State Rep. Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee) questions a witness at Thursday's hearing of the Assembly labor committee about the unemployment insurance bill produced by the Unemployment Insurance Advisory Council. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

A business lobbyist Thursday sought to salvage a new unemployment insurance bill that has sparked opposition from some Democrats and advocates for people with disabilities.

The bill came from the joint labor-management Unemployment Insurance Advisory Council. The council is historically a source of consensus legislation to update Wisconsin’s laws on jobless pay, but its 2025 proposal includes provisions Democrats have strongly opposed.

The senior Democrat on the Assembly’s labor committee has disavowed the bill because it includes a financial penalty for people who receive federal disability pay if they apply for unemployment insurance when they’re laid off from a job.

The council bill also contains several other changes that Democratic lawmakers have unanimously opposed and Gov. Tony Evers has vetoed in the past.

At a public hearing Thursday on the legislation, AB 652, Scott Manley of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce emphasized that the measure had the unanimous support of both the management and labor members of the advisory council.

Manley chairs the council’s management caucus. Representatives from the council’s labor caucus did not take part in the hearing.

“There’s a reason we have a council,” Manley told the Assembly Committee on Workforce Development, Labor and Integrated Employment. “It’s a process we believe in. We think it’s a process that works. And we would ask everybody in the community to respect that process.”

WMC and other business groups have repeatedly backed Republican legislators’ bills to change the state’s unemployment laws when they bypassed the joint advisory council.  Evers has regularly vetoed such bills.

Manley said that it would be unprecedented for an advisory council bill to split the Legislature on party lines, however.

“My fear is that if the Legislature decides to turn this into a partisan issue, despite the fact that it was unanimously supported by labor and management, that Gov. Evers would consider vetoing the bill,” Manley said.

If that happens, he said, the bill’s $25 bump in the state’s maximum weekly jobless pay — the first increase in more than a decade — would likely be put off until 2027.

Victor Forberger, a lawyer who specializes in unemployment law, said even that increase, bringing the maximum benefit to $395 a week, was inadequate compared with surrounding states.

Minnesota tops out at $914 a week, Forberger testified. Iowa’s maximum is $602 and Michigan’s is $446, with an increase to $530 in 2026.

“We’re not keeping pace with the states around us,” Forberger told the committee. “We’re not even coming close to that

The disability-jobless pay conflict

The advisory council bill’s highest-profile point of contention applies to people who receive Social Security Disability Income.

Since 2013, Wisconsin law has automatically disqualified SSDI recipients from collecting jobless pay, even if they get laid off from a job and otherwise meet the requirements for unemployment compensation.

A federal judge ruled in 2024 that the SSDI jobless pay ban violated federal law. After an additional court order this summer, the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development is now reviewing the cases of people denied unemployment compensation in the last 10 years due to the SSDI ban, and is issuing payments to those who qualify.

The joint advisory council unemployment bill repeals the ban on unemployment insurance for SSDI recipients. But it would also cut their jobless pay by 50% of their SSDI pay.

That provision led Rep. Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee), the ranking Democrat on the labor committee, to keep her name off the list of sponsors for the advisory council bill.

“I simply cannot support taking benefits from those who are disabled,” Sinicki said when she, along with the committee’s other two Democrats, voted against the bill’s formal introduction Thursday. “They receive very little money to begin with. And now to reduce their benefits to me is unconscionable.”

Manley defended the 2013 law that excluded SSDI recipients from the unemployment insurance program.

“SSDI is intended to compensate somebody for their loss of earning capacity based on a disability,” he said. “And unemployment is supposed to compensate somebody through the loss of their earnings because they were laid off or their job was eliminated or some other reason that’s no fault of their own. So, that’s why the policy decision was made in the first place that we wouldn’t allow people to have both benefits.”

While the court ruled against a blanket exclusion from unemployment compensation for people getting SSDI, Manley argued that offsetting their jobless pay by a portion of their disability income is comparable to existing provisions that offset unemployment benefits based on other wage income.

But SSDI is not like a wage, said Forberger, whose lawsuit overturned Wisconsin’s SSDI jobless pay ban.

“SSDI is essentially getting your Social Security benefits early,” Forberger testified. While Social Security payments are based on lifetime earnings at retirement age, he said, unemployment is based on a recent job loss, and unemployment benefits are based on earnings in the last year and a half.

The average SSDI benefit in Wisconsin as of December 2023 was about $1,400 per month, he said. SSDI recipients take part-time jobs because their disability income “is not enough to support themselves,” Forberger said. “They need additional money to make ends meet.”

The federal Social Security Administration, which administers the disability program, encourages recipients to work so they might make a transition back to the workforce and no longer need benefits. “Essentially, what Wisconsin is saying to disabled folks here is . . . ‘We don’t want you working anymore,’” Forberger said.

Other provisions

Several other items in the advisory council bill previously were part of Republican bills that Evers vetoed in the past when they reached his desk.

One would require DWD to establish a website where employers could report unemployment compensation recipients who “ghosted” job interviews or didn’t show up for the first day on the job after an offer.

Another would require audits of 50% of all work searches by people collecting jobless pay. In 41% of work search audits that DWD conducted, “claimants failed to fulfill weekly work search requirements,” said Brian Dake of Wisconsin Independent Businesses. “We believe this data justifies the need for more audits.”

 A third provision stipulates specific checks that DWD should make to ensure that a person who makes an unemployment claim isn’t stealing another person’s identity or engaged in some other fraudulent activity.

The bill also would mandate electronic filing of payroll information for business owners with fewer than 25 employees.

Forberger, in his testimony, rejected all those provisions as ineffectual or unnecessary.

“Ghosting interviews is already illegal in this state,” he said, with stiffer penalties than outlined in the bill. Employers, he added, are unlikely to go to the trouble of filing a report and take the time for the hearings that would follow.

Forberger observed that the department already consults a wide range of databases in checking out claims. And he said small employers have sought his help after making mistakes and getting in trouble with the department in filing required payroll documentation.

“To mandate online-only filing is just going to make it that much harder for these employers,” Forberger said.

(According to DWD communications director Haley McCoy, in 2024 about 97% of taxable employers with fewer than 25 employees submitted their wage reports electronically. “Fewer and fewer employers file on paper every quarter with current figures showing less than 3% filing by paper,” McCoy told the Wisconsin Examiner.)

Forberger said the bill’s work search audit requirement was redundant, because DWD already conducts work search audits of every person who is approved for benefits. He said he’s heard from many people who don’t understand what constitutes a work search and how to report it.

“When they’re getting audited, they’re getting disqualified,” Forberger said. “If you really want to improve the system, DWD needs to start doing some training and helping people how to navigate the system.”

This report has been updated to clarify that work search audits are conducted for people who are approved for  unemployment benefits. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

(The Center Square) – Wisconsin continues to look at the future of

(The Center Square) – Meta’s new $1 billion artificial intelligence data center in Beaver Dam will have 100 operational jobs once it comes online in 2027, the company announced.

Reading Time: 4 minutes

Click here to read highlights from the story

• A federal board ruling has paved the way for courts to more easily toss out asylum cases and instead deport applicants, not to their home country, but to a “third country” they barely know.

• The ruling has the potential to affect the cases of thousands of immigrants who entered the asylum process since 2019.

• The Department of Homeland Security is using its extra power inconsistently, moving to send some asylum seekers to third countries while making more traditional motions in other cases. One immigration attorney says it illustrates the “crazy arbitrariness of the system.”

Milwaukee immigration attorney Anthony Locke spent the first weekend in November wrapping his head around the latest ground-shaking rule change for asylum cases. His Department of Homeland Security (DHS) counterpart apparently did the same while pushing to deport one of Locke’s clients.

