Politics
In Montana, a Rare Sight: Republicans and Democrats Voting Together
In the waning days of a tumultuous legislative session in Montana’s Capitol, Carl Glimm, a state senator and a member of the ultraconservative Freedom Caucus, watched with exasperation as yet another Democratic-backed bill zoomed toward passage.
“Are we not embarrassed?” Mr. Glimm asked from the Senate floor in Helena. “This thing’s a big red ‘No,’ but I’ll tell you what — it’s going to be 23-27,” he added, predicting his own defeat. “Because, like we’ve said before, the cake is baked.”
In deep-red Montana, Republicans have controlled both houses of the Legislature since 2011, and the governor’s office since 2021. They ousted the last remaining Democratic statewide official, former Senator Jon Tester, in November.
Which has made it all the more aggravating for conservative lawmakers to find themselves effectively in the minority this year.
After an intraparty dispute in January, nine Republican state senators began breaking with their caucus on key votes, siding with the 18 Democrats in the 50-person chamber. The result: a 27-person majority that has all but locked Republican leaders out of power.
Some or all of the Nine, as the Republican defectors are known, have voted with Democrats to reauthorize a Medicaid expansion, establish a child tax credit, increase access to maternal health care and pass the state budget. They have helped block bills that would have weakened labor unions, made state judicial elections more partisan and established an unlimited hunting season on wolves.
On Wednesday, the session’s final day, they again broke with their party, pushing through a property tax cut to assist residents struggling with soaring home values.
The unusual alliance shows that for all the seeming unanimity in the MAGA movement, Republicans can still clash over policy objectives and the wielding of power. And in an era when advancing legislation often loses out to mocking the opposing party, it shows that some on the right remain more interested in getting things done.
But it could prove something of a blip: a reversion to bygone reflexes toward compromise belying Montana’s steady drift to the right.
Former Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat, said politicians elsewhere could learn from the Nine.
“What they’ve done is said, ‘I’m going to vote with the people I represent back home — and that’s not what the party leadership is telling us,’” Mr. Schweitzer said.
“We’ll haul Congress out here to see how it’s done in Montana,” he joked, adding that he would “put in the first $50” for bus fare.
Policy over party
The Nine argued that they were simply prioritizing smart policy over ideological conformity — reauthorizing the Medicaid expansion would keep open rural hospitals in their districts, for instance — and supporting the agenda pushed by Gov. Greg Gianforte, also a Republican.
But as President Trump exerts near-total control over the Republican Party, and the country seems bitterly divided along partisan lines more than ever, the G.O.P. schism in Montana has attracted outsize attention.
As the session progressed, other Montana Republicans ramped up a pressure campaign against the defectors, posting their photos on social media, demanding that they quit bucking party leadership and giving them nicknames like the “Nasty Nine.” In March, Republicans tried to expel one of the heretics, Jason Ellsworth, from the Legislature over alleged ethical violations; a majority of Democrats helped block the attempt.
The Montana Republican Party even censured the Nine, saying they would no longer be considered Republicans or receive funding from the state party because of “the damage they have exacted on the Montana Senate.”
The Nine remained upbeat. Days before the legislative session ended, seven of them sat for an interview in the State Capitol, describing praise from voters, swapping stories of admonishment by local Republican groups and declaring that such criticism had only strengthened their resolve.
“I always looked at politics when I was younger and you see people work across the aisle,” said Gayle Lammers, a first-term senator. “I know we’re in this new age where division is so hardcore, but why can’t we get back to where any reasonable legislation is reasonable legislation? If it’s good for Montana, if it’s good for your district, why not consider it?”
Even though they have voted with Democrats, the senators say they remain conservative Republicans and strong supporters of Mr. Trump. All of them voted for a bill restricting transgender people’s use of public bathrooms, and most of them sided with their Republican colleagues on several anti-abortion bills. Josh Kassmier, who emerged as a leader of the Nine, noted that he had sponsored a bill cutting the income tax, a move backed by Donald Trump Jr.
