The program is a streamlined application process that directly sends a students’ high school transcripts to UW-Milwaukee and MATC.

The post Milwaukee Direct Admit program hopes to double number of MPS students this year appeared first on WPR.

Wisconsin’s largest study on deer and chronic wasting disease shows the deadly disease substantially reduces deer survival and population growth, especially where it’s most widespread.

The post Study finds deadly disease reduces deer survival, population growth in Wisconsin appeared first on WPR.

The Lake Superior Ice Festival is one of the city's biggest annual events. It's held on Friday and Saturday, with a plethora of activities on Barker's Island, along with ice sculptures popping up around the city.

The post From kubb to ice bowling, it’s never too cold for the Lake Superior Ice Festival appeared first on WPR.

Many of Wisconsin's rural dentists are retiring. Getting new dentists into all parts of the state is a challenge.

The post As more Wisconsin dentists retire, getting new providers to rural areas is a challenge appeared first on WPR.

The address was Gov. Tony Evers’ seventh State of the State since he first took office in 2019.

The post Evers calls for mental health, violence prevention funding in State of the State address appeared first on WPR.

Ed Bieber is working to clean up Wisconsin’s waterways — and building an online audience as he does it.

The post ‘Ed the Diver’ finds trash and treasure in Wisconsin’s waterways appeared first on WPR.

President Donald Trump holds up an executive order after signing it during an indoor inauguration parade at Capital One Arena on Jan. 20, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump Wednesday invoked an executive order he signed on his first day in office to send 1,500 military troops to the southern border, despite encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border being the lowest in several years.

“President Trump is sending a very strong message to people around this world – if you are thinking about breaking the laws of the United States of America, you will be returned home. You will be arrested. You will be prosecuted,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters, according to pool reports.

While Leavitt said 1,500 troops would be sent, she did not specify from where or when they would arrive at the border.

The comments by Leavitt followed a flurry of immigration-related orders that Trump signed on his first day in office cracking down on immigration in multiple ways.

One declared a national emergency at the southern border that outlined military support would be deployed “through the provision of appropriate detention space, transportation (including aircraft), and other logistics services in support of civilian-controlled law enforcement operations.”

Other orders, some of which are already facing legal challenges, include the end of asylum and the move to end birthright citizenship for immigrants in the country without authorization, among other stipulations.

It’s not the first time an administration has sent U.S. military to the southern border. The Biden administration did so in 2023 amid high encounters of migrants. In fiscal year 2023, there were about 2.5 million encounters, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data.

Troops largely handle administrative work, rather than law enforcement work, due to the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars the U.S. military from performing civilian law enforcement duties.

However, that could change.

A separate executive order Trump signed Monday directs the secretaries of the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Defense to evaluate within 90 days if the Insurrection Act should be invoked, which allows military action to be used in civilian law domestically.

The troops heading to the southern border will be doing so at a relatively quiet time period, as the most recent CBP data in December showed 96,000 encounters, compared to the December of fiscal year 2023, when there were 252,000 encounters. 

Reproductive rights supporters marched in Phoenix to mark Roe v. Wade’s anniversary in January 2024. Arizona voters approved an amendment restoring abortion access up to fetal viability in the fall. (Photo by Gloria Rebecca Gomez/Arizona Mirror)

Erika Christensen decided to become a patient advocate for abortion later in pregnancy after she had to travel from New York to Colorado to get a third-trimester abortion.

Christensen found out her wanted pregnancy wasn’t viable around 30 weeks. At that time in 2016, New York banned abortion after 24 weeks of pregnancy, and only allowed abortions after that limit to save a patient’s life.

She and her husband were able to borrow thousands of dollars from her mother and put last-minute travel funds on a credit card to access abortion care across the country, Christensen told States Newsroom.

“At every stage, I realized how many pieces had to be in the perfect place for me to be able to do that, to be able to get this urgent health care that I desperately needed,” she said.

When she and her husband returned home to New York, a lawyer at the state American Civil Liberties Union affiliate reached out and asked if they wanted to be advocates. They led a grassroots effort to get legislation passed in 2019 that protected abortions after 24 weeks for fetal abnormalities and to preserve a patient’s health.

The Reproductive Health Act also decriminalized abortion later in pregnancy and allowed health care providers besides physicians to perform abortions. Former Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the bill into law on Jan. 22, 2019, the anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling that protected the right to an abortion nationally.

This year would have marked the 52nd anniversary of Roe, which ensured abortion rights until fetal viability, when a fetus can survive outside the womb — generally thought to be around 24 weeks. Only about 1% of all abortions in the United States happen after that point, typically for medical reasons, research shows.

But a conservative-majority bench overturned Roe nearly three years ago, upending abortion access across the nation with the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision. States rolled out a patchwork of varied health care restrictions.

Twelve states ban most abortions today, while voters in 10 approved ballot measures enshrining the right into state constitutions. Most of the states with constitutional protections have fetal viability limits.

“Advocates, activists and folks in the movement have different opinions about how we reach the ideal policy on reproductive rights and justice, and initiatives and laws may vary from state to state depending on the political realities that we see,” said Ashley All, president of Kansas Coalition for Common Sense, who has worked on several successful abortion-rights initiatives.

Some within the reproductive rights movement argue that gestational bans on abortion later in pregnancy cause patients harm, and say that the protections of Roe — the 1973 Supreme Court said abortion is a privacy right based on the due process clause of the 14th Amendment — are insufficient.

Renee Bracey Sherman is the founder of the nonprofit WeTestify, a nonprofit devoted to evaluating and shifting the narrative around abortion.

“Allowing the public to vote on personal medical decisions is wrong and completely ridiculous,” she said. “But somehow it’s acceptable with abortion, and then doubly acceptable when it comes to later abortion. We have a population that does not understand how anatomy works, how pregnancy works, how abortions happen, and why people need later abortions.”