Locke represents a Nicaraguan asylum seeker arrested in a late September ICE operation in Manitowoc. That client was set to appear before an immigration court judge on Nov. 4 in a hearing Locke hoped would move the man closer to securing his right to remain in the U.S. 

But five days earlier, the Board of Immigration Appeals — a powerful, if relatively obscure Department of Justice tribunal that sets rules for immigration courts — had paved the way for courts to more easily toss out asylum cases and instead deport applicants, not to their home country, but to a “third country” they barely know. 

Just before the Nov. 4 hearing, the DHS attorney motioned to dismiss Locke’s client’s case and deport him to Honduras, through which he had only briefly passed on his trek north. Locke now has until early December to argue that his client could face “persecution or torture” in Honduras. 

“Trying to demonstrate that they’re scared of a place they’ve had minimal contact with,” he said, is akin to proving a negative. 

If the judge sides with DHS, the Nicaraguan man will be sent to Honduras without an opportunity to make his case for remaining in the U.S.

“I am, quite frankly, not too hopeful, and I’ve had to be quite honest with my client about that,” Locke said. “This is so sudden, so jarring, and it has such an immense impact.”

The full impact of the appeals board ruling remains to be seen, but it has the potential to affect the cases of thousands of immigrants who entered the asylum process since President Donald Trump’s first administration in 2019 began establishing “safe third country” agreements, starting with Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. 

U.S. law for decades guaranteed anyone physically present in the U.S. the right to seek asylum, but the agreements allowed the U.S. to instead send asylum seekers to third countries to seek legal status there. 

While Joe Biden suspended most third country agreements during his presidency, Trump, upon returning to office in January, revived them as a means to limit asylum applications and facilitate deportations. The list of countries willing to accept the deportees is still growing, though not all have signed formal “safe third country” agreements.

The Board of Immigration Appeals overhauled the process of sending an asylum seeker to a third country. Its ruling allows DHS to send asylum seekers to countries through which they did not pass en route to the U.S. It also requires immigration courts to consider whether asylum seekers can be sent to a third country before hearing their cases for remaining in the U.S., creating the proving-a-negative scenario Locke described. 

The ruling may not impact those who filed for asylum before third country agreements were forged. 

DHS did not respond to Wisconsin Watch’s request for comment.

Locke’s client entered the U.S. in 2022, requesting asylum on the grounds that his protests against Nicaragua’s ruling party made him a target for persecution. The man entered the country through a Biden-era “parole” program that allowed some immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to live and work in the U.S. for two years, Locke said. Roughly a third of new arrivals to Wisconsin who entered the immigration court system since 2020 came from Nicaragua, though not all secured parole. 

The Trump administration ended the parole program earlier this year, claiming that the roughly 500,000 immigrants who entered the country through the program had not been properly vetted and that participants limited opportunities for domestic workers.

Locke’s client landed in the immigration court system in September after his arrest in Manitowoc. He is currently in custody in the Dodge County jail — one of a growing number of local detention facilities in Wisconsin housing ICE detainees. 

One of his fellow detainees, Diego Ugarte-Arenas, faces a similar predicament. The 31-year-old from Venezuela entered the U.S. in 2021 alongside his wife, Dailin Pacheco-Acosta. The couple filed for asylum upon reaching Wisconsin, citing their involvement in opposition to Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. Pacheco-Acosta found work as a nanny in Madison, and Ugarte-Arenas found a restaurant job. 

ICE last month arrested the couple during a routine check-in at DHS’ field office in downtown Milwaukee, forcing them to argue their asylum case in the immigration court system. Ugarte-Arenas remains in Dodge County, while his wife sits in a county jail in northern Kentucky. Another recent Board of Immigration Appeals decision limits their ability to post bond and continue their case while reunited in Wisconsin. 

The couple appeared in court for the first time on Nov. 12, both via video call. Though separated by hundreds of miles, the cinderblock walls behind them made their settings look almost identical. 

As they waited for their case to reach the top of the queue, the couple watched the court field-test the new rule on third-country deportations as the DHS attorney motioned to send another asylum seeker to an unnamed third country. But when Judge Eva Saltzman called their case, the DHS attorney did not make the same motion.

“When you move this quickly and have this volume of cases, not every case gets treated the same,” said Ben Crouse, an attorney representing the couple. The inconsistency, Crouse said, reflects the “crazy arbitrariness of the system.” 

After scheduling a follow-up hearing, Saltzman allowed the couple to speak to one another for the first time since their arrest. 

“Everything will be OK, you hear me?” Ugarte-Arenas said through tears. 

Saltzman moved on to the next case.

‘So sudden, so jarring’: Immigration ruling streamlines deportations to countries asylum seekers barely know is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

The amount some pay for Affordable Care Act health insurance will double when enhanced subsidies expire, but there isn’t evidence the number is 20 million.

KFF, a health policy nonprofit, estimates monthly payments for Obamacare recipients will increase, on average, $1,016 – more than doubling, from $888 in 2025 to $1,904 in 2026.

That counts increases to premiums and lost subsidies.

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, citing the KFF report, made the 20 million claim. U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., said Sanders was wrong.

KFF doesn’t say how many of the 24 million Obamacare enrollees will see premiums double.

But for 2 to 3 million people on the high end of income eligibility and set to lose all enhanced subsidies, premiums will double or triple. 

Enhanced subsidies, created in 2021, expire Dec. 31. Some Obamacare enrollees will receive lower enhanced subsidies or none. Standard subsidies remain.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

• KFF: ACA Marketplace Premium Payments Would More than Double on Average Next Year if Enhanced Premium Tax Credits Expire
• U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders: Email
• KFF: Email
• Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services: Health Insurance Exchanges 2025 Open Enrollment Report
• The Journalist's Resource: The battle over Affordable Care Act insurance subsidies: What to know as open enrollment looms
• NBC News: What the government shutdown's end means for Obamacare subsidies
• PolitiFact: Fact-checking Democrats’ talking points about Affordable Care Act subsidies

Will 2026 Obamacare premiums double for 20 million Americans? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 4 minutes

A Republican lawmaker’s plan to regulate drop boxes and give Wisconsin’s clerks more time to process absentee ballots ran into obstacles last week, including skepticism from fellow Republicans and a rival GOP bill to ban drop boxes entirely. 

The cool reception for Rep. Scott Krug’s ideas, especially to let clerks process ballots on the Monday before an election, underscores the GOP’s persistent internal divide over election policy in Wisconsin, with advocates of reforms long sought by election officials of both parties running into distrust fueled by conspiracy theories and misinformation. Last week, the resistance appeared strong enough to stall or complicate efforts by Republicans who aim to address clerks’ needs and craft workable policy that can gain Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ support.

That split was on full display at a Nov. 4 hearing of the Assembly Committee on Campaigns and Elections, chaired by Rep. Dave Maxey, R-New Berlin.

Krug, a former committee chair who championed the draft bill to regulate drop boxes, argued that his colleagues should adopt a “reality-based” mindset with their approach to drop boxes. Liberals, he said, control the governor’s office, making it all but certain that GOP Rep. Lindee Brill’s bill to ban drop boxes would get vetoed by Evers. 

To that, Brill responded: “I am a believer in God and a follower of Jesus Christ, so do I think there’s a chance that (Evers) would change his mind and sign this into law? Sure. But I’m taking this on because our Republican president believes this is the direction we should be heading.”

In response to questions, she dismissed an Associated Press survey of election officials that found no widespread fraud from drop boxes in the 2020 presidential election that could have affected the results, saying she wasn’t sure she considered the AP a valid source. 