Since Mr. Gianforte took office in 2021, Mr. Kassmier said, “we’ve cut the budget, we’ve made government more efficient — that’s all Trump politics, right?” He added: “We’re voting on the policy. It’s not a deal we’ve made with the Dems.”
One of the Nine, Wendy McKamey, keeps at her desk a stack of notes from Montanans thanking the group for its courage. “Give ’Em Hell,” the front of one card reads, above an image of a cowgirl astride a galloping horse.
“They help me own my vote,” Ms. McKamey said. “I will not offend my conscience.”
Though the Legislature’s political lines seemed blurred, some lawmakers and analysts suggested the real rift was between those who wanted to make policy and those who sought to obstruct it.
“It’s about who is more interested in governing, really,” said Jessi Bennion, a political science professor at Montana State University. Montana’s right wing, she said, seemed less interested in conservative fiscal policy than in introducing controversial bills on social issues that jammed up the legislative process.
That put hard-liners on a collision course with Mr. Gianforte, who did not endorse Matt Regier, the right-wing Senate president, last year but did endorse a group of relative moderates. The Freedom Caucus issued a rebuttal to Mr. Gianforte’s State of the State address in January, suggesting that Montana should spend less money than the governor desired and opposing some of his priorities, like Medicaid expansion.
Mr. Gianforte has avoided speaking directly about the Nine, and a spokesman for the governor declined to comment. But he has seemed pleased to have achieved many of his goals.
Intense blowback
Despite the recent rightward drift, Big Sky Country has long been proud of its independent streak and small-town values. Montana has voted for a Democratic presidential candidate only once since 1964 — Bill Clinton in 1992 — but it had Democratic governors and senators for decades.
In previous legislative sessions, which occur every two years, a loose coalition of Republicans called the Solutions Caucus worked with Democrats to pass bills. But that was easier for Republicans to swallow when a Democratic governor made it necessary to compromise.
What stood out about this year’s bipartisanship was the animosity it produced.
The conflict started the first week of the legislative session, when the Nine were assigned to what they say was a sham committee that would have sidelined them from the legislative process — part of an effort, they argued, to make it easier for Mr. Regier and his allies to consolidate power.
The senators pushed back, agreeing with Democrats on alternate committee assignments. From there, they said, the Democrats were only too happy to work with the Nine on some bills.
In an interview, Mr. Regier called the bipartisan alliance a “gut punch.” He said none of the Nine had raised concerns about committee assignments when Republicans met before the session, and suggested the unhappiness was a “talking point” that provided “cover for them to side with Democrats.” Efforts to win them back, he said, had been rebuffed.
“We tried and tried,” Mr. Regier said. “It was obvious to see there was some sort of handshake, friendship, collaboration with the Democrats.”
Mr. Regier denied that right-wing Republicans were obstructionist and sounded dumbfounded by the Nine’s role in locking them out of the legislative process. “You’re scratching your head being like, ‘Are you even on our team anymore?’” he said.
He also argued that the unlikely alliance was out of step with the electorate.
“Voters want more and more conservatism here in Montana,” Mr. Regier said, suggesting the episode amounted to “growing pains in becoming more conservative.”
Democrats also felt heat for their role in the coalition — from the left. Bill Lombardi, a former top aide to Mr. Tester, faulted the Democratic senators for voting with Republicans on issues like maintaining a tax on Social Security.
“While working together is good, you can’t give away Democratic principles,” Mr. Lombardi said. “Republicans have cemented their position in Montana, and some legislative Democrats think they must hew to the moderate Republican line to get anything.”
But the frustration appears more strongly felt on the right.
Theresa Manzella, a founder of the Freedom Caucus, said right-wing state senators had tried hard to get the Nine to back down but eventually tired of the fight.
“We’ve resigned ourselves to life in the circus,” she said. “And, unfortunately, it is our circus, and these are our clowns.”
