Connect with us

Politics

In Montana, a Rare Sight: Republicans and Democrats Voting Together

Published

on

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

“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.

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.

Advertisement

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.”

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

“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.

Advertisement

“We’ve resigned ourselves to life in the circus,” she said. “And, unfortunately, it is our circus, and these are our clowns.”

Politics

Video: Trump’s Counterterror Strategy Focuses on the Left

Published

on

Video: Trump’s Counterterror Strategy Focuses on the Left
President Trump’s new counterterrorism strategy focuses on “violent left-wing extremists,” as well as narcoterrorists and Islamic terror groups. Our White House correspondent Zolan Kanno-Youngs explains what it means.

By Zolan Kanno-Youngs, Gilad Thaler, Jon Miller, Stephanie Swart, Rafaela Balster, Whitney Shefte and Nikolay Nikolov

May 29, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Federal judge orders Trump’s name removed from Kennedy Center, says only Congress can rename it

Published

on

Federal judge orders Trump’s name removed from Kennedy Center, says only Congress can rename it

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal judge on Friday ordered that President Donald Trump’s name be removed from the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, an Obama appointee, said the iconic venue cannot be renamed without an act of Congress, ruling that the Kennedy Center Board of Trustees overstepped its “statutory bounds by unilaterally renaming” the building.

As part of his ruling, the Trump administration will be required to take down all physical signage bearing Trump’s name and eliminate any references to a “Trump-Kennedy Center” from official materials.

TRUMP KENNEDY CENTER’S BOARD VOTES UNANIMOUSLY TO APPROVE $257M RENOVATIONS AND TWO-YEAR CLOSURE

Advertisement

A sign is displayed on the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts building. (Getty Images)

“The Kennedy Center’s organic statute makes crystal clear that the Center is to be named for President Kennedy, and it cannot bear any other formal name or public memorial based on the Board’s unilateral say-so,” Cooper wrote. “Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name, and only Congress can change it.”

Roma Daravi, the Trump Kennedy Center vice president of public relations, said the board plans to appeal the decision. 

“We will review the decision carefully though the reality remains — the Center requires an urgent and significant restoration – a truth that even the plaintiff acknowledges,” Daravi said. “With $257 million secured by President Trump and approved by Congress, the resources are in place and we remain committed to pursuing every lawful avenue to ensure the Trump Kennedy Center is restored as a national cultural landmark for all Americans to enjoy.” 

The ruling was part of a lawsuit filed by U.S. Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Advertisement

BOARD VOTES KENNEDY CENTER TO BE RENAMED ‘TRUMP-KENNEDY CENTER,’ LEAVITT SAYS

President Donald Trump stands in the presidential box during a tour of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., on March 17, 2025. On Friday, a federal judge ruled that Trump’s name must be removed from he iconic venue. (Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images)

Cooper previously denied a request for a preliminary injunction filed by a preservation group to block the planned two-year closure of the Kennedy Center for a rehabilitation project. 

Trump secured $257 million from Congress as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to address disrepair and deferred maintenance of the Kennedy Center, which critics say has been neglected and mismanaged before Trump intervened. 

The funds appropriated by Congress are spent on maintenance, repairs, security, and capital projects related to the building and site. 

Advertisement

Beatty, who serves as an ex officio member of the board, praised Friday’s ruling.

“Today’s ruling rightly affirms that this administration’s efforts to rename and close the Center have no basis in law,” Beatty said in a statement provided to Fox News Digital. “The Kennedy Center is an institution that belongs to the American people, not to Donald Trump. He has desecrated this sacred memorial for his own vanity. I am proud to have fought for the rule of law and to protect this sacred institution.”

Workers install Donald J. Trump signage above the existing Kennedy Center sign in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 19, 2025. (Jacquelyn Martin/AP)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Trump’s name was added to the venue last December following a unanimous decision by the board. In February 2025, Trump was elected chairman of the Kennedy Center board after removing 18 trustees appointed by former President Joe Biden.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump holds Situation Room meeting to decide on Iran deal

Published

on

Trump holds Situation Room meeting to decide on Iran deal

A framework agreement to end the U.S. war with Iran is all but settled, pending sign-off from the presidents of the two warring sides, President Trump said Friday, projecting optimism that a deal could finally be at hand.