“You and I find truth in different spots,” she told a Democratic lawmaker.

During the hearing, Maxey let others speak at length, including Peter Bernegger — a conspiracy theorist fined by the Wisconsin Elections Commission for making frivolous complaints — who echoed unfounded claims of widespread drop box fraud in Wisconsin.

When Krug scrutinized Brill’s proposal, though, Maxey interrupted him, leading a visibly frustrated Krug to ask him to “give me the last sentence, like we’ve let others have.”

Republicans have slim majority, divided caucus

This clash between the two views on election policy “is long-standing and is not going to be resolved anytime soon,” said Barry Burden, a UW-Madison political science professor and founder of the Elections Research Center. “Right now, it seems like neither path is really working.”

Assembly Republican leaders typically only advance bills that have 50 GOP votes, enough to pass without Democratic support. They once held 64 of 99 seats, nearly a supermajority, but now have just 54, meaning they can afford to lose only four GOP votes to advance legislation. That math and the internal distrust make passing even modest reforms difficult. Unless they can rally the more skeptical voices in their caucus, Burden said, Republicans have to be willing to cross the aisle and court Democratic votes. 

Maxey, who co-authored Brill’s bill, told Votebeat that drop boxes “are about as effective for election integrity as a mask is at preventing COVID,” an analogy that left his meaning muddled: Drop boxes in Wisconsin have never been proven to be a means for widespread fraud, whereas masks have been shown to slow the spread of COVID-19.

Maxey said his worries weren’t “wild conspiracy theories” but came from past ballot issues in Madison, though none of those involved drop boxes. He told Votebeat that he fears tampering and that voters using drop boxes might be unable to fix ballot errors.

Burden noted that valid ballots deposited in drop boxes are like any other absentee ballot and contain voters’ and witnesses’ information, which helps prevent fraud.

Monday processing proposal in doubt

Krug’s draft proposal to let local clerks begin processing absentee ballots on the Monday before an election was a change long sought by election officials to help speed up the reporting of results, but blocked by a few conservative lawmakers. Krug and other GOP leaders hoped his proposal could win them over because it was part of a broader package that included measures conservatives want, including an explicit ban on clerks fixing, or curing, errors on absentee ballot envelopes, and the stricter regulation of drop boxes.

But at a hearing on Nov. 6, Krug conceded that both the preprocessing and drop box proposals were in jeopardy because of GOP opposition. Those measures were stripped out of the package after pushback from Brill, Maxey and other conservatives, who released their own bill to ban drop boxes entirely.

Maxey told Votebeat that he would likely give a Monday processing proposal a hearing in his committee but would vote against it — adding that he knows other Assembly Republicans are against it, too. 

Krug — who previously told Votebeat that he “would use every little ounce of political capital effort created on elections to get Monday processing done” — appeared to downplay the measure’s importance, saying it was only an issue in Milwaukee, where late-night reporting of election results often leads to conspiracy theories about fraudulent ballot dumps. 

Clerks elsewhere disagree that the problem is so localized. Marathon County Clerk Kim Trueblood, a Republican, told Votebeat she hopes Krug “hasn’t entirely given up” on the Monday processing proposal, though “that’s what it sounds like for this session, at least.”

Krug also blamed its failure so far on the governor’s office, which he said received the draft Monday processing proposal months ago but never got back to him.

“Scott Krug has taken enough you-know-what in every community in the state of Wisconsin for being bold on this issue and saying we have to do it,” Krug said. “I need partners.”

Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Shur at ashur@votebeat.org.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Wisconsin’s free newsletter here.

Wisconsin election reforms sought by clerks are stalled by GOP infighting is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

The bill to reopen the federal government would redefine hemp products to ban many of the products that are widespread in Wisconsin. But enforcing that ban could be up to the state.

The post Federal change to hemp law kicks the issue to the states appeared first on WPR.

Songwriter Hillary Reynolds of Appleton says that pregnancy and motherhood shaped her new album, "Changing Seasons."

The post Wisconsin songwriter releases debut solo folk album for quiet mornings appeared first on WPR.

The Wisconsin Department of Health Services recently applied for $1 billion in federal funds to support three areas of rural health care: workforce, technology and care coordination services.

The post Hospital CEO hopes stable finances can weather Medicaid changes, rising premiums appeared first on WPR.

An outpouring of public comments prompted state agriculture officials to reduce planned fee increases for livestock markets, dealers and truckers.

The post Wisconsin dials back livestock fee increases after outcry from farmers appeared first on WPR.

The rise and fall of progress as an ideology; the civilizing project’s contradictions trouble European artists.

The post Civilizations:The Cult of Progress appeared first on WPR.

Planes line up on the tarmac at LaGuardia Airport on Nov. 10, 2025 in New York City. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The record 43-day government shutdown that ended Wednesday night scrambled air travel, interrupted food assistance and forced federal workers to go without a paycheck for weeks.

It also cost the U.S. economy about $15 billion per week, White House Council of Economic Advisers Director Kevin Hassett told reporters Thursday.  

As the government began to reopen Thursday, officials were working to untangle those issues and others.

But in some areas, the processes for getting things back to normal after such a lengthy shutdown will also take time. 

President Donald Trump on Wednesday night signed a package passed by Congress reopening the government, which closed on Oct. 1 after lawmakers failed to pass a stopgap spending bill.

Flights back on schedule by Thanksgiving?

The Federal Aviation Administration’s shutdown plan, announced last week by Administrator Bryan Bedford and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, was to reduce flights to 40 major airports by 10%. 

As of Thursday afternoon, the FAA had not lifted the order restricting flights. But the agency did stop ramping up the percentage of those affected. 

The FAA started by asking airlines to cancel 4% of flights Nov. 7. A Wednesday order halted the rate at 6%.

That was enough to cause major disruptions to travel, and it remained unclear Thursday how long it would take to resume normal operations. 

In a statement, Airlines for America, the trade group representing the nation’s commercial air carriers, welcomed the end of the shutdown but was vague about how much longer air travelers would see disruptions. The statement noted the upcoming holiday as a possible milestone. 

“When the FAA gives airlines clearance to return to full capacity, our crews will work quickly to ramp up operations especially with Thanksgiving holiday travel beginning next week,” the group’s statement said. 

The FAA and Transportation Department did not return messages seeking updates Thursday.

The reduction in flights was meant to ease pressure on air traffic controllers, who worked through the shutdown without pay. 

Many missed work as they pursued short-term jobs in other industries. Duffy said that left the controllers on the job overstressed and possibly prone to costly mistakes.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem sought to reward other federal workers at airports, those employed by her department’s Transportation Security Administration, with $10,000 bonuses if they maintained high attendance records during the shutdown.

Noem handed out checks to TSA workers in Houston on Thursday and said more could come. 

Federal workers return, with back pay on the way

Hundreds of thousands of federal workers who had been furloughed returned to the office Thursday and those who had been working without pay will continue their duties knowing their next paycheck should be on time. 

All workers will receive back pay for the shutdown, in accordance with a 2019 law that states employees “shall be paid for such work, at the employee’s standard rate of pay, at the earliest date possible after the lapse in appropriations, regardless of scheduled pay dates.”

A spokesperson for the Office of Management and Budget said the White House has urged agencies to get back pay to employees “expeditiously and accurately.”

Agencies will need to submit time and attendance files, and payroll processors can then issue checks. According to the spokesperson, agencies have different pay schedules and payroll processors, and “discrepancies in timing and pay periods are a result of that.”

