The MT Lowdown is a weekly digest that showcases a more personal side of Montana Free Press’ high-quality reporting while keeping you up to speed on the biggest news impacting Montanans. Want to see the MT Lowdown in your inbox every Friday? Sign up here.
For close watchers of Capitol politics, fights over environmental regulations and the limits of judicial oversight are nothing new. While the tug-of-war over the separation of powers and the tussle over the Goldilocks zone of environmental regulation — not so loose as to damage Montana’s cherished natural beauty, not so restrictive as to stifle economic development — often occur independently, there are major fireworks when they overlap.
In December, the Montana Supreme Court issued one such fireworks-generating order. In the Held v. Montana youth climate lawsuit, justices agreed with a lower court’s finding that the Montana Constitution’s unique environmental protections, which include the right to a “clean and healthful environment” for “present and future generations,” afford Rikki Held and her 15 young coplaintiffs the right to a “stable climate system.”
In practical terms, the ruling did two big things. First, it struck a law the Legislature passed in 2023 to bar state agencies from incorporating climate impacts in their environmental reviews. (It should be noted that the law in question arose out of Republican lawmakers’ opposition to a court order revoking a permit for a gas plant under construction.) Second, it directed lawmakers to develop a framework for inventorying and disclosing greenhouse gas emissions for large fossil fuel projects.
While many Republican lawmakers didn’t care for the Held ruling and were eager to make their feelings about it known, they drafted legislation specifying how agencies like the Montana Department of Environmental Quality should study climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions under the Montana Environmental Policy Act, which passed in 1971 with just one lawmaker in opposition. This week, the Montana Senate passed Senate Bill 221, the flagship proposal from Republicans in response to Held.
Sen. Wylie Galt, a fifth-term Republican from Martinsdale, is sponsoring SB 221. Galt’s bill enjoys broad support from industry groups such as the Treasure State Resources Association and the Montana Chamber of Commerce and equally broad opposition from environmental groups such as the Montana Conservation Voters Education Fund and the Montana Environmental Information Center. Industry lobbyists say it’s a workable, practical approach that will give clarity to state regulators and the businesses they regulate. Environmental groups counter that by eliminating upstream and downstream greenhouse gas emissions from environmental analyses, SB 221 puts blinders on state agencies to an “absurd” effect and will threaten the state’s agricultural and outdoor recreation economies.
While the two sides scrap over the scope of the greenhouse gas analysis incorporated in SB 221, there is some consensus surrounding it. Montanans on both sides of the debate have acknowledged that there is likely to be litigation surrounding the measure.
House Majority Leader Steve Fitzpatrick, a Great Falls Republican who has forwarded several industry-friendly pieces of energy legislation during his long tenure at the Capitol, said during a Wednesday afternoon press conference that there will probably be lawsuits “no matter what.”
“That’s not necessarily a bad thing,” he continued. “If we can get some guidance from the courts as to what meets the standard and what doesn’t meet the standard for conducting a MEPA analysis, I think that’s OK. Our goal here is obviously to clarify [the law] so we can get some certainty for people.”
Given its rapid advance through the Senate, SB 221 is widely expected to pass out of the Legislature and be signed into law by Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte. Whether SB 221 will also be well-received by judges in Montana if the anticipated lawsuits develop remains to be seen.
READ MORE: “MEPA and the Montana Legislature: Partisan politics come for a 54-year-old environmental law that played a starring role in a pair of landmark climate rulings.”
—Amanda Eggert
Three Questions For
Over the past few weeks, a flurry of executive orders from the Trump administration and resulting court injunctions have created concerns about the future of federal funding for campus-based research.
The focus of those orders ranges widely. One would bar federal agencies from considering diversity, equity and inclusion in various processes including awarding grants. Another would attempt to cap administrative costs associated with research, which could reduce research funding across Montana campuses by an estimated $5 million annually.
To understand the potential impacts, MTFP spoke with University of Montana Vice President for Research Scott Whittenburg. Answers have been lightly edited for length and clarity.
