Summary#

HJ-69 is a Montana House joint resolution requesting a study of how federal funding changes could affect the Department of Military Affairs. It would not amend another law or change funding, jobs, or programs; its stated goal is to inform the 70th Legislature. HJ-69 is listed as failed, so it did not authorize the study.

• The resolution would ask the Legislative Council to designate the Legislative Finance Committee to review federal directives made since January 20, 2025, that affect the department.
• The requested review would examine effects on citizens and local, tribal, and state government programs, including agency budgets and operations, staffing, and federally funded programs.
• It would also examine how lost revenue and a smaller federal workforce could affect agency operations and projects.
• The committee would present findings to specified interim committees. The study and its review were to be completed before September 15, 2026, with results reported to the 70th Legislature.

What it means for you#

• Montana residents and local, tribal, and state governments: If adopted and carried out, the study could inform lawmakers about effects of federal funding changes. It would not itself restore funding or keep programs operating.
• Department of Military Affairs and its employees: The study would examine possible effects on agency work, programs, and positions funded fully or partly by federal money. It would not itself change jobs or require the state to replace federal funds.
• Taxpayers: The resolution would not impose a tax, fee, or fine, or appropriate money for replacing federal funding.

Money#

No publicly available information on the study’s cost.

• The resolution does not specify a budget, additional staff, or other resources for the study.
• It does not appropriate replacement funding for the department or its programs.

What is unclear#

• The resolution does not set out the study’s methods, evidence standards, or how findings would be assessed.
• It does not define which federal actions count as “directives” affecting the department.
• It does not specify what would happen if the Legislative Council did not designate the Legislative Finance Committee.
• It asks for analysis of impacts but does not require lawmakers or agencies to take any particular action afterward.
• The resolution’s background statements cite federal funding as 79.3% of the department’s budget and 252.66 positions as fully or partly federally funded; the supplied material does not provide supporting details for those figures.

Case for#

• The resolution states that the department relies heavily on federal funding and identifies programs and positions that could be affected. A study could give lawmakers a clearer picture before they make budget or program decisions.
• It would examine effects on local, tribal, and state government programs as well as the department itself.
• The requested report to the 70th Legislature could bring findings and recommendations to lawmakers, though the resolution does not require them to act on them.

Case against#

• A study would not replace lost federal money, prevent job losses, or keep programs running. The resolution does not require a response to the findings.
• The proposed review is broad, but the resolution does not specify its methods or how the committee should judge possible impacts.
• The study would use public resources, but the resolution gives no cost estimate or staffing plan.