The office estimates that workers will receive a “supercheck” for the pay period from Oct. 1 to Nov. 1 on the following dates:

Nov. 15

• General Services Administration
• Office of Personnel Management

Nov. 16

• Departments of Energy, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs and Defense

Nov. 17

• Departments of Education, State, Interior and Transportation
• Environmental Protection Agency
• NASA
• National Science Foundation
• Nuclear Regulatory Commission
• Social Security Administration

Nov. 19

• Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor and Treasury
• Small Business Administration

Doreen Greenwald, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, said in a statement Wednesday that federal workers across all agencies “should not have to wait another minute longer for the paychecks they lost during the longest government shutdown in history.” 

“The anxiety has been devastating as they cut back on spending, ran up credit card debt, took out emergency loans, filed for unemployment, found temporary side jobs, stood in line for food assistance, skipped filling prescriptions and worried about the future. Federal employees should receive the six weeks of back pay they are owed immediately upon the reopening of the federal government,” said Greenwald. 

The union represents workers at 38 federal agencies and offices.

States Newsroom spoke to several furloughed federal workers who attended a special food distribution event during the shutdown.

The American Federation of Government Employees, one of multiple unions that sued the Trump administration over layoffs during the shutdown, said its members were used “as leverage to advance political priorities,” according to a statement issued Tuesday by the union’s national president, Everett Kelley.

The AFGE, which according to the union represents roughly 820,000 federal workers, did not immediately respond for comment Thursday.

The shutdown-ending deal reinstated jobs for fired federal employees and prohibits any reductions in force by the administration until Jan. 30.

Federal workers speak out

A statement released Thursday by a group of federal workers across agencies struck a different tone on the shutdown and praised the 40 senators and 209 representatives who voted against the temporary spending bill deal.

“The fight mattered. It changed the conversation. More members of the American public now understand that Trump is shredding the Constitution,” according to the statement issued by the Civil Servants Coalition.

The coalition also noted, “Even though the government is reopening, none of us will be able to fully deliver our agency’s missions. Our work has been exploited and dismantled since January through harmful policies and illegal purges of critical staff.”

The group emailed the statement as a PDF document to an unknown number of government workers and urged them to “channel that frustration toward action” by contacting their representatives.

SNAP saga concludes

The government reopening ended a drawn-out saga over the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which helps 42 million people afford groceries. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture told states in a Thursday memo they “must take immediate steps to ensure households receive their full November allotments promptly.”

The guidance also noted that states should prepare for another shutdown as soon as next October by upgrading systems so that they could allow for partial payments. 

A key point of dispute between the administration and those seeking SNAP benefits was the lengthy time the administration said it would take to fund partial benefits. 

A Wednesday evening statement from a department spokesperson said full benefits would be disbursed in most states by Thursday night. 

Lauren Kallins, a senior legislative director for the National Conference of State Legislatures, said Thursday “states are all working hard to resume full benefits.”

 “But there will likely be logistical challenges, depending on a state’s system’s capabilities and whether the state had already issued partial benefits, that may impact how quickly a state is able to push out” benefits, she wrote. 

The program, which is funded by the federal government and administered by states, sends monthly payments on a rolling basis. 

That means that the day of the month each household receives its allotment varies. Households that usually receive benefits mid-month or later should see no interruption. 

But many of the program’s beneficiaries receive their payments earlier in the month, meaning that, depending on their state, they may have missed their November payments. 

Some states, including Democrat-run Wisconsin, Oregon and Michigan, began paying full benefits last week after a Rhode Island federal judge ordered the administration to release full November payments and the department issued guidance to states to do so.

The administration then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to pause enforcement of the Rhode Island judge’s order and reversed its guidance to states, telling them to “immediately undo” efforts to pay out full November benefits.

The Department of Justice dropped its Supreme Court case Thursday. 

“Because the underlying dispute here is now moot, the government withdraws its November 7 stay application in this Court,” U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote to the high court.

In the trial court, the administration cited the USDA guidance and said it would discuss the future of the litigation with the coalition of cities and nonprofit groups that brought the suit. 

Capital area tourist attractions reopen

Tourists in the nation’s capital have been shut out of the Smithsonian Institution’s 17 free museums and zoo for most of the federal shutdown.

The institution on Friday will open the National Museum of American History, the National Air and Space Museum and the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center, an annex of the Air and Space Museum located at Dulles International Airport in Virginia, according to a message posted on the Smithsonian’s website.

All other museums and the National Zoo will open on a “rolling basis” by Nov. 17.

Multiple public-facing agencies, including the National Park Service and Internal Revenue Service, did not respond to States Newsroom’s requests for reopening information.

National parks were closed or partially closed during the shutdown.

Several IRS services were reduced or altogether cut as the funding lapse dragged on. Those disruptions included limited IRS telephone customer service operations and the closure of in-person Taxpayer Assistance Centers.

An aerial view shows an Amazon data center last year in Ashburn, Va. A new study found that most states offering subsidies for data centers do not disclose the recipients of those tax benefits. (Photo by Nathan Howard/Getty Images)

Most states offering incentives to data centers don’t disclose which companies benefit, according to a new report.

At least 36 states have crafted subsidies specifically for data center projects, according to Good Jobs First, a nonprofit watchdog group that tracks economic development incentives. But only 11 of those states — Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin — disclose which companies receive those incentives.

In a new study, the organization examined a lack of transparency in data center deals, which are proliferating across the country as technology demands increase.  

Despite data centers’ significant energy requirements, states frequently compete heavily to land the projects, which invest millions or even billions into new construction. But the study noted those projects often employ nondisclosure agreements, project code names and subsidiary names that hide the firms behind the new server farms.

“Only when governments disclose information on which companies get public money and what they do with it can there be meaningful analysis, greater public participation, and wiser use of public financial resources,” the report says.

Good Jobs First specifically examined sales and use tax exemptions that benefit data centers. The study does not account for local property tax abatements, corporate income tax credits and discounts on electricity and water rates.

Virginia, the largest data center market in the world, forgoes nearly $1 billion in state and local sales and use tax revenue each year without telling the public which companies benefit or how much they receive, the study said.

Good Jobs First underscored state calculations that show data center subsidies do not provide a return on taxpayer investments. It recommends states eliminate or curtail data center subsidies. “At the very least, states should practice full transparency,” the report said.

Good Jobs First says states must reassess their investments in data centers with federal cuts looming that will strain state finances.

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

A sign acknowledging Stewardship program support at Firemen's Park in Verona. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

A Wisconsin Assembly committee deadlocked 6-6 Wednesday on a Republican-authored bill to prevent the broadly popular Knowles-Nelson Stewardship program from lapsing next year. 

The program, which allows the state Department of Natural Resources to purchase, conserve and maintain public land enjoys bipartisan support among Wisconsin residents. However a subset of Republican legislators have soured on the program’s intentions, arguing too much land has been pulled off local property tax rolls in northern Wisconsin. Republicans have also complained that a state Supreme Court decision removed their authority to conduct oversight of the program. 

Previously, members of the Joint Committee on Finance had the ability to anonymously hold up stewardship projects. 

Republicans in the Legislature stripped money to re-authorize the program out of the state budget earlier this year and both parties have proposed competing pieces of legislation to keep it running beyond 2026. 

On Wednesday, the Assembly Committee on Forestry, Parks and Outdoor Recreation took up the Republican bill, authored by Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc). Democrats and environmental groups have been unsupportive of the Kurtz bill since its initial release because it requires that any attempt by the DNR to acquire land at a cost of more than $1 million be approved by the full Legislature through standalone legislation. 

Critics have argued the full legislative process is the opposite of what the Court intended when it took the anonymous hold power away from JFC, that the Legislature could never move quickly enough for the speed at which real estate transactions must sometimes take place and the public nature of legislation could scare off potential sellers. 

