Missoula Judge Molloy Criticized for Anti-Trump Rant at Montana Naturalization Ceremony

Update March 25, 2025: Tyler Gilman, Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, confirmed that Judge Molloy presided over the two naturalization ceremonies and provided the official transcripts but stated:

“The court will have no further comment on this matter.”

This concludes the court’s response. The original report continues below.

Montana State Representative Kerri Seekins-Crowe (R-HD 39) has raised concerns over remarks made by Senior U.S. District Judge Donald W. Molloy during a March 20, 2025 naturalization ceremony in Missoula, alleging that he injected partisan rhetoric into what is traditionally a nonpolitical civic event.

In a Facebook post, Seekins-Crowe stated that Molloy told newly sworn citizens that the United States “became treasonous starting on January 6, 2021” and went on to criticize former President Donald Trump. She described the remarks as shocking and inappropriate, saying that they cast the country in a negative light for those who had just completed the legal process of becoming U.S. citizens.

“The participants, who proudly went through the process to become citizens of the United States, were not only shocked but also saddened to hear an authority figure — supposedly ‘non-partisan’ — put their new country in such a harsh light,” Seekins-Crowe wrote.

Judge Molloy, who serves on senior status for the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, has not publicly responded to the allegations. According to the court’s 2025 naturalization schedule, he presided over two ceremonies in Missoula on March 20.

Court Transcripts Confirm Political Commentary

Transcripts of the ceremonies, obtained from the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, confirm that Judge Molloy invoked January 6, 2021, stating:

“That day questioned the peaceful constitutional transfer of power in the United States. The last time that happened was in 1860 when Abraham Lincoln was elected President and the Confederate slave states seceded from the Union, which led to the War of Rebellion.”

By linking January 6 to the outbreak of the Civil War, Molloy framed the event as an existential threat to the country, a description commonly used in partisan political debates about the event’s significance.

He then contrasted George Washington’s second inaugural address—the shortest in U.S. history at 135 words—with what he described as the longest State of the Union address in U.S. history, delivered by President Donald Trump on March 4, 2025.

While he did not mention Trump by name, the reference was unmistakable:

“Now the most recent State of the Union address is the longest in the history of the nation. And unlike Washington’s address, it seemed principally to focus on perceived wrongs or failures in our nation, coupled with apparent notions of comeuppance for those who might disagree.”

This framing positioned Trump’s leadership as the opposite of Washington’s, a characterization that adds a political dimension to what is typically a nonpartisan event.

Broader Political Themes in Molloy’s Speech

Molloy further explored the role of political factions, citing James Madison’s Federalist No. 10, which warns against groups that pursue political interests at the expense of others. He stated:

“Some of the principles of American democracy appear to be under assault.”

He also cited Harvard professor Michael Sandel, who has been critical of modern capitalism and political polarization, saying:

“A culture of fear and greed has taken hold, potentially leading to the unraveling of our common civic and constitutional project.”

The speech repeatedly referenced threats to democracy and governance, raising questions about whether Molloy was subtly advancing a specific political perspective in a setting meant to be unifying.

New Citizens Told to Put “Country Before Party or Person”

Molloy ended his speech by advising new citizens:

“There is an obligation of citizenship to put our country first over the interests of any person or party.”

While this statement in isolation may seem neutral, the context of the speech suggests a deeper implication. Following his discussion of January 6 and the State of the Union, this remark could be interpreted as a subtle caution against political movements or figures perceived as disruptive to democratic norms.

Rep. Seekins-Crowe argues that the speech was not a generic civics lesson but an attempt to frame modern political debates in a specific light. While naturalization ceremonies often include reflections on democracy, judges traditionally avoid contemporary political disputes.

Final Court Response

With the court declining further comment, no additional official statements are expected on this matter.

Western Montana News obtained official transcripts from the U.S. District Court, confirming these remarks. View the full transcripts here:
Morning Ceremony | Afternoon Ceremony