In pregnancy, “viability” isn’t straightforward and can be used in more than one way. The word can reference whether a pregnancy is expected to develop normally or if it could lead to a miscarriage, according to the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. And fetal viability is the point in pregnancy when a fetus is able to survive outside of the womb. Premature babies have a 42% to 59% chance of survival at 24 weeks, according to ACOG and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Many states only allow abortion after 24 weeks in cases of fetal anomalies or if the patient’s life or health is at risk. Alaska, Colorado, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont and Washington, D.C., have no fetal viability limits on abortion.

ACOG, the national OB-GYN organization, “strongly opposes policy makers defining viability or using viability as a basis to limit access to evidence-based care” and said the decision to terminate a pregnancy should be between patients and medical providers.

Viability language in policymaking stemmed from the Roe decision in 1973, according to Adrienne Ramcharan, assistant director of state policy at Physicians for Reproductive Health and MiQuel Davies, the former public policy director at the organization.

“While this framing was built into the law, researchers and medical providers who care for pregnant people recognize that viability is not a set point in time,” Ramcharan and Davies wrote in August 2024. “Instead, it occurs along a continuum shaped by an individual’s medical history, access to medical care, and demographic characteristics among other things.”

Later abortion care is criminalized and stigmatized, Christensen said, causing the cost of care to go up. Plus, abortion providers willing to offer the procedure later in pregnancy are scarce.

“I have the benefit of having directly experienced a viability ban and knowing in my core how unjust it was, how my humanity was erased, my dignity was erased,” Christensen said.

She is the co-author of a memo published last year titled Abortion Justice Now. The authors wrote that they reject efforts to restore Roe-era limits into abortion policy.

“Gestational and viability limits will disproportionately impact the most marginalized among us, either denying them critical care or pulling families toward financial instability,” they wrote. “These limits will result in an inequitable ability to exercise rights, allow for criminalization in pregnancy, and ultimately reinforce the dangerous assertion that the government has any role in regulating a pregnant person’s body.”

Abortion opponents, including doctors, sometimes hinge their argument on the concept of fetal viability.

“I think, certainly, beyond the point where a child can survive outside of his or her mother, there would never be a reason you would need to intentionally end that child’s life,” Dr. Christina Francis, chief executive officer at the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, told lawmakers on a U.S. Senate committee in June, States Newsroom reported.

“You would simply deliver that baby,” Francis said. “You’d take care of mom and you’d take care of baby in an appropriate way.

Patients may seek abortion after fetal viability for several reasons: They receive a fetal fatal diagnosis later in pregnancy, giving birth could risk their life or health, they couldn’t access or afford an abortion earlier, or they didn’t know they were pregnant, according to ACOG.

Polling shows that Americans support abortion in most cases, but not necessarily after fetal viability. A June 2023 poll from Gallup found that 69% of respondents said abortion should be legal in the first three months of pregnancy, while 37% said it should be legal in the second trimester and 22% in the third.

But the nonpartisan public opinion research firm PerryUndem found last year that most public polling on abortion later in pregnancy lacks context. Of those who heard stories about women with complications later in pregnancy who needed to travel out-of-state for abortions, 69% said abortion should be legal in all cases.

U.S. Sen. Tina Smith, a Minnesota Democrat, speaks during a press conference inside the U.S. Capitol building on Wednesday, Jan. 22, 2025. Also pictured is Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., left, and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Democrats blocked legislation Wednesday that would have established penalties for health care professionals who don’t provide medical care for infants born following an attempted abortion, arguing the bill would have kept parents from making decisions about care for newborns delivered early following a fatal fetal diagnosis.

Republicans said the issue should lend itself to common ground between the two political parties, citing a “loophole” in federal law that could potentially permit health care providers to allow an infant to die, instead of using medical interventions.

The 52-47 procedural vote needed the support of at least 60 senators to advance under the chamber’s legislative filibuster rules, but no Democrats voted to move the bill toward final passage. Tennessee Republican Sen. Bill Hagerty didn’t cast a vote.

The vote marked the first time this year Republicans, who now control both the House and Senate, brought up an abortion bill for debate. The vote took place on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision that established a constitutional right to abortion in 1973, but was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2022.

Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford, who sponsored the eight-page bill, said debate on the legislation was “not just an academic issue,” but one with real-world implications.

“It’s rare, but the question is, what do we do in those situations? How do we track this? How do we engage on it?,” he said.

When an abortion results in a live child, Lankford said, “the current practice is everyone kind of backs away and allows the child to die on the table by exposure because it is against American law in every single state to take the life of a child. But if everybody just steps back and watches the child die that’s okay.”

Lankford cited the story of Melissa Ohden, a woman he says lived following an attempted abortion because a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, or NICU, nurse noticed her crying and breathing in a pile of medical waste, before rushing her to the emergency department for medical care. Ohden is founder and CEO of the Abortion Survivors Network.

“It was years later that she learned her adopted mom had adopted her because her birth mom literally didn’t know she still existed. Her birth mom was never told that the abortion, quote unquote, didn’t work,” he said.  

‘Killing a baby is illegal in every single state’

Washington state Democratic Sen. Patty Murray said during a floor speech Tuesday the bill was a “sham” and a “disgrace,” before noting that “killing a baby is illegal in every single state.”

“In fact, we passed a law in 2002 that made that crystal clear. I would know because I was here. It passed unanimously,” Murray said. “Doctors already have a legal obligation to provide appropriate medical care to any infant born in this country.”

The legislation, she said, would have created “a new government mandate that would override the best judgment of grieving families who find out their fetus has a fatal condition.”