MTFP: Let’s start with the issue around DEI and the potential restriction of federal funding for research that touches on things like diversity. What questions does that stir for you?
Whittenburg: I don’t know if it’s DEI as much, although we do a fair amount of DEI-labeled research here just because that’s the type of institution we are. But one question is how are our tribal relations, our tribal projects, our tribal research going to be impacted by this? Is tribal going to be considered a marginalized group and therefore fall under DEI, and therefore does that mean that we suddenly have to minimize the amount of work that we do with the tribal communities? That’s a thing that’s not answered yet.
MTFP: And the 15% cap on so-called Facilities and Administrative [F&A] costs for grants that the National Institutes of Health announced recently, which has also been blocked by a federal court. What does that funding typically cover at UM?
Whittenburg: An obvious one is, first of all space — the space, the lab, the equipment. A lot of our F&A goes to keep the equipment working. A big draw on faculty’s time is the reporting for the research that has been done, so it’s the staff that helps them with reporting, the budgeting of the funds. A lot of money goes to helping faculty members find the research funding, helping them write good proposals, helping them get the funding in the first place.
MTFP: How does all of this stand to impact the students at UM, and can the campus do anything to mitigate it?
Whittenburg: There’s definitely a benefit to the undergraduate student by having a strong research program, but the biggest impact’s clearly going to be on graduate students. We have quite a few that are funded off research grants and contracts, and so if that funding is impacted and those grants and awards are lost, then that is going to impact grad students. I don’t know how big that is yet, and I don’t want to worry them.
We have pretty good reserves in terms of our recovered F&A off grants and contracts, and the university’s decided to also be supportive and to carry on as long as we can in supporting both the work and the students. So if it’s only the NIH and it’s not for a long time, if it’s not a permanent reduction, then it’s really something that’s manageable for the campus. The problem for us is if it’s a permanent reduction to 15%. The big problem, where it really starts to be worrisome, is if it’s applied to all federal agencies.
—Alex Sakariassen
Hot Potato 🥔
A Wednesday bill hearing turned into a tense standoff between lawmakers and the state health department over how much access legislators should have to the Montana State Hospital, the state-run psychiatric hospital in Warm Springs that has struggled in recent years to prevent patient abuse and neglect.
The law currently allows legislators to enter state correctional facilities like the Montana State Prison “at any time,” as long as they abide by a facility’s safety and security protocols. A bill proposed by Rep. Donavon Hawk, D-Butte, would create similar permissions to the state hospital.
Speaking to members of the House Human Services committee, Hawk said Wednesday that he aims to create additional oversight of the facility, which lost federal certification in 2022 following patient deaths, falls and other safety issues.
“I think that, as state legislators, that we are tasked with looking after our constituents no matter where they are in the state,” Hawk said.
The bill triggered fierce opposition from lawyers with the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services, which oversees the facility, and from members of the hospital’s administration.
The state opponents listed a series of potential risks stemming from the legislation, including violations of patient confidentiality and safety concerns. They also said that “unfettered” lawmaker access could undermine the state’s efforts to regain certification from federal health authorities.
“Regardless of the statement in the bill that [legislators] will ‘prioritize and respect the health, dignity, privacy, and welfare of Montana State Hospital patients,’ whatever that means, this type of access will inevitably disrupt patient care,” said Paula Stannard, the department’s chief legal counsel, during Wednesday’s hearing.
State employees went on to pledge that conditions at the hospital have improved by leaps and bounds from when it lost federal good standing. They promised that they have nothing to hide from lawmakers.
“The team that’s there now, that is brand-new, that has completely turned the culture of that place around, is basically being blamed for sins of the past,” said Doug Harrington, the state medical director.
Lawmakers on the committee, largely made up of Republicans who hold a majority in the Legislature, appeared skeptical of that rationale. Rep. Amy Regier, R-Kalispell, a registered nurse, asked why legislators would not be able to follow the same safety protocols as state investigators and other mandated advocacy groups that often visit patients in Warm Springs.
