Protesters in Kalispell rally against Trump's government shakeup
Feb. 11—About a hundred people gathered in downtown Kalispell on Monday to protest the Trump administration and billionaire Elon Musk's efforts to reshape the federal government.
Braving frigid temperatures, demonstrators arrived at the intersection of Main and Third streets about noon to push back on what event co-organizer Leanette Galaz considered an overreach of executive power.
"We don't agree on everything," said Galaz. "But as you can see from the signage, we agree we don't want an authoritative government."
The protest mirrored other demonstrations in opposition to the Trump-led changes roiling Washington, D.C., including a Feb. 5 protest at the statehouse in Helena. In the few weeks since resuming office, Trump — with help from Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency — has sought to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, slashed or frozen federal spending and induced government employees to leave their positions. The flurry of unilateral activity, slammed by opponents as unconstitutional, has resulted in dozens of court cases across the country.
In Kalispell on Feb. 10, protestors hoisted signs calling for the removal of Musk, who has been named a special government employee by the White House, and objecting to federal spending cuts implemented under his watch. A few motorists honked as they drove by the demonstration.
Former middle school teacher Anne Castren said cuts to public health research funding concerned her. She is enrolled in a trial for stage IV lung cancer, which she worried would be canceled along with other research programs.
"What's happening is going to impact Democrats and Republicans alike," said Castren.
Debbi Gilsoul said she was anxious about Trump's efforts to implement harsher border control policies. Gilsoul was born and raised in Kalispell, but said she supported immigrant families and worried about recent accounts of racial and ethnic profiling.
"I'm very frightened," she said. "I feel like our democracy is being overtaken by people who don't know what's going on."
Chair of the Flathead Democratic Party Ron Gerson said his concern goes beyond party politics. He worried about the unprecedented moves the administration has taken during its short tenure.
"This isn't really a political thing," said Gerson. "This is just a groundswell of folks that are fed up with what's happening."
Galaz said there would be more protests in the coming weeks, though the group had no firm plans yet.
"As long as people will come, there's a reason to organize," said Galaz.
Reporter Hailey Smalley can be reached at hsmalley@dailyinterlake.com.
Attendees of a Defend Democracy rally hold signs along Main Street in downtown Kalispell on Monday, Feb. 10. (Casey Kreider/Daily Inter Lake)
Casey Kreider
Attendees of a Defend Democracy rally hold signs along Main Street in downtown Kalispell on Monday, Feb. 10. (Casey Kreider/Daily Inter Lake)
Casey Kreider
Attendees of a Defend Democracy rally hold signs along Main Street in downtown Kalispell on Monday, Feb. 10. (Casey Kreider/Daily Inter Lake)
Casey Kreider
Attendees of a Defend Democracy rally hold signs along Main Street in downtown Kalispell on Monday, Feb. 10. (Casey Kreider/Daily Inter Lake)
Casey Kreider
Attendees of a Defend Democracy rally hold signs along Main Street in downtown Kalispell on Monday, Feb. 10. (Casey Kreider/Daily Inter Lake)
Casey Kreider
Attendees of a Defend Democracy rally hold signs along Main Street in downtown Kalispell on Monday, Feb. 10. (Casey Kreider/Daily Inter Lake)
Casey Kreider
Attendees of a Defend Democracy rally hold signs along Main Street in downtown Kalispell on Monday, Feb. 10. (Casey Kreider/Daily Inter Lake)
Casey Kreider
Attendees of a Defend Democracy rally hold signs along Main Street in downtown Kalispell on Monday, Feb. 10. (Casey Kreider/Daily Inter Lake)
Casey Kreider
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
7 minutes ago
- The Hill
CHC asks Johnson, Thune to ‘uphold the dignity' of Congress after Padilla handcuffing
The Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) is calling on Republican leadership to 'uphold the dignity and authority of Congress' after Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) was handcuffed when interjecting at a press conference held by Homeland Security Sec. Kristi Noem on Friday. Padilla was blocked by security as he advanced toward the front of the room, identifying himself and saying he had a question. He was then pushed out of the room, forced to the ground and handcuffed. The incident is sparking concern among Democrats who see his treatment as a crackdown on the party's pushback on the administration. More than 180 Democrats signed onto a letter to Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) calling the episode 'shocking and deeply troubling mistreatment.' 'Senator Padilla clearly identified himself and was acting within his rights as a Member of Congress. The use of force against a sitting senator—in a federal building, during official business—is a grave breach of protocol. It is also a potential violation of separation of powers and raises alarming questions about the conduct of federal law enforcement agencies, the coordination of protective services, and the administration's posture toward congressional oversight,' the lawmakers wrote in the letter spearheaded by the CHC. 'This unprecedented incident is not simply an affront to security protocol—it is a constitutional issue—as these actions may constitute an assault on a sitting senator. If members of the United States Senate can be physically restrained for seeking answers from executive officials, it sets a dangerous precedent for the independence of the legislative branch.' Thune's office didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Johnson's office pointed to earlier remarks from the Speaker, including his backing censuring Padilla over the move. 'A sitting member of Congress should not act like that. It is beneath a member of Congress. It is beneath a U.S. Senator. They're supposed to lead by example. And that is not a good example. We have to turn the temperature down in this country and not escalate it. The Democrat Party is on the wrong side. They are defending lawbreakers and now they are acting like lawbreakers themselves,' Johnson said last week. Pressed on whether Padilla should face consequences, Johnson initially demurred — 'it's not my decision to make, I'm not in that chamber' — before endorsing censure for the California Democrat. 'I think that that behavior at a minimum rises to the level of a censure,' Johnson told reporters. 'I think there needs to be a message sent by the body as a whole that that is not what we're going to do, that's not what we're going to act.' 'We're not going to have branches fighting physically and having senators charging Cabinet secretaries,' he added. 'We got to do better and I hope that we will.' Thune said he plans to 'gather all the relevant information' about what happened. 'We want to get the full scope of what happened and do what we would do in any incident like this involving a senator and try to gather all the relevant information,' Thune said. Chair Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.) last week led a march to Johnson's office shortly after Padilla was handcuffed. 'I feel this amounts to an assault, a felony, and we want a full and complete investigation of this matter immediately,' Espaillat said at the time. 'We have concerns, grave concerns, when the Speaker of the House refers to a sitting member of the US Senate who simply tried to exercise his first amendment rights as acting like a thug.' 'We feel very strongly that there is an intimidation campaign to try to silence dissent, and that's very dangerous,' he added.