“And it would create new, medically unnecessary barriers for doctors and patients, at a time when doctors already have their hands tied when it comes to providing basic reproductive health care,” Murray said.

New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen said during a press conference on Wednesday ahead of the vote she wasn’t concerned about Republicans using the vote against vulnerable incumbents up for reelection in 2026.

“I have run now in seven statewide races in New Hampshire and in every single one of those races, I have been attacked by Republicans for my support for allowing women to make their own decisions,” Shaheen said.

“It’s not a decision that I should make as a senator, that the court should make, that the men who are in the Senate should make,” she added. “It’s a decision for women and their families. And for those people who don’t understand that, they are on the wrong side of morality on this one.”

Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff and Michigan Sen. Gary Peters are the two most vulnerable Democrats up for election in 2026, both representing states President Donald Trump won in November’s presidential election.

Details of Senate legislation

Lankford’s bill would have required medical providers “to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”

The bill adds that anyone who “intentionally performs or attempts to perform an overt act that kills a child” would be charged with “intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.”

It is already illegal to kill children, or adults, under federal law as well as state laws.

The House is set to vote on its own version of the bill, sponsored by Missouri Republican Rep. Ann Wagner and co-sponsored by 130 GOP lawmakers, later this week. But without Democratic backing in the Senate, the bill won’t make it to Trump’s desk.

Wagner’s House bill appeared extremely similar to the Senate version, though the two weren’t marked as “related bills” on Wednesday in the congressional database.

The House approved a version of the bill two years ago following a mostly party-line 220-210 vote, with one Democrat voting for the measure and one voting “present.”

The bill didn’t come up for a vote in the Senate, which was controlled by Democrats at the time.

Congress approved a similarly named, Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002, more than two decades ago, with broadly bipartisan support.

Groups weigh in

Dr. Stella M. Dantas, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, wrote in a statement sent to States Newsroom that the “offensively named legislation does not reflect the reality of abortion later in pregnancy, harms families who receive devastating diagnoses and restricts their ability to choose the path of medical care that is right for them.”

“This legislation is not evidence-based,” Dantas wrote. “Its impacts fall with crushing weight on families trying to access reproductive care in devastating circumstances and limits how clinicians are able to provide care.”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists writes on a webpage about the differences between abortion and perinatal palliative care that “the idea of ‘abortions’ being performed after delivery of a fetus is” misinformation and that “no such procedure exists.”

Perinatal palliative care, ACOG explains, “encompasses a coordinated care strategy that centers on maximizing quality of life and comfort for newborns who have life-limiting conditions in early infancy.”

“When providing perinatal palliative care, obstetrician–gynecologists’ chief aim is to alleviate the newborn’s suffering and honor the values of the patients involved—namely, the newborn’s parent or parents,” the website states. “Ultimately, the parent or parents, in consultation with their physician, decide which course of perinatal palliative care to pursue.”

Eighteen medical organizations — including ACOG, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, the American Academy of Nursing and the American Academy of Pediatrics — sent a letter to Congress on Wednesday urging lawmakers not to pass the bill.

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser released a written statement that the 2024 election showed Americans “have clearly rejected the extreme pro-abortion agenda.”

“We cannot continue to turn a blind eye to that baby fighting for his or her life, whether in a hospital or an abortion center, whether that little one is deemed ‘wanted’ or not,” Dannenfelser wrote. “These children must not be discarded like trash. With a new administration in Washington and new majorities in the Senate and House, there has never been a better or more urgent time to protect the life of every newborn equally.”

A SBA webpage about the legislation notes that while the 2002 law was “a step in the right direction,” it didn’t include any “enforcement mechanisms.”

“Federal law and 31 states do not adequately protect the lives of infants born alive after botched abortions (state and federal laws are not necessarily redundant, either),” the webpage states.

Anna Bernstein, principal federal policy adviser at the Guttmacher Institute, wrote in a statement to States Newsroom the bill “misrepresents the reality of care later in pregnancy and seeks to criminalize and intimidate health care providers, despite existing laws that already ensure appropriate medical care is provided.”

“By perpetuating disinformation and stigma, this bill undermines reproductive autonomy and paves the way for political interference in deeply personal and painful decisions, particularly for families facing tragic situations such as fatal fetal diagnoses,” Bernstein wrote.

The Guttmacher Institute, she wrote, “strongly opposes this bill, as it disregards the complexities of people’s lives, attempts to criminalize providers, and perpetuates misinformation about abortion care.”

President Donald Trump signs executive orders in the Oval Office of the White House on Jan. 20, 2025, in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — All federal employees in diversity, equity and inclusion positions are ordered to be placed on paid administrative leave by the close of business Wednesday, according to a memo from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

The move came as President Donald Trump spent the early days of his second term issuing executive orders that gut DEI programs and activities across the federal government and end affirmative action in federal contracting.

Trump’s sweeping efforts reflect a broader Republican push to repeal programs and hiring practices aimed at facilitating equitable and inclusive workplaces.

A Tuesday memo from Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management, orders the leaders of federal agencies to notify employees of DEI offices that they are being placed on paid administrative leave no later than 5 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday. OPM is the federal agency in charge of human resources and employee management.

The heads of agencies are also tasked with canceling any DEI-related training, terminating DEI-related contractors and taking down “all outward facing media” of DEI offices by Wednesday evening.

By Thursday at noon Eastern, the agencies’ leaders must also report to OPM with “any agency plans to fully comply” with the executive orders and Ezell’s memo.

They must also submit a written plan “for executing a reduction-in-force action,” or layoffs, surrounding DEI office employees by Jan. 31.

In one of a barrage of wide-ranging executive orders issued this week, Trump ordered an end to all DEI “mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities” in the federal government.

The White House described these DEI efforts as “radical and wasteful.”