Politics
Rubio targets Nicaraguan official over alleged torture tied to ‘brutal’ Ortega regime
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced Saturday that the Trump administration is sanctioning a senior Nicaraguan official over alleged human rights violations.
Rubio said the U.S. is designating Vice Minister of the Interior Luis Roberto Cañas Novoa for his role in “gross violations of human rights” under the government of President Daniel Ortega and Vice President Rosario Murillo, marking what he said was the latest effort to hold the regime accountable.
“The Trump administration continues to hold the Murillo-Ortega dictatorship accountable for brutal human rights violations against Nicaraguans,” Rubio said in a post on X. “I’m designating Nicaraguan Vice Minister of the Interior Luis Roberto Cañas Novoa for his role in human rights violations.”
RUBIO TESTIFIES IN TRIAL OF EX-FLORIDA CONGRESSMAN ALLEGEDLY HIRED BY MADURO GOVERNMENT TO LOBBY FOR VENEZUELA
Secretary of State Marco Rubio speaks at the State Department, April 14, 2026. The U.S. announced sanctions on a Nicaraguan official tied to alleged human rights abuses under the Ortega-Murillo government. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
The designation was made under Section 7031(c), which allows the State Department to bar foreign officials and their immediate family members from entering the United States due to involvement in significant corruption or human rights abuses.
The State Department has said the Ortega-Murillo government has engaged in arbitrary arrests, torture and extrajudicial killings following mass protests that began in April 2018.
“Nearly eight years ago, the Rosario Murillo and Daniel Ortega dictatorship unleashed a brutal wave of repression against Nicaraguans who courageously stood against the regime’s increased tyranny, corruption, and abuse,” the statement reads.
The State Department said that the sanction marked the anniversary of the 2018 protests, after which more than 325 protesters were murdered in the aftermath.
A panel of U.N.-backed human rights experts previously accused Nicaragua’s government of systematic abuses “tantamount to crimes against humanity,” following an investigation into the country’s crackdown on political dissent, according to The Associated Press.
The experts said the repression intensified after mass protests in 2018 and has since expanded across large parts of society, targeting perceived opponents of the government.
TRUMP ADMIN ANNOUNCES EXPANSION OF VISA RESTRICTION POLICY IN WESTERN HEMISPHERE
Nicaragua President Daniel Ortega delivers a speech during a ceremony to mark the 199th Independence Day anniversary, in Managua, Nicaragua Sept. 15, 2020. (Nicaragua’s Presidency/Cesar Perez/Handout via Reuters)
Nicaragua’s government has rejected those findings.
The designation follows a series of recent U.S. actions targeting the Ortega-Murillo government. In February, the State Department sanctioned five senior Nicaraguan officials tied to repression, citing arbitrary detention, torture, killings and the targeting of clergy, media and civil society.
Earlier this week, the department also announced sanctions on individuals and companies linked to Nicaragua’s gold sector, including two of Ortega and Murillo’s sons, accusing the regime of using the industry to generate foreign currency, launder assets and consolidate power within the ruling family.
The State Department said the move is part of ongoing efforts to hold the Nicaraguan government accountable for its actions.
Fox News Digital reached out to the Nicaraguan government and its embassy in Washington for comment but did not immediately receive a response.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
A man waves a Nicaraguan flag during a demonstration to commemorate Nicaragua’s national Day of Peace, which is celebrated in the country on April 19, and to protest against the government of Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega in San Jose, Costa Rica on April 16, 2023. (Jose Cordero/AFP)
The Trump administration has taken an increasingly aggressive posture in the Western Hemisphere in recent months, including a Jan. 3, 2026, operation that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.
The U.S. has also carried out a series of strikes targeting suspected drug-trafficking vessels in the region, part of a broader crackdown tied to regional security and narcotics enforcement efforts.
Politics
Outlines of a deal emerge with major concessions to Iran
WASHINGTON — Upbeat claims from President Trump over an imminent peace deal to end the war with Iran were met with deep skepticism Friday across the Middle East, where Iranian and Israeli officials questioned the prospects for a lasting agreement that would satisfy all parties.