7 minutes ago
Judge extends block on Trump ban prohibiting Harvard students from entering US
A temporary restraining order on President Donald Trump barring foreign Harvard University students from entering the U.S. will remain in effect until next Monday while a federal judge considers arguments made for a preliminary injunction. The temporary block was due to expire on Thursday before being extended Monday by U.S. District Court Judge Allison Burroughs. Harvard's lawyers argued Trump's proclamation violates its First Amendment rights and is outside the authority of the executive branch. Listing the actions taken by the government against Harvard in recent weeks, attorney Ian Gershengorn argued in a court hearing Monday in Boston that the move was retaliation and viewpoint discrimination against the institution. Gershengorn argued the president is not restricting entry, but instead limiting what you do and who you associate with after you enter. The permissible way to classify a class of aliens is based on the character of the alien, he argued. The government pushed back, arguing the administration does not "trust" Harvard and that it did not monitor the "aliens" that it brought into the U.S. The government said bringing in foreigners is a privilege not a right, according to Tiberius Davis, counsel to the assistant attorney general. "We don't trust Harvard to vet, host, monitor or discipline" foreigners, Davis argued. Davis also raised concerns about Harvard's "foreign entanglements" with the Chinese government and said it did not provide sufficient information to the government on foreign students -- which Harvard has denied. Harvard University filed the lawsuit against the government after U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced it was canceling Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, which would bar the school from enrolling foreign students. The suit was later amended to include the proclamation and Harvard moved to request a second block on Trump's proclamation. That would have gone into effect for at least six months before it was blocked by Burroughs. The judge questioned arguments made by the government over its concerns about Harvard that motivated the proclamation. "I can't imagine that anything that you just described applies only to Harvard," Burroughs said. Davis argued the government is free to investigate other institutions and said that "a lot of these other universities are willing to" do more to address issues on campus. Davis also argued that different government agencies chose to terminate grants with Harvard because they believed the institution was not following the law, saying that move was not retaliation either. Davis also said Harvard is not being singled out with grant terminations because other institutions have suffered the same. The government argued it is not singling out Harvard, but rather other institutions have been more willing to take action to address issues on campus, while Harvard has not, Davis said. "There's a lack of evidence of retaliation here," Davis said in court. Burroughs said if the point is to root out antisemitism, "Why aren't we letting in people from Israel?" Davis argued antisemitism was just one part of the issue, along with foreign entanglements and not providing sufficient information to the government. Because of their other conduct on campus and their inattentiveness to it "we don't trust them," Davis said. "They don't have to pull over everybody who's speeding. Frankly they can't do that," Davis said. Pushing back on arguments that it did not monitor its students, Harvard said it is the government's responsibility to vet students being allowed into the country. "The vetting is done by the State Department in their visa process," Gershengorn said. At one point in the Monday hearing, the judge asked Harvard's attorneys why it did not name the president in its lawsuit, asking if he needed to appear in this case. Gershengorn said it sued the people who are tasked with implementing the proclamation. Gershengorn argued Trump's usage of the proclamation to block entry of foreign Harvard students is a "vast new authority to regulate the domestic conduct of domestic institutions," a departure from how this proclamation has been used in the past. Gershengorn said it has been used to block the entry of individuals or nationals of a country that have "done something bad." The question is not whether the action is lawful or not, Gershengorn argued. If lawful action is taken as a First Amendment-motivated action, it is no longer lawful, he added. Gershengorn said what Harvard has suffered over the last two months is probably the most "irregular" and "improper" action any institution has suffered. Harvard pushed back against claims there is widespread violence on campus, saying the story the government cites identified two incidents of violence on the basis of religion. The government is "throwing things at the wall to see what sticks," Gershengorn said. Harvard has alleged that the administration is in an "escalating campaign of retaliation" against the school. After Harvard publicly refused to comply with demands made by the Trump administration, the administration responded by freezing more than $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts to the school.
Wall Street Journal
8 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Mayday on the Fiscal Titanic
Greg Ip may be correct that the Republicans have done more than Elon Musk to cut spending, but he mischaracterizes the GOP's efforts as 'serious' ('Capital Account: GOP, Not Musk, Deploys the Chain Saw,' U.S. News, June 9). If the Republicans were serious, why not begin by cutting 3% off every line in the budget, no exceptions, other than interest on the debt? If the Republicans were serious about addressing entitlements, why not start with Medicare, an $850 billion program that exclusively benefits the elderly, the wealthiest cohort of society?