Trump also terminated all environmental justice positions and offices across the federal government. Environmental justice centers on improving the health and well-being of disadvantaged communities, who are disproportionately affected by environmental harms.

In another major move, he revoked a series of diversity and inclusion initiatives, including a decades-old executive order from then-President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965 on affirmative action in federal contracting.

He is also encouraging a push to end DEI efforts across the private sector. Some U.S. companies already have rolled back their programs in recent months.

Reactions from Congress

U.S. Rep. James Comer, who chairs the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, praised Trump’s executive orders regarding DEI and a separate, federal return-to-office mandate in a statement earlier this week, saying: “For too long, the unelected federal bureaucracy has wielded too much power over Americans’ lives and wasted hard-earned taxpayer dollars.”

“Under these executive orders, the federal workforce is expected to work in-person for the American people, the federal government must stop wasting money on woke DEI programs, and no tax dollars can be used to fund the censorship industrial complex,” the Kentucky Republican added.

Meanwhile, at a Wednesday press conference, House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar of California said “it’s unfortunate that a lot of the decisions — including this one that Donald Trump did on Day 1 — don’t do anything to address real issues that Americans are facing.”

“None of these affect lowering the prices of groceries that Donald Trump said he would do on Day 1, and they reduce our ability to hear different ideas and perspectives when we make decisions,” Aguilar said.

Aguilar also noted that the House Democratic Caucus represents “the most diverse caucus ever assembled in the history of Congress — from every corner of our country, every background — that’s who the Democratic caucus is.”

Congressional Black Caucus Chair Yvette Clarke and members of the group said Trump’s executive order to end all DEI initiatives in the federal government “is not only a broken economic promise” but also “stands in opposition to evidence which shows that diversity initiatives improve the government’s ability to better serve our communities,” per a Wednesday statement.

“Under the Biden Administration, Democrats worked to prioritize racial equity with a whole of government approach,” the New York Democrat and caucus members added. “President Trump’s executive actions undermine that progress and will only make our country less prosperous.” 

President Donald Trump's nominee for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, speaks during a Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on Jan. 14, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — New allegations of alcohol abuse and misconduct by defense secretary nominee Pete Hegseth drew fresh scrutiny Wednesday about the veteran, former Fox News host and author who President Donald Trump wants to install at the top of the U.S. military.

New revelations in a sworn affidavit from Hegseth’s ex-sister-in-law accuse Hegseth of causing his second wife to fear for her life, and of being so drunk in uniform during a Minnesota National Guard drill weekend that his brother had to carry him out of a Minneapolis strip club.

The nominee has been accused of numerous occasions of public drunkenness and sexual misconduct, and was grilled by Senate Democrats during his confirmation hearing. Hegseth has blamed allegations on a smear campaign. “I’m not a perfect person, as has been acknowledged, saved by the grace of God, by Jesus and Jenny,” he said, referring to his third wife, television producer Jennifer Hegseth, who was seated behind him, during his hearing. The couple lives in Tennessee.

Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Committee on Armed Services, expressed concern Wednesday over Hegseth’s fitness to lead the Pentagon and the importance of “serious oversight of the U.S. military and its leaders.”

Reed said the late December testimony provided to the FBI by Hegseth’s former sister-in-law was not included in the FBI background check provided to the committee. The Rhode Island Democrat directly requested the  former family member recount the testimony to the committee.

“As I have said for months, the reports of Mr. Hegseth’s history of alleged sexual assault, alcohol abuse, and public misconduct necessitate an exhaustive background investigation. I have been concerned that the background check process has been inadequate, and this affidavit confirms that fact,” Reed said in a statement.

“The sworn affidavit from this courageous woman, provided at enormous personal risk and with nothing to gain, documents a disturbing pattern of abuse and misconduct by Mr. Hegseth,” Reed said. “This behavior would disqualify any service member from holding any leadership position in the military, much less being confirmed as the Secretary of Defense.”

The FBI told States Newsroom Wednesday that it does not comment on specific background investigations.

Republican committee leadership did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Senators reviewing allegations

The affidavit was obtained and reported by several major news outlets. NBC News, which broke the story, reported that at least 15 senators, including Republicans, had reviewed the document by Tuesday afternoon.

Hegseth’s former sister-in-law, Danielle Hegseth, reportedly told the committee that the nominee’s second wife, Samantha, feared Hegseth’s volatile behavior and created a plan with family members for a safe word, used once, that could be texted in the event she needed immediate help, according to Reed’s office. The statement detailed that on one occasion, sometime between 2014 and 2016, Samantha hid in a closet for safety.

Danielle also reported being verbally attacked by an inebriated Hegseth at a family event, to the point of needing intervention, and multiple drunken incidents and racist and misogynistic statements. 

Hegseth’s lawyer, Tim Parlatore, did not respond to an email Wednesday requesting comment.

A man who answered the phone number listed for Parlatore on his law firm’s website said, “I rely upon the public statements I’ve already made.”

In a statement provided to NBC News Tuesday, Parlatore said: “Sam has never alleged that there was any abuse, she signed court documents acknowledging that there was no abuse and recently reaffirmed the same during her FBI interview. Belated claims by Danielle Dietrich, an anti-Trump far left Democrat who is divorced from Mr. Hegseth’s brother and never got along with the Hegseth family, do nothing to change that.”

Hegseth’s second wife denied the allegations to NBC News, telling the network that “There was no physical abuse in my marriage” and that she would not be commenting further.

The Senate approved a motion to proceed on Hegseth’s nomination Tuesday evening in a 53-45 vote. Hegseth could be confirmed as soon as Thursday.

States Newsroom reached out to the White House for comment.

Assembly members being sworn in in January 2025. Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner

Wisconsin Assembly committees look different this session with new committee names and several old committees now made up of fewer members. The differences will affect the way legislation is shaped.