The outlines of an agreement began to emerge that would provide Iran with a major strategic victory — and a potential financial windfall — allowing the Islamic Republic to leverage its control over the Strait of Hormuz to exact significant concessions from the United States and its ally Israel as Trump presses for a swift end to the conflict.
In a series of social media posts and interviews with reporters, Trump announced that the strait was “fully open,” vowing Tehran would never again attempt to control it. But Iranian officials and state media said that conditions remained on passage through the waterway, including the imposition of tolls and coordination with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Iranian diplomats posted threats that its closure could resume at any time of their choosing, and warned that restrictions would return unless the United States agreed to lift a blockade of its ports. Trump had said Friday that the blockade would remain in place.
“The conditional and limited reopening of a portion of the Strait of Hormuz is solely an Iranian initiative, one that creates responsibility and serves to test the firm commitments of the opposing side,” said a top aide to Iran’s president, dismissing Trump’s statements on the contours of a deal as “baseless.”
“If they renege on their promises,” he added, “they will face dire consequences.”
In an overture to Iran, Trump said Israel would be “prohibited” from conducting additional military strikes in Lebanon, where the Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seeks to prevent Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy militia, from rearming, a potential threat to communities in the Israeli north.
But in a speech delivered in Hebrew, Netanyahu would say only that Israel had agreed to a temporary ceasefire, while members of his Cabinet warned that Israel Defense Forces operations in southern Lebanon were not yet finished. A top ally of the prime minister at a right-wing Israeli news outlet warned that Trump was “surrendering” to Iran in the talks.
It was a day of public messaging from a president eager to end a war that has proved historically unpopular with the American public, and has driven a rise in gas prices that could weigh on his party entering this year’s midterm elections.
Yet, Republican allies of the president have begun warning him that an agreement skewed heavily in Tehran’s favor could carry political costs of its own.
Trump was forced to deny an Axios report Friday that his negotiating team had offered to release $20 billion in frozen Iranian assets in exchange for Tehran agreeing to hand over its fissile material, buried under rubble from a U.S. bombing raid last year.
That sum would amount to more than 10 times what President Obama released to Iran under a 2015 nuclear deal, called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, that was the subject of fierce Republican criticism in the decade since.
“I have every confidence that President Trump will not allow Iran to be enriched by tens of billions of dollars for holding the world hostage and creating mayhem in the region,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a strong supporter of the war. “No JCPOAs on President Trump’s watch.”
Still, Trump said in a round of interviews that a deal could be reached in a matter of days, ending less than two weeks of negotiations.
He claimed that Tehran had agreed to permanently end its enrichment of uranium — a development that, if true, would mark a dramatic reversal for the Islamic Republic from decades developing its nuclear program, and from just 10 days ago, when Iranian diplomats rejected a U.S. proposal of a 20-year pause on domestic enrichment in favor of a five-year moratorium.
He said Iran had agreed never to build nuclear weapons — a pledge Tehran has made repeatedly, including under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, in a religious decree from then-Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and in the 2015 agreement — while continuing nuclear activities viewed by the international community as exceeding civilian needs.
And he repeatedly stated that Iran had agreed to the removal of its enriched uranium from the country, either to the United States or to a third party. Iranian state media stated Friday afternoon that a proposal to remove the country’s highly enriched uranium had been “rejected.”
Iran’s agreement to allow safe passage for commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz is linked to a ceasefire in Lebanon that the Israeli Cabinet approved for only a 10-day period. Regardless of whether it holds or is extended, Israeli officials said their military would not retreat from its current positions in southern Lebanon — opening up Israeli forces to potential attack by Hezbollah militants unbound by a truce brokered by the Lebanese government.
The Lebanese people, Hezbollah officials said, have “the right to resist” Israeli occupation of their land. Whether the fighting resumes, the group added, “will be determined based on how developments unfold.”