Earlier this week, Kurtz released a proposed amendment to his bill that would lower the threshold requiring legislative approval from $1 million to $250,000. 

A Democratic proposal, which was introduced as a separate bill this summer and offered as an amendment to the Republican bill this week, would create an independent board, nominated by members of both parties, to oversee the program outside of the legislative process. 

On Wednesday, the committee voted 7-5 in favor of accepting Kurtz’s amendment to his bill. Rep. Paul Melotic (R-Grafton) voted with the committee’s four Democrats against the amendment. 

But on the vote to advance the bill out of committee, Reps. Calvin Callahan (R-Tomahawk) and Rob Swearingen (R-Rhinelander) joined the Democrats to vote no, resulting in the 6-6 tie.

When an Assembly committee votes for a bill, it reports the bill to the full Assembly floor and recommends that it be passed. According to Assembly rules, when a committee ties on a vote, the chair of the committee has the discretion to report the bill to the full Assembly “without recommendation.” 

The bill has already been reported to the full Assembly for a potential vote, according to the office of Rep. Jeff Mursau (R-Crivitz), the committee’s chair.

In a statement, a spokesperson for Rep. Vincent Miresse (D-Stevens Point), a co-author of the Democratic proposal, said “Wisconsin Democrats are united in their support and vision for Knowles-Nelson,” while “Republicans cannot seem to agree on a path forward.”

Charles Carlin, the director of strategic initiatives at the non-profit land trust organization Gathering Waters, told the Wisconsin Examiner that Wednesday’s vote shows the only way to save the program is with a bill that can get support from both parties. 

“Today’s hearing was a missed opportunity for bipartisan cooperation on the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship program,” Carlin said. “There is ample room for compromise across the aisle. But today’s deadlocked committee vote demonstrates that no reauthorization is going to move forward without buy-in from both parties. The hearing should motivate legislators on both sides of the aisle to come together and work out a compromise that keeps Knowles-Nelson working for Wisconsin.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., left, accompanied by Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., points to a poster depicting rising medical costs if Congress allows the Affordable Care Act tax credits to expire in December as he speaks to reporters following a Democratic policy luncheon at the U.S. Capitol on Oct. 15, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Congress has roughly two months to find bipartisan agreement to curb rising health insurance costs if lawmakers want to avoid another government shutdown.

That herculean task would be difficult in the best circumstances, but is much more challenging after lawmakers spent the last 43 days criticizing each other instead of building the types of trust that are usually needed for large deals. Democrats maintained they wanted to address skyrocketing premiums for individual health care plans, while Republicans insisted those talks had to occur when the government was open.

At the same time, congressional leaders will try to wrap up work on the nine full-year government funding bills that were supposed to become law before Oct. 1 and weren’t included in the package that reopened the government. 

Congress must pass all of those bills or another stopgap measure before the new Jan. 30 deadline, regardless of how well or disastrous talks on a health care bill turn out. 

The two-track negotiations will push party leaders to compromise on issues they’d rather not, especially as next year’s November midterm elections inch closer. 

Early signs were not good.

House Speaker Mike Johnson said during a Wednesday night press conference the enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credits set to expire at the end of the year are a “boondoggle” and that “Republicans would demand a lot of reforms” before agreeing to extend those in any way. 

“We currently have 433 members of the House of Representatives. There’s a lot of opinions in this building. And on our side, certainly, a lot of opinions on how to fix health care and make it more affordable. I have to allow that process to play out,” Johnson, R-La., said. 

While Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., made a commitment to hold a vote on a health care bill before the end of December to conclude the shutdown, Johnson has avoided giving a timeline for when he would bring any similar legislation to the floor. 

President Donald Trump, aside from throwing insults at Democrats, largely stayed on the sidelines of the shutdown fight, though he suggested the funds used for the tax credits should in some way go directly to individuals instead of large insurance companies.

Pessimism over progress

The shutdown highlighted the stark differences Republicans and Democrats hold on health care as prices for insurance continue to spike, forcing millions of Americans to choose between taking care of themselves and breaking their budgets, States Newsroom found in interviews with members of Congress. 

GOP leaders held together throughout the funding lapse and didn’t negotiate on the expiring ACA marketplace tax credits, or anything else. 

Now that it’s over, Republicans will need to put something forward.

Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said her sense is that Congress will “probably be in the same place on January 30th that we are now.”

“We have two parties here, two sides,” DeLauro said. “In the past … we’ve had serious negotiation back and forth, and that’s what we need to do, and that’s not happening.”

While Republicans have unified control of government, major legislation needs the support of at least 60 senators to advance in that chamber. Republicans hold 53 seats at the moment, meaning at least some Democrats must support a bill for it to pass. 

DeLauro did not rule out another shutdown, saying Democrats plan to take the next few months “one day at a time,” while closely watching what Republicans are willing to do on the nine full-year appropriations bills and health care costs. 

Maryland Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer, former House majority leader and a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, said Republican leaders keeping that chamber in recess for nearly two months leading up to and during the shutdown significantly delayed work on the full-year government funding bills. 

Hoyer said that scheduling decision was a clear “indication they’re not interested in solving the problem.”

“If they were, they would have had members here working on appropriation bills,” Hoyer said. “And the only way you’re going to ultimately solve this problem is to pass appropriation bills.”

Hoyer said the real question facing Congress now isn’t whether there is time to work out agreement on the remaining nine government spending bills, but whether there’s a will to make the types of compromises needed. 

Untangling spending bills

The spending package that reopened the government included three of the dozen full-year bills, funding the Agriculture Department, Food and Drug Administration, Legislative Branch, military construction projects and Department of Veterans Affairs.

The remaining appropriations bills will be considerably tougher to resolve, especially because the House and Senate have yet to agree on how much they want to spend across the thousands of programs. Trump proposed major cutbacks in multiple programs in his budget request earlier this year that Democrats have strongly resisted.

The Defense, Homeland Security, Labor-HHS-Education and State-Foreign Operations bills will be some of the more difficult to settle. 

Congress could always lean on another stopgap spending bill to keep funding relatively flat for the departments and agencies not covered by a full-year bill before Jan. 30. But lawmakers will need bipartisan support to advance in the Senate.

Washington Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal, former chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said Republicans don’t seem to grasp how much Americans are struggling with the cost of living, including for health insurance and health care. 

“My constituents are already telling me that they’re making that choice between having health insurance or having a house to live in, and they’re going to choose the house,” Jayapal said. 

Whether or not a partial government shutdown begins in early 2026 will likely depend on whether Republican lawmakers from swing districts force bipartisanship on a health care bill. 

“I really don’t know,” Jayapal said. “I think it depends on these vulnerable House Republicans, who are not going to be able to go back to their constituents without telling them that they’ve done something on health care.”

Political juice and a backbone

Democratic Rep. Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico said she wouldn’t be surprised if Congress is unable to strike a deal on government funding and winds up in a partial shutdown by February. 

“Do I think that the Republicans have the political juice to get … the rest of their appropriation bills across the finish line and a health care deal? No,” Stansbury said. 

She added that she hopes a handful of Republicans decide to join Democrats on the discharge petition bill that would force a floor vote on a bill to extend the ACA marketplace subsidies for three years. 

“We gotta find a few brave Republicans who still have a backbone and some guts to stand up to this administration and actually care for their constituents,” Stansbury said. 

But any bipartisan deal to extend those health care tax credits seems fraught, as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries slammed Republicans as having “zero credibility on this issue.”