Each session the Assembly Speaker has the responsibility for determining the number of members per committee, unless a rule specifies otherwise. The Speaker also determines the ratio of majority to minority members on each committee. The committees are essential to the lawmaking process given that they are where bills are first moved to be discussed after being introduced, where bills receive public input and are debated by lawmaker before ever being considered for a vote by the full body. 

Democrats have complained about losing members on committees despite winning additional seats in the full body. Despite Republican’s narrower majority this session, in some cases Democrats make up a smaller proportion of members on committees than they did in the last session.

“Unfortunately, Assembly Republican Leadership has chosen to begin the legislative session in a highly partisan fashion, reducing Democratic positions on the vast majority of committees despite the people of Wisconsin choosing to replace ten incumbent Republican legislators with Democrats in the last election,” Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine) said in a statement announcing Democratic committee membership. “I hope my Republican colleagues will choose to shift course and join Democrats in putting the people of Wisconsin over partisan politics in the coming legislative session.”

Neubauer’s staff said they were not consulted by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) about the committee sizes or ratios. 

Rep. Robyn Vining (D-Wauwatosa) said there was a “general understanding” that with more members in the house overall, Democrats were expecting that to be reflected in committees. Democrats picked up  10 additional seats in the Assembly, making the body about 55% Republican and 45% Democratic. 

Instead Republicans and Democrats both lost seats on some committees, but the losses were exaggerated for Democrats, who now make up a smaller percentage of representation on several committees. For example, the Campaigns and Elections Committee last session had six Republican members and three Democrats. This session the committee is made up of five Republicans and two Democrats — or a 71% Republican to 29% Democratic makeup.

Vining described the change to committee membership as a punishment. 

“We were penalized for maps that the Republicans actually passed themselves…,” Vining said.  “They're penalizing us for having more seats and I think that's unfair to Wisconsinites.” 

Vining said having diverse representation on committees matters because of how it shapes the way legislation turns out.

“Our job in committee is to vet bills. We're supposed to bring our perspective to the room and bat it around and figure it out… We need voices in the room,” Vining said. “When you have less voices in the room, I would argue that there's less there to vet a bill, to put a bill into the best form that it could possibly be in for the Wisconsin people.”

Vining is the ranking member on the Assembly Mental Health and Substance Abuse Prevention Committee this session. She also sits on the Children and Families, Health Aging and Long Term Care and Small Business Development committees. 

The Mental Health committee is one where Democrats lost representation. The committee last session had eight Republicans to four Democrats — meaning Democrats made up 33% of the committee. This session the committee includes seven Republicans and three Democrats — bringing Democrats to only 30% of the committee. 

One Democrat not returning to the Mental Health committee, Vining noted, is Rep. Supreme Moore Omokunde (D-Milwaukee). 

“I have one less member, which means I have one less microphone around the state of Wisconsin,” she said, “one less community that's represented on the mental health committee and one less person going out to destigmatize mental health, so yeah, that's a loss.”

Vining said Omokunde’s absence is also notable given that one of the goals of the committee this session will be to discuss the issue of male loneliness. She noted that he has done a lot of work within the Black Caucus on Black mental health, including Black men's mental health. 

“We'll find another way to keep that conversation going and I'm sure he will because he is fantastic at that,” Vining said. Still, she said that it is important to have ethnically diverse representation and gender representation on committees.

“Something I'm very aware of is we have two wonderful women who are joining me on the mental health committee but all the Democrats are women,” Vining said. 

It’s not just Democratic lawmakers who have expressed disappointment about committee memberships this session. 

Rebecca Aubart, executive director of Ladies of SCI, a nonpartisan prison reform advocacy group, said the situation is upsetting to the group. The group has been working to improve the state’s correctional system, including by advocating for an ombudsman to serve as a watchdog. 

“This isn't what Wisconsin voted for. We voted for more fair representation. We voted for both of the sides to have to come together because it was going to be more fair representation,”Aubert said. “This seems like such a power struggle that just makes me sick.” 

Aubert said the group had been waiting for several months to see how committees would turn out this session given the new legislative maps, and so they could return to their advocacy work. She said she was looking forward to there being new discussions with fresh ideas this session, and feels like that may not end up being the case. 

“Most of our meetings are between 65% and 68% Republican, because that is who has been in control, but the Democrats have really good points too and are very sympathetic and their voices aren't heard,” Aubert said. “They have a lot of good ideas that would help straighten out corrections, but their voices are still going to go unheard.” 

“If we want new legislation to come through, everything comes through the committee first, and then it goes to everybody else. I just don't think the people of Wisconsin are aware that even though our votes changed a lot in the Assembly, it actually didn't change anything because of how these committees are picked.”

Aubert said that she thinks there should be rules that the Speaker should have to follow, including that the partisan balance on committees should match the Assembly as a whole. 

Vining noted that she encouraged her Republican colleagues in a public statement to push back on the decision made by their leadership.

Vos did not respond to requests for comment from the Examiner.

Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) is leading the newly formed Government Operations Accountability and Transparency (GOAT) committee and also serves as vice-chair of the Assembly Colleges and Universities committee. In an interview discussing her new roles this session, Nedweski said she didn’t think the fluctuation in the committee memberships were intentional or political. 

Nedweski said having fewer people on committees isn’t a disadvantage given that the committee process is public and anyone is still welcome to show up to committee meetings.

“People who are interested in being on that committee are there and, you know, if there's legislation that comes before the committee that people who are not on the committee are interested in, they can always come and testify and you know, be a part of discussion,” Nedweski said. “No one's being locked out of anything.”

New committees highlight Assembly priorities 

Other changes this session include several new and revived Assembly committees, highlighting some of lawmakers’ priorities in the coming months.