An Iranian official threw cold water on the prospects of reaching a comprehensive peace deal in the coming days, telling Reuters that a temporary extension of the current ceasefire, set to expire Tuesday, would “create space for more talks on lifting sanctions on Iran and securing compensation for war damages.”
“In exchange, Iran will provide assurances to the international community about the peaceful nature of its nuclear program,” the official said, adding that “any other narrative about the ongoing talks is a misrepresentation of the situation.”
Trump told reporters Friday that the talks will continue through the weekend.
While Trump claimed there aren’t “too many significant differences” remaining, he said the United States would continue the blockade until negotiations are finalized and formalized.
“When the agreement is signed, the blockade ends,” the president told reporters in Phoenix.
Times staff writer Ana Ceballos contributed to this report.
Politics
Read the Supreme Court’s Shadow Papers
CHAMBERS OF
JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN
Supreme Court of the United States Washington, D. C. 20343
February 7, 2016
Memorandum to the Conference
Re: 15A773 West Virginia, et al. v. EPA, et al.
15A776 Basin Elec. Power Cooperative, et al. v. EPA, et al. 15A787 Chamber of Commerce, et al. v. EPA, et al.
15A778 Murray Energy Corp., et al. v. EPA, et al.
-
15A793 North Dakota v. EPA, et al.
I agree with Steve that we should direct the States to seek an extension from the EPA before asking this Court to intervene. We could also include, at the end of such an order, language along the lines of the following, to encourage the D. C. Circuit to act expeditiously in its resolution of this matter: “In light of that court’s agreement to consider this case on an expedited schedule, we are confident that it will [or even: we urge it to] render a decision with appropriate dispatch.” See Doe v. Gonzales, 546 U. S. 1301, 1308 (2005) (GINSBURG, J., in chambers); Kemp v. Smith, 463 U. S. 1344, 1345 (1983) (Powell, J., in chambers); Holtzman v. Schlesinger, 414 U. S. 1304, 1305, n. 2 (1973) (Marshall, J., in chambers).
The unique nature of the relief sought in these applications gives me real pause. The applicants ask us to enjoin a regulation pending initial review in the court of appeals. As we often say, “we are a court of review, not of first view.” See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718 n. 7 (2005); cf. Doe, 546 U. S., at 1308 (“Re- spect for the assessment of the Court of Appeals is especially warranted when that court is proceeding to adjudication on the merits with due expedition.”). As far as I can tell, it would be unprecedented for us to second-guess the D. C. Circuit’s deci sion that a stay is not warranted, without the benefit of full briefing or a prior judi- cial decision.
On the merits, this is a difficult case involving a complex statutory and regu- latory regime. Although the parties’ abbreviated discussion of the issues at stake here makes it difficult for me to determine with any confidence which side is likely to ultimately prevail, it seems to me that at this stage the government has the bet- ter of the arguments. The Chief’s memo focuses on the applicants’ argument that the “best system of emission reduction” refers “solely [to] installation of control technologies (e.g., scrubbers).” 2/5 Memo, at 2. The ordinary meaning of “system” is in fact quite broad, appearing to encompass what EPA has done here. Of course, we would want to consider this term in the larger context of the Clean Air Act’s regula-
-
Mississippi3 minutes agoGeorge County High School senior killed in Highway 26 crash, MHP says
-
Missouri9 minutes ago
Missouri Lottery Powerball, Pick 3 winning numbers for April 18, 2026
-
Montana15 minutes ago
Montana Lottery Powerball, Lotto America results for April 18, 2026
-
Nebraska21 minutes agoGallery: Huskers Run-Rule No. 12 USC to Take Series
-
Nevada27 minutes agoIN RESPONSE: Cortez Masto lands bill would keep the proceeds in Nevada
-
New Hampshire33 minutes agoNew Hampshire grapples with nuclear waste storage – Valley News
-
New Jersey39 minutes agoNearby shooting interrupts 13-year-old’s birthday party in Paterson; 1 killed, 3 injured
-
New Mexico45 minutes agoCalm and warmer conditions move into New Mexico