“If this was covered by state law, then, are you asserting that legislators couldn’t abide by those same principles?” Regier asked.
Harrington re-asserted that the bill, in its current form, would put the hospital at risk of noncompliance with federal patient safety requirements.
Another lawmaker pushed back on that conclusion.
“I’m going to quote a former president that once said, ‘Trust but verify,’” said Rep. Steven Kelly, R-Kalispell.
Hawk said he is happy to sit down with anyone who has an interest in the bill, noting that the department had not approached him with concerns before the hearing. He said committee members could tweak the proposal as long as they preserve the intent to increase lawmaker oversight at the facility.
Hawk echoed other lawmakers’ concern that, even if conditions have improved since 2022, the facility could face new issues in the future.
“I’m hoping that the changes are being made for the benefit of the people at the hospital,” Hawk said. “But who’s to say that things aren’t going to — we don’t get our recertification and we end up going back to square one?”
—Mara Silvers
Following the Law ⚖️
The Legislature this week signaled its appetite to re-widen the public’s right to know in the wake of a recent Montana Supreme Court order.
Rep. Ed Stafman, D-Bozeman, sponsored House Bill 271 in response to the 4-3 opinion the state’s highest court issued in O’Neill v. Gianforte. In that lawsuit, environmental activist Jayson O’Neill sought access to communications between the governor’s office and agency leaders regarding bills lawmakers debated during the 67th Legislature.
To block the release of those communications, Gianforte in 2022 raised what was — in Montana, anyway, with its strong right-to-know laws — a novel argument: He claimed the communications were shielded from public review by “deliberative process” protections and the existence of “executive privilege.”
Gianforte’s argument encountered a mixed reception with judges. Lewis and Clark County District Court Judge Kathy Seeley didn’t put much stock in it, but in January, a narrow majority of the Montana Supreme Court did, finding that it comports with English common law and protects a governor’s need for “candor” in his communications.
At the Legislature, Gianforte’s “executive privilege” argument has thus far found limited favor with lawmakers. On Wednesday, the House voted 56-44 to pass HB 271, which holds that the governor may shield some records from review if they contain an “individual privacy interest,” but anything pertaining to “policy, politics or legislative matters” is afforded no such opacity.
Stafman argued before his colleagues Tuesday that the Montana Supreme Court “had to do backflips” to insert English common law in a constitutional lawsuit over a right-to-know claim.
The ruling “effectively reduces the timely right to know in our public records laws to rubble,” Stafman said, arguing that Gianforte’s attempt to gain a strategic advantage over lawmakers by claiming a need for “candor” to communicate in secrecy doesn’t serve the public or Legislature’s interests.
Speaking in opposition to HB 271, Rep. Steve Fitzpatrick, R-Great Falls, argued that the Legislature doesn’t “need to be sending another constitutional bill downstairs,” a likely reference to the governor’s office located a floor below the Legislature’s chambers. HB 271 conflicts, Fitpatrick said, with Article VI, Section 15, of the Montana Constitution, which deals with the governor’s ability to request information from officers of the executive branch — e.g., employees of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality or Montana Fish, WIldlife and Parks.
HB 271 now heads over to the Senate, where it will receive another committee hearing and, if it survives that committee, a pair of Senate floor votes.
—Amanda Eggert
Say What 🤔
A bill that would prohibit local government money from being spent on lobbying at the Capitol hasn’t even had a committee hearing, but counties across Montana are passing preemptive resolutions in opposition.
The bill, Senate Bill 254, aims to prevent cities, counties and school districts from paying into a lobbying organization or contracting directly with a lobbyist to advocate on legislative issues. The sponsor is Sen. Greg Hertz, R-Polson, who has brought forth multiple bills that relate to local government powers. Last session, he sponsored a successful bill that requires local governments to report lobbying financing.
In response to SB 254, multiple counties have passed identical resolutions to oppose any legislation that limits lobbying by the Montana Association of Counties [MACo], the foremost advocate for those governments. The association gets its funding from dues paid by counties.