Vos put a special emphasis on the GOAT committee this session. In a statement, he said the committee — with Nedweski at the helm — would help the caucus’ focus on its “renewed goal of identifying and addressing government inefficiencies.” 

Nedweski said the committee is the result of “demands from the people” and a “mainstream interest in fiscal conservatism and government efficiency.” She said part of the interest in having Wisconsin lawmakers take on the work was driven by President Donald Trump announcing the creation of a federal Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). While a committee existed last session focused on government operations and accountability, Nedweski said  it wasn’t very active and the new committee will be.

“We had so many people reaching out saying ‘Who's going to be the state DOGE?’” Nedweski said. “I think there are opportunities around every corner to find quick and easy ways for improvement for some things and then certainly there are much bigger problems that could take solutions that are multi-year.” 

Nedweski said her background in corporate finance and doing work that involves finding efficiencies inspired her to want to take on the role of chairing the new committee. 

“In the private sector, there are natural forms of accountability driven by bottom lines, and government just doesn't have those built in, but we should,” Nedweski said. 

The committee is still exploring what exactly its work will include, but Nedweski said it will focus on issues big and small. Ultimately, she said she wants to ensure that the state is using the taxpayers’ resources efficiently and effectively.

One issue she said the committee will likely look at is the number of state employees who are working remotely, which has been a contentious issue over the last several years.

“Are we getting the most productivity out of those people who are working from home? How do we measure that, and if we're seeing that it's not the most productive situation, why aren't those people back in the building?” Nedweski said. “Maybe they are productive, maybe that's the best situation for them, but then what do we do with that physical building? If the solution is we don't need in-person employees, then we don't need to pay for the space either, and I think we have a responsibility to the taxpayer to make sure that we're not wasting.” 

Nedweski said other committees could also bring issues to GOAT to explore. 

“Our intention is to have the entire body involved in this process where maybe… we're going to maybe do a joint hearing with the education committee, or the college's committee,” Nedweski said. “How do we use our resources within GOAT to help them further explore some of the areas that they identify for us that are in need of oversight, transparency, accountability or efficiency?” 

Another issue Nedweski mentioned as an area of interest is “administrative bloat” in Wisconsin’s K-12 schools and in the University of Wisconsin system. 

She also mentioned  looking at programs and laws as they sunset. She noted that Texas has a Sunset Advisory Commission, a mission that the GOAT committee takes on. 

“There's all these statutes on the books that maybe there's appropriations tied to, and sometimes things fly under the radar and are there any circumstances — and I can't say that there are — are there any circumstances where we have continued to fund something that was supposed to end? Maybe GOAT has an arm of that... where we're diving into the weeds and looking at where we spend money and should this have ended five years ago?”

One revived committee this session is the Assembly Small Business Committee. Last session, it became part of the Jobs, Economy and Small Business Development Committee. 

Vining said she commends Vos for bringing the committee back because it gives a greater opportunity to speak about the issues affecting Wisconsin small businesses. 

“Ninety-nine percent of Wisconsin businesses are small businesses. We're a small business state. We should have a small business development committee. We should be talking about how access to capital is more difficult for women and people of color,” Vining said.

The Assembly is also reviving the Assembly Urban Revitalization Committee this session with Rep. Bob Donovan (R-Greenfield) serving as its chair. Donovan, who served as a Milwaukee alderman for about 20 years, said he is excited about the opportunity. 

“It's certainly fair to say that Milwaukee has some neighborhoods that are very challenged, and we need to work on that, but I suspect other cities around the state may be suffering from the same challenges, so I'm hopeful that we can work a number of initiatives to help revitalize those struggling neighborhoods,” Donovan said. 

Donovan said that the “sky's the limit” when it comes to the issues the committee may look at, but that public safety concerns, educational issues and housing, including more home ownership, are some areas that he is interested in exploring.

As the committee’s work is only just starting, Donovan said that he has requested that the  Legislative Reference Bureau provide the committee with some information about revitalization efforts that have gone on in other cities across the country as well as about what the 2017 committee did. 

“I've always believed we don't need to reinvent the wheel. If something is working in another community, I see no reason why we couldn't make it work here in Wisconsin,” Donovan said. 

Donovan said that he is prepared to communicate with local leaders in Milwaukee and other cities. He said he already had a “very good” conversation with Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley about some concerns at the county level when it comes to parks and other services. 

“[I] just wanted to open up or continue the lines of communication,” Donovan said. 

Other new committees include the Commerce Committee, the Constitution and Ethics Committee, the State and Federal Relations Committee, the Public Benefit Reform Committee and the Science, Technology and AI Committee.

Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel (second from left) stand next to Chippewa County Sheriff Travis Hakes (second from right), who has been at the center of numerous controversies. (Screenshot)

In a television ad and recent endorsements, Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel has touted the support of Chippewa County Sheriff Travis Hakes — a controversial figure whose county board voted 19-1 last year to find it had “no confidence” in him after he was accused of sexually harassing a female job applicant and subordinate.

As the race between Shimel and his opponent, Dane County Circuit Court Judge Susan Crawford, heats up, the two candidates have attempted to claim the other is soft on crime. Schimel, a Waukesha County Circuit Court judge who was previously the state attorney general under Republican Gov. Scott Walker, has in recent days announced endorsements from a number of current and retired sheriffs from across the state. 

Hakes is one of the sheriffs who endorsed Schimel and appeared with the judge in a television ad behind a graphic that states Schimel is “tough on crime.” 

Last February, the Chippewa County Board voted nearly unanimously that it has “no confidence in Chippewa County Sheriff Travis Hakes’ continued leadership” and that the sheriff has “a long history of not being credible.”