He pointed to Republicans trying several times to repeal the Affordable Care Act, including their last attempt in 2017, when GOP Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine and the late John McCain of Arizona crossed party lines to vote against repealing the 2010 law.

“There’s no evidence that they’re serious about extending the Affordable Care Act tax credits,” Jeffries, of New York, said. “Republicans have zero interest in fixing the health care crisis that they’ve created.”

‘No point in taking 41 days to cave’

When Democrats controlled both chambers, temporary health care subsidies were originally passed as part of the COVID-19-era American Rescue Plan in 2021 for two years. 

With Democrats still controlling both chambers, lawmakers approved the Inflation Reduction Act, the 2022 signature climate policy bill from the Biden administration, that extended those health care subsidies for three years, expiring at the end of December 2025.

The outcome of the just concluded shutdown is shaping some House Democrats’ views.

Virginia Democratic Rep. Bobby Scott said if there is a new shutdown come February, Senate Democrats will have to decide whether they’re going to “cave again, or at least engage in negotiations.” 

“When the (Senate) Democrats say: ‘Our strategy wasn’t working,’ it wasn’t working because they assume you’re going to cave, which you just proved,” Scott told States Newsroom. “Their strategy worked — trying to get them to negotiate and talk to you doesn’t because they know you’re going to cave.”

Scott said “there’s no point in taking 41 days to cave,” pointing to the eight members of the Senate Democratic Caucus who broke ranks to advance and later approve the package to reopen the government. 

“Why don’t you just cave right at the beginning, on February 2nd?” he said. “If the Republican strategy is: ‘We’re not going to negotiate at all because you’re going to cave,’ you have to show them that you’re not going to cave, then you can have a discussion.”

Scott said the same health care issues will still exist if nothing happens between now and the package’s Jan. 30 government funding deadline.  

“By then, we’ll know that several million people don’t have health insurance, we’ll know that rural hospitals are beginning to suffer,” Scott said. 

Delaware Democratic Rep. Sarah McBride said that “from today through November (2026) and after, we will continue to be talking about health care, to be fighting for health care.”

“I think what you’ve seen over the last several months, you will continue to see from us through November and then, God willing, once we’re in a majority, we’ll do all that we can to reverse these cuts and restore care and expand access to it,” she said. 

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin) speaks Wednesday about the effort to extend enhanced Affordable Care Act insurance premium tax credits that will expire at the end of 2025. Nancy Peske, left, and Julia Harris-Robinson, center also joined the press conference. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

With the loss of enhanced subsidies for the health insurance she has bought on the federal marketplace HealthCare.gov, Nancy Peske’s health plan will cost $1,163.50 a month in 2026.

That’s more than three times what she paid this year — $372 a month, Peske said Wednesday.

But if there’s one thing she wants everyone to know, it’s this: The higher prices for health insurance aren’t just something that she and other people who buy their coverage on the federal marketplace are facing.

Long before the ACA, Peske learned about “the premium death spiral,” she said.

“The more you raise the price, the more people drop out of the pool. This means you have to raise the price, which means more people drop out of the pool. And it goes on and on and on,” Peske said.

“It’s not just my health insurance that’s going to go up. It’s everybody’s — right?” she said. “We’re all in this together.”

Peske was one of two people who have relied on HealthCare.gov, created as part of the Affordable Care Act, who spoke Wednesday at a press conference in Milwaukee with Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin).

Baldwin called the press conference  to draw attention anew to the skyrocketing cost of health insurance — and to the failure of Congress to address it in the stopgap spending bill that passed the U.S. Senate Monday, the U.S. House Wednesday evening and was signed by President Donald Trump.

“This is a health and wellness issue,” Baldwin said. “This is an affordability and cost-of-living issue, and this is a quality of life and dignity issue. And it touches every single one of us right now.”

A success amid ‘a broken system’

Health care in the U.S. is “a broken system that prioritizes profits over patients,” Baldwin said. Despite that, she said, the 2010 Affordable Care Act was an important advance for expanding health care access.

She said that was improved by enhanced federal subsidies enacted in 2021 to offset the cost of health insurance for people who must buy their own policies on the federal HealthCare.gov marketplace that was created by the ACA — making insurance more affordable and drawing record numbers of people to the marketplace to get health coverage.

The enhanced subsidies expire at the end of 2025, however, and until this week a Republican stopgap spending bill that passed the U.S. House in September stalled in the U.S. Senate as Democrats pushed unsuccessfully to extend the subsidies.  

“That is what is at the center of the government shutdown and debate in Washington, D.C.,” Baldwin said. “We know the impact of taking away these tax breaks. For 275,000 Wisconsinites, their health care [insurance] costs will double, triple or even more. For 30,000 Wisconsinites, they predict the price will be too high, and that those Wisconsinites will go without insurance altogether.”

A handful of Democratic Senators changed their votes Monday to advance the spending bill in return for a promise of a future vote on the subsidies, with the House taking up the revised bill Wednesday. Baldwin didn’t join them.

“I said the entire time that a handshake deal with my Republican colleagues to reopen the government and no real action to lower health care costs was simply not good enough,” said Baldwin of her vote against the bill.

She also forced an amendment to extend the tax credits for a year — a compromise, she said, because she wants them extended permanently, but one she offered “to avoid catastrophe for families across Wisconsin and give folks breathing room while we negotiate longer-term solutions.”

The amendment failed on a party-line vote.

“Every single Republican voted no on my amendment,” Baldwin said. “They chose to send a clear, unmistakable message that they are OK with jacking up health care costs on 22 million Americans.”

Early retirement, then sticker shock

HealthCare.gov user Erica Topps also joined Baldwin’s news conference. Topps took early retirement in April and bought a health insurance policy through the federal marketplace for herself and her college-age daughter that started in June.

At the marketplace open enrollment for 2026 that started Nov. 1, that plan’s premium increased by $1,200 a month and the deductible went from $6,700 per person to $10,600 per person, Topps told reporters She found another plan via the marketplace and is enrolling, but she’s concerned about the future beyond that.

“Part of my plan is to go back to work” so she can get health insurance, Topps told the Wisconsin Examiner, because it will be 10 years before she can qualify for Medicare.

Before taking early retirement, “I did my due diligence,” she said. “I feel like the rug was pulled out from under me.”

Peske is a freelance writer, editor and consultant. She is also a cancer survivor, whose diagnosis two years ago was covered thanks to her HealthCare.gov policy. Going without health insurance is unthinkable, but at the age of 63, she must wait another two years before she can go on Medicare, she said.

Peske told the Wisconsin Examiner that she will scrape together the money to afford her new premium. “I’ll not put a dime into my underfunded retirement account,” she said. She expects to “tighten the belt” on household expenses, “and I will probably cut into my savings.”

Freelancers and small businesses account for 40% of the U.S. economy, Peske told reporters.

“Do you want everyone to go out of business?” she asked. “Should I just do what so many people do and get a much lower paying job at a company? Because I’m desperate for health care. I don’t think that’s the solution. I think you want to keep people like me in business, generating money, adding to the economy, and being able to live, to not die of cancer.”

Seeking inroads with GOP lawmakers

Baldwin said she has been talking with Republicans about finding common ground in increased transparency in the health care system, from insurance companies, pharmacy benefit managers and providers.

In addition, she told the Wisconsin Examiner after the press conference, she continues to have conversations with GOP Senate colleagues who have expressed interest in continuing the subsidies to avert the sharp hike in premiums.

None of them were willing to break ranks and vote for her amendment this week, however.

“Those discussions were happening informally, in quiet, not in the public spotlight,” Baldwin said. “But they were afraid to vote on something that they, probably, some of them want, because Donald Trump said you can’t talk about this before the government reopens.”

