Skip to main content

Politicians make promises on their stump — we watch and hold them accountable.

Help keep the record honest →Create an account
Fully KeptLaw Enforcement & Public Safety

Pledged to always support Montana law enforcement and to oppose any efforts to defund the police.

Sources (click to view full provenance)

Propose an edit to this promise's details

Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.

Sign in and complete the Contributor Agreement to propose an edit.

Assessments

evidence-backed verdicts

These are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.

Fully KeptFact-checker reviewConfidence: 88%

Both cited PRIMARY sources are reachable and support the two halves of the promise ("always support Montana law enforcement" and "oppose any efforts to defund the police") with post-promise actions (pledge made 2020-08-31). Source 1 (Senate Roll Call Vote 328, 117th Congress) confirms Daines voted Yea on Tuberville S.Amdt. 3113, described verbatim as "To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to decreasing Federal funding for local jurisdictions that defund the police," agreed to 99-0 — supporting the anti-defund half. Source 2 (Daines Senate office release, 2023-05-12) confirms he helped introduce the Back the Blue Act, which creates a new federal crime for killing/assaulting federally funded law enforcement, and the Daines quote appears verbatim: "An attack on law enforcement is not only an attack on the Montana men and women who put their lives on the line every day to protect us, but an attack on the rule of law." — supporting the support-law-enforcement half. Neither quote is fabricated; neither source overstates. The FULL (rather than CHAMPIONED) framing is appropriately cautious given a unanimous vote and co-introducer (non-lead) status. No contradicting action surfaced. A minor summary discrepancy over "lead sponsor" vs "co-introducer" does not affect the outcome.

Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)

Sign in to vote.

Discussion

community opinions

Comments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.

Sign in to join the discussion.

Propose a correction

community accountability

See an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.

Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.

Debate

sourced community arguments

These are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.

No arguments yet

Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.

Add a sourced argument

Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.

Sign in or create an account to add an argument.

StumpWatch is live, and the record is still growing. Many promises and positions aren’t tracked yet, and some features are still in beta. Add a sourced promise and help keep the record honest.

Help keep the record honest →