An independent investigation into Hakes initiated by the board found that he had sent inappropriate messages to a female job applicant and a subordinate, including a text that shared a “racist ethnically charged meme.” 

“For any leader of a law enforcement agency to make such comments calls into question their professional judgement and ability to enforce the law and treat all persons fairly and lawfully,” a joint statement from County Administrator Randy Scholz and Board Chair Dean Gullickson said. “Moreover, for any leader of a law enforcement agency to suggest that his subordinates engage in such conduct with his implied support and tolerance leaves no doubt as to his inability to effectively manage any law enforcement employee and not expose the County to great risk.”

In the texts, Hakes told a female subordinate that she was the “breast person for the job!” in a conversation about birds and then later sent a meme depicting an Asian man crying with the caption “when the chow mein was on point but you kinda miss your cat.”

Hakes’ term as sheriff runs through 2026 and the board has no ability to remove him from office, which led to the no confidence vote. But in December 2023, the Chippewa County District Attorney put Hakes on the county’s Brady list — a document prosecutors are required to send to defense attorneys naming law enforcement officers “who have had incidents of untruthfulness, criminal convictions, candor issues, or some other type of issue placing their credibility into question.”

Hakes has “misled the public and County Board” multiple times about his work history, according to the board’s statement. 

Because of his inclusion on the Brady list, Hakes is unable to be actively involved in investigations or handle physical evidence. 

Several other sheriffs who have endorsed Schimel have also sparked controversy during their tenures. 

Polk County Sheriff Brent Waak drew attention in 2023 for refusing to enforce a rule from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms that banned the use of stabilizing braces on pistols. Waak has previously shared his belief in the constitutional sheriff ideology — which states that county sheriffs have nearly unlimited authority to decide what the law is. 

Schimel was also endorsed by Racine County Sheriff Christopher Schmaling, who drew the praise of election deniers after he called for the arrest of five members of the Wisconsin Elections Commission and declined to arrest an election denier who had requested absentee ballots on behalf of Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Racine Mayor Cory Mason. 

In his 2018 campaign for attorney general, Schimel ran an ad touting his law enforcement support that included the endorsement of former Taylor County Sheriff Bruce Daniels — who was investigated by the FBI for hacking into a subordinate’s Dropbox account and by the state Department of Justice for pressuring another agency to destroy a report on a traffic accident that involved his son. 

Wisconsin Democratic Party spokesperson Haley McCoy said in a statement that Schimel touting Hakes’ support shows a lack of judgement. 

“This isn’t the first time that Brad Schimel has struggled with a photo op, but standing with a man censured 19-1 by local elected officials and accused of sexual harassment, conflicts of interest, poor leadership, and violating his oath is a new low — even for an extreme politician like Schimel,” McCoy said. “Brad Schimel has a long record of failing to keep Wisconsinites safe, from giving light sentences to convicted domestic abusers to failing to test more than 6,000 sexual assault kits over two years. It’s clear as day that Wisconsin voters can’t trust Brad Schimel’s judgment or public safety record on the state Supreme Court since he can’t even get this easy call right.”

Schimel’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Phoebe Petrovic is a Wisconsin Watch investigative reporter and a fellow in ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network. Her reporting on extremism was also funded by the Poynter Institute. She will be discussing extremism reporting at a live Zoom event on Jan. 29 at 4 p.m. Register here. 

On the day of President Donald Trump’s second inauguration, the violent, far-right street gang known as the Proud Boys marched down the streets of Washington, D.C. Hours later, the new president pardoned or commuted the sentences of their leaders and some 1,500 others for storming the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The world’s richest man, Elon Musk, struck salutes on stage that neo-Nazis online celebrated (and Musk later downplayed). And in a nod to the Christian nationalists who boosted his campaign, Trump declared the United States would only recognize two sexes, despite science finding it’s not so simple.

It’s clear, today, that extremism reporting matters more than ever. But even just a couple of years ago, I struggled to get pitches accepted on the influence of extremist figures. Once accepted, though, one story turned into a series, each unraveling the thread of increased Christian nationalist influences on politics and, particularly, elections. 

I spent the first six months of 2024 investigating Matthew Trewhella, a militant pastor known in the 1990s for his anti-abortion activism.

Trewhella had a reputation for public stunts that raised eyebrows and generated letters to the editor. He had urged an audience to buy their children rifles for Christmas. He even defended the murder of abortion providers. Surely, someone with that record would be a political pariah today, right? But the investigation found that Trewhella’s manifesto of open defiance has influenced Republicans across the country, at all levels of government.

Like others on the Christian right, Trewhella has called for defying the separation between church and state, arguing that officials must answer to God’s law first and the Constitution second. School board members, county officials, state legislators, congresspeople, even former members of Trump’s Cabinet, we found, had praised “the doctrine of the lesser magistrates,” which Trewhella claimed gave them biblical permission to disobey or defy any law, policy or court opinion. For his part, Trewhella dismissed the extremism label, telling me only those with “mundane, self-absorbed lives” would consider someone like him an extremist.

In that first story, I reported on a conservative activist who had used the doctrine as the basis of a nationwide tour, in which he said elections officials should refuse to certify equipment and results on the basis of debunked conspiracy theories. I recounted how a state senator marshaled the doctrine when urging electors to refuse certification. And I discussed the idea’s embrace by some members of the constitutional sheriffs movement, who were also stating their intent to investigate elections.

Reporting that first story, narrowly focused on one person and his impact, revealed the larger theme that would become the subject of the series: the Christian right’s influence on elections. 

It was a defining feature of the 2024 presidential election, one Trump acknowledged during his inaugural address when he claimed: “I was saved by God to make America great again.” 