Yet doubt cast a shadow over the diplomatic process entering the weekend as Trump faced a politically fraught decision to enter an agreement that would invariably require significant concessions to Tehran.

The negotiations have faced severe headwinds in recent days, with both sides accusing the other of violating a fragile ceasefire that has largely stopped the fighting since April.

On his Truth Social site, Trump said he had summoned his top aides to the White House Situation Room to decide on the deal.

The agreement would see an end to the U.S. naval blockade on Iranian ports and the removal of Iranian mines from the Strait of Hormuz, an international waterway through which 20% of the world’s energy supply passes each day. The strait, Trump wrote, will reopen with “no tolls” for “unrestricted shipping traffic, in both directions.”

Advertisement

And “Iran must agree that they will never have a Nuclear Weapon or Bomb,” Trump wrote, noting that Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium, the key ingredient for nuclear weapons, “will be unearthed by the United States (which, it is agreed, is the only Country, along with China, with the mechanical capability of doing so!), in close coordination and conjunction with the Islamic Republic of Iran, plus the International Atomic Energy Agency, and DESTROYED.”

“No money will be exchanged, until further notice,” he added.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also said the deal would require Iran to disavow the continuation of its domestic nuclear program — a diplomatic feat never before achieved throughout a quarter-century of international negotiations over Iran’s nuclear work.

It is unclear whether Tehran would go that far. And Iran’s negotiators expressed defiance on Friday, stating that there was “no trust in guarantees or words” from the American side.

“No step will be taken before the other side acts first,” said Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of Iran’s Parliament. “We do not gain concessions through dialogue, but through missiles.”

Advertisement

It remains unclear when the Trump administration would ease sanctions on Iran, how extensive that relief would be, or what form it would take — questions that fueled Republican criticism of the Obama-era nuclear deal more than a decade ago.

The working diplomatic document would formally extend the existing ceasefire for 60 days, allowing for a more detailed negotiation to take place over Iran’s nuclear program. But the truce as it currently stands is on perilous ground. Iran launched a ballistic missile on Thursday at Kuwait, a close U.S. ally, after American forces took “defensive” actions against Iranian missile launchers and mine-laying boats it had launched in the strait.

The war has proved historically unpopular with the American public, and has seen oil prices soar since the U.S. military, in partnership with Israel, launched its first strikes against Iran in February.

Bessent said he is hopeful that oil prices would drop quickly once an agreement is signed. But industry analysts say the effects of the war on the oil market could last for months, if not years, with the stability of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz now in question for commercial shippers.

While oil has dropped to under $100 a barrel, markets appeared skittish on Friday over the prospects for a deal, with mixed messages appearing to emerge out of the region.

Advertisement

It is also unclear whether a U.S. agreement with Iran would in any way bind Israel’s hands in its military operations, either in Iran or in Lebanon, where an Iranian proxy militia, Hezbollah, has vowed to keep up the fight.

Israel has ramped up strikes against Hezbollah targets in recent days, jeopardizing a delicate ceasefire negotiated with the Lebanese government, a deal encouraged by the Trump administration in order to grease the wheels for its talks with Tehran.

Trump has been uncharacteristically silent on the prospects of an agreement in recent days, expressing cautious optimism in limited exchanges with reporters.

“It’s hard to say exactly when or if the president’s going to sign,” Vice President JD Vance, who has led the U.S. diplomatic team, told reporters, noting that “the nuclear stuff” is still subject to negotiation. “We’re going back and forth on a couple of language points.”

“I do think that we’ve made a lot of progress here,” Vance added. “Hopefully we’ll continue to make progress, and the president will be in a position where he can endorse the agreement. But obviously, that’s still TBD.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending