An interesting article from Politico related to Montana and the effect of the DOGE cuts, etc. I don't know how much of a short-term impact this'll be re: elections/voting but I don't think they'll forget what happened either if future candidates try to run on their ties to Trump/get called out on their relationships to him whilst simultaneously continuing to screw around with public lands/their livelihoods.
"Trump won Montana by nearly 20 points in the 2024 election. Voters also ousted three-term Democratic Sen. Jon Tester, a third-generation farmer from rural eastern Montana and the last legislator in the Senate who maintained a full-time job outside his political career, in favor of novice MAGA Republican Tim Sheehy. That race
shattered spending records as Republicans went all in to flip the seat to win the Senate. For the
first time in nearly a century, Montana — a famously purple state — went all red.
But here, support for public lands is not a partisan issue.
A 2024 poll of Montanans showed 95 percent of respondents had visited public lands in the last year, nearly half of them at least 10 times. The same poll showed 98 percent of Democrats, 84 percent of independents and 71 percent of Republicans said conservation issues are important to their voting decisions.
From January to May, the Blackfoot Challenge saw $4.6 million in already appropriated multi-year funds from federal public land agencies — including USFS, BLM, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service — frozen. Montana’s congressional delegation does seem to be listening to voters somewhat; the Blackfoot Challenge has seen much of its funding unfrozen after calls, letters and congressional visits from landowners and other advocates.
But in other ways, Republicans’ attacks on public lands seem to only be ramping up. In his 2026 budget,
Trump proposed cutting a program called WaterSMART, which is administered through the Bureau of Reclamation and has historically provided millions for rural communities in Montana to address water security in a region where it is often scarce.
And the U.S. House recently voted to throw out three huge public lands management plans, including one in eastern Montana.
When the cuts came down, they hit him (a forester in Western Montana) hard. “Fifty percent of my income comes from federal dollars,” he said, some administered by groups like the Blackfoot Challenge, and some direct from public lands agencies that work with private contractors. He was out of work for a month in the spring due to the cuts. And it wasn’t just him losing out on income; he couldn’t pay his employees, either.
In March, Trump signed an executive order to increase logging on public lands. But DOGE cut many of the agency employees needed to administer the timber sales for logging, and for thinning and fire mitigation. If there’s no one to administer the sales, then private forestry contractors like the forester I spoke to can’t execute those projects. In addition, the U.S. no longer has the infrastructure to process the increased timber mandated by the executive order, and the government doesn’t appear to be investing in resurrecting it.
Most voters seem to be waiting to see how this administration’s cuts and policies, and the response to them from Montana’s congressional delegation, play out on the ground after court stays; essentially, they’re waiting to see what will stick. Daines is up for re-election in 2026.
In 2018, midway through Trump’s first administration, which slashed national monuments and opened increased amounts of public land to resource extraction,
hunters and anglers in Idaho and Wyoming voted down Republican gubernatorial candidates who attacked public lands in the Trump vein. Something similar could easily happen here. Montana is home to more hunters than Idaho or Wyoming..."