The stories reported for Faith in Power, for the most part, took one small aspect of it at a time. We looked for gaps in the national conversation and dug into what we found, building on previous work as we went along. I had read dozens of stories about the potential intervention of poll watchers, for example, but few on poll workers. Yet soon after discovering one self-described Christian nationalist recruiting poll workers, I noticed more, and further reporting revealed a pattern.

What made this worth an investigation was not their Christianity, as one critic claimed, but rather their regurgitation of election conspiracies, disdain for the separation of church and state, and stated goal of helping Trump win office. It was the combination of prophecy and proclamations — that Trump had a divine mandate to become president — and the way they used that to enlist support from hundreds or thousands of people on the ground.

To report these stories, to get the theology and context right, required extensive reading. We decided, in the end, to try to help memorialize what we learned and transform it into a more permanent resource for readers in a “guide” to Christian nationalism. It’s not a traditional investigative piece, but rather a meta-report that helps orient the public, helping to explain how we got to the point where the investigations we broke about poll workers or sheriffs claiming a divine right to disobey the government was even possible.

As the new administration takes office, I’m reflecting on the political trends of the last decade. First, media rushed to cover the “Alt-Right.” Then, the coverage seemed to subside. But the movement didn’t disappear — its ideas just became integrated into the larger political right. Same, too, with conspiracy theories about elections being rigged. Once Trump won, the skepticism about elections seemed to vanish overnight. A focus on “extremism” may go the same way. As those who attempted a violent insurrection get pardoned and walk free, extremism has moved from the margins to the mainstream and taken power. It’s up to journalists to draw the public’s attention to what they do with that power.

As extremists move into the mainstream, reporting on them is more important than ever 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.

A new study builds on previous research that shows winters on the Great Lakes are growing shorter due to climate change.

The Great Lakes have been losing an average of 14 days of winter conditions each decade since 1995 due to warming air temperatures, according to the study published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research Letters.

The study’s lead author, Eric Anderson, an environmental engineering professor with the Colorado School of Mines, said researchers arrived at their findings by examining ice conditions and surface water temperatures.

“We do see that winter time — whether you think about it in terms of ice or think about in terms of really cold water temperatures — we’re just seeing less days where those conditions exist,” Anderson said.

Research has already found the Great Lakes are losing ice cover at a rate of about 5 percent each decade for a total loss of 25 percent between 1973 and 2023. Those changes are occurring as the region has seen among the greatest increases in average winter temperatures over the past 50 years.

The study builds on that research by focusing on changes in water temperatures during the winter months. Anderson noted only Lake Erie typically sees heavy ice cover each winter, whereas the other Great Lakes often see areas of open water.

Winter is typically a blind spot for researchers due to difficulties in obtaining measurements when there’s less ice cover on the lakes. For the study, they relied largely on satellite data, as well as several monitoring stations, to examine how mixing of the lakes from top to bottom may be changing during the winter. Typically, the lakes tend to mix in the fall and spring when temperatures are the same at the top and bottom.

Winter days on the Great Lakes are being lost to spring and fall

During the summer, the surface of the lakes is warmer and the bottom is colder. In the winter, the opposite is true.

The study’s co-author, Craig Stow, said the reason for that is the maximum density of water is 4 degrees Celsius or about 39 degrees Fahrenheit. Stow, who is a scientist with NOAA’s Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab, said researchers found there’s been an increase in the number of spring and fall days in the lakes.

“The winter days are being lost to those spring and fall times where the temperatures are essentially the same from the very top to the very bottom,” Stow said.

Stow said that means the lakes are staying warmer in the fall and warming up earlier in the spring.

Winter days on the lakes were defined as days with ice cover or having surface temperatures of less than 2 degrees Celsius. The loss of winter days was found over nearly the entire area of lakes Superior, Huron and Erie. In lakes Michigan and Ontario, the loss of winter days was primarily along the shorelines and bays.

“We saw decreases in ice cover in areas where you tend to see large amounts of ice, so Green Bay and up near Beaver Island and Straits of Mackinac,” Anderson said. “We didn’t see big decreases in ice for the rest of the lake, so you didn’t have a lot of coastal ice loss along the eastern side of Wisconsin or down near Chicago.”

However, researchers did see a loss of colder temperatures in open waters around the southern shoreline of Lake Michigan, shifting to more days that had temperatures like spring or fall.

Lake Superior didn’t lose as many ice days as lakes Huron or Erie because it doesn’t see as much ice cover in the middle of the lake. 

“It was losing some number of days with coastal ice, particularly along the Wisconsin shoreline of Superior in the western end there,” Anderson said.

Even so, he said the lake experienced a big shift to temperatures closer to what one might expect in the spring and fall out in open waters.

Anderson and Stow said the changes could have implications for the Great Lakes in terms of extended periods when algal blooms may occur, the duration of shipping seasons, effects on the food web and the $7 billion fishing industry.

“We looked at a couple decades here of  change that we see you’re losing a half a month of what we used to think about being the winter,” Anderson said. “That’s really important for the chemistry of the lake. It could be important for the biology of the lake.”

Researchers say questions remain about whether the loss of winter days may stay the same or accelerate, which is one of the things they hope to examine in the future.

This story was originally published by WPR.

Study finds winter days on the Great Lakes growing shorter due to climate change 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.

Caiden Stachowicz made his initial court appearance Wednesday via Zoom from the Fond du Lac County Jail.

The post Menasha man charged for starting fire at Wisconsin congressman’s office appeared first on WPR.

The report shows housing in the state’s capital city growing by 37 percent since 2005. The city had 138,000 new units last year.

The post National report shows city of Madison leads Midwest in housing stock growth appeared first on WPR.

An internal review found “concerns about financial operations and fiscal judgements,” according to the school. 

The post UW-Madison DEI chancellor removed over concerns about financial mismanagement appeared first on WPR.