anchored in shared community goals, even when they fiercely disagree on policy.

To make this concrete, Bidlack points to a former colleague from the Air Force Academy, Mike Waters, now a county commissioner in Yellowstone County, Montana (which includes Billings, not Yellowstone National Park). The two men disagree on nearly every major political question, yet Bidlack describes Waters as honest, honorable, and committed to a better America.

He even publicly supported Waters’ election in one specific sense: if a Republican must win, let it be one who is decent, grounded, and focused on integrity. That perspective invites readers to consider their own local politics: are there people on “the other side” whom you respect because they are genuinely trying to serve the public?

Interactive idea: Make a short list of political figures you strongly disagree with but still trust to act in good faith. How might that list shape the way you consume news or talk about politics?

Looking Ahead to 2026: Why Nuance Matters

The column closes with an unexpected amount of praise for Republicans — especially considering Bidlack’s sharply critical view of figures like Trump and Boebert. Yet that is precisely his point: responsible citizenship requires the ability to condemn bad behavior and applaud good decisions, even from political opponents.

As 2026 approaches, with high-stakes races in Colorado and beyond, Bidlack expresses hope that he will have many more opportunities to highlight constructive leadership across the spectrum — and that vital institutions like the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), which Boebert has targeted, will still be standing.

For readers, the deeper invitation is clear: resist all-or-nothing thinking. Study state-level policy experiments. Look for leaders who protect vulnerable people and natural systems, even when it cuts against party orthodoxy. And when opponents get it right — on transparency, poverty, disability, wildlife, or kids at risk — be ready to say so.

Want to explore more? Consider reading additional state-level political coverage, tracking SNAP and disability policy in your own region, or following wildlife commission decisions in western states to see how values and science interact on the ground.

Source: https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2025/12/30/rounding-up-a-year-that-mostly-wont-be-missed-bidlack/