Issuu

FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE.

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 2025

GRANTSPASSTRIBUNE.COM | $0.00

Oregon Legislature Advances $14.6 Billion Transportation Tax Plan Despite Public Backlash By E. Ward A sweeping proposal to reshape Oregon’s transportation infrastructure financing has cleared a major hurdle, as the state’s Joint Committee on Transportation Reinvestment advanced House Bill 2025. The legislation, if fully enacted, would authorize a staggering $14.6 billion in tax increases, fee hikes, and new revenue mechanisms over the coming years—marking what could become the largest tax package in Oregon’s history. The measure, aimed at overhauling the state’s aging transportation systems and meeting future infrastructure demands, introduces an estimated 35 separate increases and additions to existing taxes and fees. These include increases in vehicle registration costs, fuel taxes, driver’s license fees, and new charges on electric vehicle ownership, among others. The bill also outlines future escalators tied to inflation, meaning many of the fees could rise automatically over time. The proposal’s sponsors say the funding is necessary to maintain and expand critical roads, bridges, and public transit networks, especially as Oregon faces long-deferred maintenance, population growth, and shifting transportation needs. With federal infrastructure dollars already allocated and state revenues stretched, lawmakers argue that a significant infusion of state-level investment is the only viable path forward to address Oregon’s backlog of transportation projects. However, the advancement of the bill comes

despite considerable public opposition. According to recent polling, 61% of Oregon residents surveyed said they disapprove of the proposed tax increases and question the state's management of large infrastructure projects. Concerns range from the bill’s potential impact on working families and small businesses to the lack of clear accountability mechanisms for how funds will be spent. Critics also argue that the package unfairly burdens rural communities that already struggle with long commutes, limited public transit, and rising living costs. Public testimony during committee hearings reflected these sentiments, with dozens of residents voicing opposition and urging lawmakers to scale back the plan or find alternative solutions that don’t rely so heavily on tax hikes. Many suggested the state should first audit existing transportation spending before layering on addi-

tional revenue demands. Supporters of the bill, including some labor organizations, transportation advocates, and city governments, counter that inaction will ultimately cost more. They point to deteriorating infrastructure, safety concerns, and growing traffic congestion as indicators that Oregon can no longer afford to delay investment. They also highlight that portions of the bill are designed to fund projects in under-resourced areas, create construction jobs, and support long-term economic growth through improved mobility and freight routes. The legislation includes funding provisions for a wide range of projects, from highway expansions and bridge replacements to pedestrian safety improvements and climate-resilient infrastructure. A significant portion is also earmarked for public transit development and initiatives to accommodate the state's goal of reducing car-

bon emissions by encouraging alternatives to car travel. Another controversial component of the bill is its approach to electric vehicles. While many Oregonians have embraced EVs as a cleaner transportation option, the legislation imposes new registration fees on electric vehicle owners to compensate for declining gas tax revenues. Some EV drivers see this as a punitive move that undermines the state’s climate commitments, while others argue it’s a reasonable way to ensure all road users contribute to maintenance costs. The bill still faces a long road before becoming law. It must pass both chambers of the Oregon Legislature and secure the governor’s signature. Given the scale of the proposed tax increases and the depth of public concern, it is expected to face further debate, amendments, and potential legal challenges. Lawmakers say they are prepared for pushback but remain committed to seeing the bill through in some form. With Oregon’s infrastructure needs becoming more urgent and limited federal funds remaining, many in Salem believe the state has no choice but to take bold action— even if it proves unpopular. As the legislative session progresses, Oregonians across the state are watching closely, balancing the promise of modernized transportation with the costs of paying for it. The outcome of House Bill 2025 may ultimately shape not only how people get around—but who can afford to do so.

U.S. Strikes Iranian Nuclear Sites

Escalation Raises Global Stakes And Questions Future Strategy

News Desk The United States launched a sweeping military strike Sunday targeting three of Iran’s primary nuclear enrichment facilities, marking the most direct and forceful American intervention in the region in more than a decade. Dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer, the coordinated air and sea assault struck the Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear sites in central Iran, signaling a major shift in U.S. engagement in the ongoing conflict between Iran and Israel. The mission deployed B-2 stealth bombers and Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from U.S. Navy submarines. Military officials described the operation as a targeted effort to degrade Iran’s nuclear capabilities while avoiding broader civilian infrastructure. Damage assessments from both U.S. intelligence and commercial satellite imagery confirmed significant structural destruction, particu-

larly at Fordow and Natanz, with collapsed entrances, craters, and disrupted centrifuge arrays. Iranian officials confirmed explosions but claimed that nuclear materials had been relocated prior to the attacks, minimizing potential radioactive exposure. No offsite radiation has been detected according to international monitoring agencies, and Iran has vowed to continue its nuclear program while accusing the U.S. of violating international norms. Shortly after the strikes, Iran retaliated by launching missiles at Israeli military installations. While the response caused some

damage and triggered alerts across Israel, broader regional escalation did not immediately follow. However, Iranian lawmakers began advancing a proposal to close the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow and vital shipping route through which roughly one-quarter of the world’s seaborne oil travels. Although any decision to close the strait would require approval from Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, even the threat has already caused turbulence in global energy markets. The United States, anticipating potential reprisals, has raised the alert level for American forces stationed in the Middle East. U.S. military installations in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait,

and the United Arab Emirates have enacted additional security measures, and further reinforcements, including missile defense systems, are being deployed. Roughly 40,000 U.S. troops are now operating under heightened protective conditions across the region. At the diplomatic level, an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council was convened at Iran’s request. While some global powers called for restraint and a return to negotiations, others criticized the United States for escalating the conflict. The European Union is expected to convene later this week to discuss mediation options, though no formal framework has been announced. The operation has also reignited domestic debate within the United States over presidential war powers. While administra-

•

see U.S., page 5