Cascade County commissioners passed the resolution on Feb. 11. Commissioner Joe Briggs said that he felt MACo saved taxpayer money by having a constant presence in Helena, reducing the need for commissioners to travel from any of the state’s 56 counties to advocate their positions.
“It is really critical that legislators be able to hear from counties the actual impacts of the things they are proposing,” Briggs said.
Similar resolutions passed in counties including Gallatin, Missoula, Park, Lincoln and Dawson. MACo shared comments from executive committee members — county commissioners from Liberty, Flathead and Custer counties — in support of the lobbying association.
“Our investment in MACo provides critical training and representation, helping counties operate efficiently and protect taxpayer dollars,” said MACo executive committee President and Liberty County Commissioner Jolette Woods in the statement.
MACo also hosts training events for elected officials and administers insurance pools for counties.
Local government lobbying is common practice in Montana. In addition to MACo at the county level, the Montana League of Cities and Towns represents municipalities and tracks related legislation (SB 254 is on its watch list). Some cities directly hire lobbyists, as Great Falls did for the 2025 session. It hired Chuck Denowh of The Montana Group at $4,500 a month through April. Missoula and Bozeman are registered clients of Central House Strategies, a firm led by lobbyist SK Rossi.
Hertz’s bill has been referred to the Senate State Administration Committee.
—Matt Hudson
Highlights ☀️
In other news this week —
High school students in Whitehall tried to put on a play that discusses suicide. They were met with challenges from district administration.
Trump’s orders on immigration policies worry Missoula-based aid organizations that work with refugees.
The fate of two Medicaid expansion bills this week gives an indication of GOP support for the program continuing.
On Our Radar 
Brad — I’m not sure what sparked it — maybe reading one too many neo-Western think pieces about Taylor Sheridan’s “Yellowstone” and its ilk — but this week I revisited Sergio Leone’s “Dollars” trilogy. After rewatching “A Fistful of Dollars,” “For a Few Dollars More,” and “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly,” I’m now prepared to die on the following dusty hills: 1) “FAFDM” is definitely the series’ high-water mark; 2) No one ever struck a match with such nonchalant intention as young Clint Eastwood; and 3) Never has a title sequence been so saturated with anxious brutality.
Matt — Live history performer Hasan Davis was recently in Great Falls performing as York, the enslaved man who was part of the Lewis and Clark expedition. In previous interviews with the National Park Service, Davis expanded on the life of York before, during and after the expedition. You’ll have to read the archived versions, because the articles no longer appear on the NPS website.
Jacob — It’s often said you can run the 1993 game “Doom” on anything with a processor — a claim that programmers seem to take as a personal challenge. The newest evidence: versions running on an iPhone HDMI cable and, somehow, inside a PDF file. They’re giving serious competition to my longtime favorites — the potato-powered graphing calculator and a vintage digital camera from 1998. At this rate, I’m keeping an eye on my coffee maker.
Tom — The Economist podcast “Scam Inc” launched this week. The eight-part series opens with a segment on “pig skinning,” the practice of establishing relationships with victims online and fattening up the pot before taking it all. Scammers working from campuses in Myanmar are also interviewed.
Holly — On weeknights I usually go straight from editing stories about government and politics to reading books with our 17-month-old kid before bedtime. While I often can’t remember the details of anything I wrote or edited more than a month prior, the prose of Sandra Boynton will be seared into my brain until the day I die. The sun has set not long ago (IYKYK).
Mara — A former colleague of mine, Adrian Ma, has a gift for radio storytelling. In a terrible twist, he used his considerable talent this week to share a remembrance of his girlfriend, Kiah Duggins, who died during the American Airlines crash over the Potomac River in January. I’ll be thinking of him and the rest of her family and friends this weekend.
Eric — It’s Friday afternoon. Instead of, you know, working, you can spend the next seven minutes of your life watching this guy build a DIY pineapple slicer in his garage metalworking shop.
*Some stories may require a subscription. Subscribe!