Baldwin said that the next step will be for the Democrats to settle on the bill that Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune has promised they could bring to the upper chamber for a vote.

As much as she favors a permanent extension of the enhanced credits, if the Democrats go that route, “we know it will go down, and it will be on a pretty much a partisan vote,” Baldwin said.

“I want results, so that probably dictates towards supporting something that conceivably does respond to some of the concerns Republicans have raised,” she said. “I’d like to pick the path most reasonably likely to succeed on behalf of the people who sent me to Washington to fight for them.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The U.S. Capitol on the evening of Tuesday, Sept. 30, 2025, just hours before a federal government shutdown. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

The longest government shutdown in U.S. history is over and all we got was the near-cancellation of food assistance just in time for Thanksgiving and a looming explosion in health care costs.

None of the problems that led to the shutdown have been resolved. Instead, a handful of Democrats abandoned their fight to force Congress to address the health care crisis in exchange for rolling back some of the damage the Trump administration did during the shutdown itself. Federal workers are getting their jobs back — for now — and flight cancellations will end just in time for the holiday travel season. Otherwise, we’re pretty much back where we started. 

Democrats are fuming and Republicans are gloating over the end of this game of chicken, in which the party that showed it doesn’t care at all about the pain and suffering of its own constituents is the apparent winner. Stay tuned to see how long the glow of victory lasts as members of Congress go home to face the voters. 

During the fruitless shutdown battle, a couple of politicians from Wisconsin who are not facing election anytime soon showed real leadership. Their focus on serving the needs of real people, not political posturing, was a breath of fresh air, and a model of the kind of public service we badly need.

Gov. Tony Evers deserves a lot of credit for acting quickly to pay out food assistance funds to nearly 700,000 Wisconsinites last Friday as soon as a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to release the money, which it had been withholding for a week. Evers acted in the nick of time. The Trump administration appealed the decision and, on the strength of an emergency ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, demanded that Wisconsin and other states that had paid out the benefits overnight claw them back. Evers issued a terse response: “No.” 

Thanks to his leadership, hundreds of thousands of Wisconsinites, including 270,000 kids, were spared from going hungry because of the Trump administration’s capricious cruelty. With the shutdown over, the battle over food assistance has ended and the USDA has said full nutrition benefits will begin flowing to states again within 24 hours of the shutdown’s end. But as Evers said when he seized the moment and released the funds, “It never should’ve come to this.” The feds had the money to prevent kids from going hungry all along. Trump made a deliberate decision to cut off aid, and then to demand that states pay only partial benefits, on the theory that doing so would punish Democrats for refusing to reopen the government on Trump’s terms. 

Evers deserves a lot of credit for his decisive action to protect Wisconsinites from harm.

Another Wisconsin politician who has been working overtime to stave off disaster for residents is U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin. 

Baldwin has spent her entire career working to expand health care access, including writing the provision of the Affordable Care Act that allows children to stay on their parents’ health insurance until they reach the age of 26. She has a reputation for doggedly working across the aisle and, during the shutdown, she never gave up trying to get Senate Republicans to agree to extend ACA tax credits. 

This week, when eight Senate Democrats joined the Republicans on a resolution to reopen the government that didn’t include any language about the coming spike in health care costs, Baldwin forced a Senate vote on an amendment to extend the ACA credits for one more year. Many Senate Republicans had told her they knew the expiration of those credits would drive health care costs through the roof in their states.  

In her floor speech introducing her amendment, Baldwin said: 

“My Republican colleagues are refusing to act to stop health care premiums from doubling for over 20 million Americans. I just can’t stand by without a fight.”

Even as people across the country express shock and dismay, “Donald Trump and congressional Republicans have simply refused to address the biggest increase in American premiums they’ll likely ever experience,” Baldwin said.  

“I’m getting calls daily from Wisconsinites begging me to stay in this fight,” she added. She told her Senate colleagues about a couple from Door County who told her their premiums are going up by over $550 per month because of the failure to extend the ACA tax credits. “Everything is already too expensive. So where are they supposed to find 6,500 extra dollars in their budget?” she asked. 

Another couple from Butternut, Wisconsin, told her their premiums are going from $400 per month to more than $5,000 per month — “that’s $55,000 more a year,” she said. “As they wrote to me, ‘health care tax breaks are not just numbers on paper. They are a lifeline that allows us to sleep at night knowing that we won’t lose everything if one of us gets sick.’” 

Baldwin was back in the state Wednesday where, as Erik Gunn reports, she is holding a series of town hall meetings with people affected by rising health care costs. She is holding out hope that some of her Republican colleagues will come around on the issue. She refused to answer questions about whether she thinks Sen. Chuck Schumer should be ousted from his position as Minority Leader because of the end of the shutdown fight. 

Characteristically, she is keeping her head down and working to build bipartisan support — as she did, successfully, when she persuaded enough Republicans to join her to pass the Respect for Marriage Act protecting same-sex and interracial couples — instead of using it to score political points.

As we move past the shutdown power struggle and into the real fight over people’s lives, we need more of that kind of leadership. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

SB 403 would prohibit a political committee, political party or conduit from accepting contributions that are made with a credit card online unless the contributor provides their credit card verification value (CVV) or code and the billing address associated with the card is located in the United States. Wisconsin State Capitol (Wisconsin Examiner photo)

Wisconsin lawmakers considered proposals to crack down on political contributions made with credit cards online and to provide additional information on constitutional amendment proposals to voters during a Senate Licensing, Regulatory Reform, State and Federal Affairs committee meeting Wednesday. The committee also took up a constitutional amendment proposal to forbid the government from shutting down places of worship during a state of emergency. 

New requirements for credit card political donations

Sen. Cory Tomczyk (R-Mosinee) said his bill creating new requirements for political donations made with a credit card online will  ensure there is a “good, secure” process in place in Wisconsin. 

“Let’s acknowledge that we need to know that unlawful sources and foreign entities are not infiltrating our campaigns and elections,” Tomczyk said, and that “citizens are funding candidates here in Wisconsin.”

The bill, SB 403, would prohibit a political committee, political party or conduit from accepting contributions that are made with a credit card online unless the contributor provides their credit card verification value (CVV) or code and the billing address associated with the card is located in the United States. 

If a U.S. citizen is living outside the country and wants to make a contribution from a credit card that doesn’t have a U.S. billing address, then the person would need to provide a mailing address used for voter registration. 

“I’m trying to make elections more secure, the donation process more secure,” Tomczyk said. 

The bill comes as Republicans and the Trump administration have targeted ActBlue — a Massachusetts-based platform that processes donations to Democratic campaigns — claiming that the platform facilitates so-called “smurfing,” a form of money laundering where large sums of money are broken down into smaller, less noticeable transactions and could allow for “straw donors” and foreign contributions. Stakeholders, including ActBlue and Democrats, have said that the action by the administration is an attack on the democratic process.

Wisconsin U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil, in his position as chair of the U.S. House Committee on House Administration, launched an investigation into ActBlue asking whether it required CVV information from contributors in 2023. 

The company said at the time that while it did not, it has many other measures in place to confirm the permissibility of contributions and prevent fraudulent transactions including a requirement for passport information if a donor provides an address outside the U.S. 

Steil has since proposed federal legislation that would require credit card verification for online donations. 

Sen. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee) expressed concerns over how the bill could create barriers for individuals looking to contribute.

“Why are you trying to ban citizens from being able to donate by credit card?” Larson asked. 

“If they’re not voting in the United States, they’re allowed to donate by credit card if they’re providing all the information that the bill outlines. If they don’t have a voting address, it’s kind of odd,” Tomczyk replied. “I’m pretty sure it’d be a pretty small amount of people.”

