A Billings pharmacist running for U.S. Senate as a Libertarian is facing backlash after describing Native Americans as "a pet of society" during a community forum, a comment that drew sharp criticism from Native leaders who say it dehumanizes their communities.
Watch the forum comment here:
The remark came in mid-October, when the Eagle Seeker Community Center hosted a forum about Native maternal and infant health.
"If someone is a pet of society, they will always be a pet of society for the future," Kyle Austin said at the forum.
Austin is not backing away from the statement.
"I don't think I'd answer it any differently," Austin said.
But he also offered an apology for how the words landed.
"I would have to apologize. I'm sorry I came across that way. I'm sorry you might have took it personally," Austin said.
Austin says his point is more about federal dependence.
He frames the "pet of society" phrase as a critique of government systems rather than a description of any one group.
"I've used 'pets of society' as a generalized term across the board. It's not focused towards one culture. It's not focused towards one group or Native Americans. It's a generalized term that I've used in my whole political practice," Austin said.
He says his goal is to reduce the role of the federal government in tribal affairs.
"I want you to be free. I want you to make those decisions that's best for you, your family and your future," Austin said.
Asked what empowering tribal nations would look like in practice, Austin pointed to existing treaties and called for fewer federal restrictions.
"So, obviously, we have treaties in place, and we have agreements with the tribal nations. But what we've seen is the government coming in and actually controlling the tribal nations where they don't have the independence," Austin said.
Austin went on to say that he wants to 'remove the red tape.'
"...Remove the federal government decisions, and say, look, here is the money that you need. You make a decision how it's used. You make a decision how it works best in your sovereign nation without me telling you how to do it," Austin said.
Austin says he views reservations as sovereign nations that should control their own futures.
"I look at the reservations as being a sovereign nation. Okay, an independent government within our society and I would look at it as if they ask for help, I'm there to help them, but to let them make the decision on what is best for their community," Austin said.
Crow scholar Shane Doyle says Native populations have a specific and distinct political identity bound by treaties, and that the historic context matters.
"When tribes relinquished millions of acres of land, they did so with the understanding that the federal government would provide healthcare for their communities in perpetuity," Doyle said.
Tribal healthcare provider Amy Stiffarm explains how Austin's comment misses the mark, and that the dependency argument misses why federal support exists in the first place.
"It's not about dependency. It's really about responsibility. Federal healthcare for Native people, that's not charity," Stiffarm said.
Native birth worker Misty Pipe says the words hit differently from inside those communities.
"We're not pets. Obviously, we're human beings… birth is a really sacred thing to us," Pipe said.
Austin says he stands by his overall message, that federal support can create dependency.
"I think that the term 'pet of society,' it's not a negative thing. It's a spotlight [on] a problem that our government has created," Austin said.