The authors of the bill also said people could still donate by check and other methods if they didn’t have the necessary information. 

“It sounds like this is just putting up additional hurdles for people who want to donate by credit card and it just seems like, especially for smaller dollar donations, people who aren’t writing a lot of checks,” Larson said. “Most of the people that I know are giving with credit cards because they don’t use checks.”

Larson said the bill could make it harder for people to participate in democracy through political contributions. 

The authors of the bill claimed there have been examples of “smurfing” in Wisconsin, though they provided no specific examples when asked. 

“This is not something that comes up out of the blue. People have been interviewed about contributions that they gave with their credit card that they said they never gave,” Rep. Dave Murphy (R-Hortonville) said. 

“You guys sound like Gargamel as much as you’re talking about smurfing,” Larson said at one point, referring to the fictional antagonist in the Smurfs cartoon franchise. “Come up with an example. Give me some proof really if you want the governor to be able to sign it.”

“In testimony, I don’t think I have to show proof. I have to provide information and… get enough support to pass it through,” Tomczyk said. 

Providing information on constitutional amendments

Lawmakers are also proposing a way to ensure Wisconsin voters have information on the potential effects of constitutional amendments. 

SB 205 follows years of the Republican-led Legislature turning to constitutional amendment proposals as a way to make changes to law without going through Democratic Gov. Tony Evers. The most recent constitutional amendment that was approved by voters enshrined voter identification requirements in law, and other amendment proposals are circulating this session, including one to restrict the governor’s partial veto power. 

The committee heard from Tomczyk and Rep. Jerry O’Connor (R-Fond Du Lac) on their bill, which seeks to provide information about constitutional amendments to voters ahead of elections. 

“I’ve heard from countless friends and constituents, even people with college degrees and professional titles, all who tell me that every time they vote on a constitutional amendment the wording on the ballot makes no sense to them,” Tomczyk said. “The legalese, if you will, that is used on the ballot, is of course necessary and should be presented, but for regular everyday residents of Wisconsin, it might as well be in a different language. There has to be a way to explain what these amendments do so that people know what they are voting for.” 

“This is only meant to inform voters better about what they are voting for or against,” Tomczyk said. 

The bill would require a notice to go to voters that would include the date of the referendum, the text of the ballot question, the plain language summary of current law, an explanation in plain language of a proposed constitutional amendment and an explanation in plain language of the effects of a “yes” versus a “no” vote.

O’Connor said the Legislative Reference Bureau, the nonpartisan agency that drafts bills and proposals for the Legislature, would be responsible for writing the information in a black box. 

“The black box we cannot touch as legislators,” O’Connor said. He added that the legislation is “non-partisan, bipartisan and voter focused.” 

While the bill only has Republican cosponsors, it advanced through the Assembly Campaigns and Elections committee unanimously with support from two Democratic lawmakers. The bill is also supported by the League of Women Voters, the ACLU of Wisconsin, Disability Rights Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. 

Places of worship constitutional amendment

The committee also took up Senate Joint Resolution 4, a constitutional amendment proposal that would prohibit the state from ordering the closure of places of worship during a state of emergency. 

This is the Legislature’s second consideration of the proposal, which was first introduced and passed by the Legislature during the 2023-25 session. 

The proposal was introduced in reaction to actions taken during the COVID-19 pandemic when Gov. Tony Evers’ administration declared a state of emergency. 

Evers’ initial “Safer at Home” order in March 2020 explicitly designated religious entities as essential, though it said any gatherings should include fewer than 10 people in a room or confined space at a time and that people needed to adhere to social distancing requirements as much as possible. It also advised and permitted places of worship to have drive-in services. 

Before the constitutional amendment proposal, Evers vetoed a bill in 2021 that would have prohibited local health officers from taking any action to close or forbid gatherings in places of worship to control outbreaks and epidemics of COVID-19. 

Tomczyk noted an incident at Pilgrim Lutheran Church in West Bend where a law enforcement officer showed up to shut down a service after a neighbor called in to report the gathering. According to a Wisconsin Public Radio report, the incident was a misunderstanding and the police department later apologized to the church.

“In America, in Wisconsin, law enforcement stopped the church service because the government decided that a virus was more important than the constitutional rights of Americans. That is unacceptable,” Tomczyk said. “Many people in our great state seek solace in times of difficulty within their church, synagogue, or other plates of worship. It is critical that we continue to protect every individual’s ability to gather and worship at the times when they rely on their faiths the most.” 

Larson asked Tomczyk whether he was open to holding a religious organization liable if people “get sick and die” because they decide to meet against the direction of a public health emergency.

“No,” Tomczyk replied. 

“So… if there is a deadly pandemic, people are dying… and their parishioners die, you are fine with those deaths?” Larson asked. 

“I’m supportive of people’s constitutional right to gather and to worship at the times that they choose and, and if they make that decision, God bless them,” Tomczyk said. 

According to the constitutional amendment draft, voters would be asked whether the state constitution should be “amended to prohibit the state or a political subdivision of the state from ordering the closure of, or forbidding gatherings in, places of worship in response to a state of emergency, including a public health emergency?”

The proposal received a hearing in the Assembly in May, but has not yet been voted on there. 

If the bill passes the Assembly and Senate this session, it would be placed in front of voters during the November elections in 2026 alongside a slate of other high-profile races, including the one for governor.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

On November 12, 2025, the RENEW Wisconsin Board of Directors voted to appoint Ismaeel Chartier as the Executive Director of RENEW Wisconsin. Ismaeel steps into this role after three months in the role of Interim Executive Director. Prior to his time leading the organization, he served RENEW as the Business Development Director, having started with the organization in 2023.

Ismaeel came to RENEW with a deep background in the nonprofit sector, having served at a handful of nonprofits over nearly two decades. Some highlights of his career include Executive Director of the Walworth County Alliance for Children and Executive Director of the Impact Advocacy Coalition of Cincinnati.

“I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to serve as Executive Director of RENEW Wisconsin,” Executive Director Ismaeel Chartier said. “This organization has walked through a season of change, and I’m honored by the trust placed in me to lead us into what comes next. The road ahead is demanding and full of big decisions, but I welcome that challenge. Wisconsin’s clean energy future will not build itself; it requires disciplined leadership, strong partnerships, and a team willing to push together. I’m committed to carrying this work forward with humility, resolve, and a steady focus on the long-term impact we can make for communities across our state.”

Ismaeel’s appointment to this position comes at a time of uncertainty for the renewable energy industry and marks the end of a transitional period for RENEW Wisconsin. During his tenure as interim, he steadied our organization and began charting a vision for RENEW’s future. In doing so, he secured the confidence of the organization’s staff and board members.

“Ismaeel’s appointment as Executive Director marks an exciting new chapter for RENEW Wisconsin,” RENEW Wisconsin Board Secretary Isaiah Ness said. “His leadership brings not only the steadiness and stability the organization needs, but also a clear and compelling vision for the future. We are honored to welcome him into this role at such a pivotal moment. Under his guidance, RENEW is poised to deliver greater value to its members, partners, and communities than ever before.”

Staff and board alike congratulate Ismaeel on the removal of interim from his title and are glad he agreed to take on the responsibility of leading our organization. Now, we look ahead to the future and all that we can build together.

The post RENEW Wisconsin Board of Directors Selects Ismaeel Chartier as Executive Director appeared first on RENEW Wisconsin.

(The Center Square) – Wisconsin’s Public Service Commission approved a pair of residential electricity rate hikes last week, including 13.9% for Alliant Energy over two years and 20% for Xcel Energy.