Editor’s note: This is a static version of the interactive story found at this link.
Air Wisconsin Airlines has not been spared by the nationwide decline of regional air service. The 60-year-old carrier laid off hundreds of employees in Appleton and Milwaukee last year after terminating a contract to provide aircraft, crews and services to American Airlines in January 2025. The airline’s planned pivot to charter service and federally subsidized connections to underserved airports didn’t pan out, prompting another round of layoffs by the spring.
But the company’s troubles didn’t entirely ground its fleet. Flight tracking data indicate that Air Wisconsin continued to provide regional air service through the end of 2025, primarily connecting its Wisconsin hubs to mid-sized Midwestern airports as it had for decades.
In January, Harbor Diversified Inc., the Appleton-based parent company of Air Wisconsin, sold the company’s operations and 13 of its jets to CSI Aviation, a New Mexico-based air charter company and longtime federal contractor owned by former New Mexico Republican Party chair Allen Weh.
Air Wisconsin sent recall notices to the company’s furloughed flight attendants after the sale to CSI Aviation, and the Association of Flight Attendants — the union representing the furloughed workers — negotiated an immediate raise for returning members. In a January press release announcing the recall notices, the union noted that only a third of the furloughed flight attendants opted to return.
Neither CSI nor Harbor Diversified responded to requests for comment.
CSI is central to the Trump administration’s ongoing immigration crackdown.
It has provided charter services for ICE since 2024, transporting detainees and deportees both directly and through subcontractors.
The company entered its current $1.5 billion contract with the Department of Homeland Security in November of last year.
Demand for private charters surged after 2010, when the Obama administration moved away from relying solely on the U.S. Marshals Service.
Air Wisconsin isn’t alone. Avelo Airlines began deportation flights last spring, but backed out last month following intense public backlash.
CSI’s acquisition of Air Wisconsin transformed the airline’s flight patterns within a matter of weeks. The airline’s website no longer lists passenger routes, but flight data collected between Jan. 9 and mid-February indicates that the airline has largely ceded its role as a Midwestern regional carrier.
Instead, the airline increasingly looks south: Destinations in Louisiana and Texas replaced the mid-sized Midwestern airports that were, until recently, the airline’s most frequent destinations.
Flight data indicates Air Wisconsin planes made at least 125 trips in January 2026, up from roughly 60 in December 2025. Thicker lines on the map indicate more frequent routes.
Many of Air Wisconsin’s new destinations are within easy reach of ICE detention facilities in Texas and Louisiana, including some of the agency’s largest.
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport is among the busiest in the country, but Air Wisconsin rarely provided service to the Twin Cities in the final months of 2025.
That changed in January, just weeks after the Trump administration dispatched thousands of federal agents to Minnesota for an immigration enforcement offensive dubbed Operation Metro Surge.
Hundreds of immigrants detained in the operation have since departed the airport in shackles, loaded onto charter flights bound for ICE detention facilities farther south.
The modest airport in Alexandria, Louisiana, is now the epicenter of ICE’s deportation flight operations. Air Wisconsin has flown to or from Alexandria at least 30 times since the airline’s acquisition by CSI, on par with the airline’s service to Madison and outpacing service to Appleton, home to the airline’s corporate headquarters.
The GEO Group, an international private prison operator, runs an ICE detention facility on the airport’s tarmac. A dozen other ICE facilities sit within easy reach. Among them is the Adams County Correctional Center in Natchez, Mississippi, where Delvin Francisco Rodriguez, a 39-year-old Nicaraguan national, died in custody on Dec. 14, 2025. ICE acknowledged the incident in a press release four days later, though the agency did not specify the cause of Rodriguez’s death.
Camp East Montana, ICE’s largest detention facility, sits just east of El Paso International Airport. Air Wisconsin flights took off from or landed in El Paso at least 32 times in January and early February, second only to Milwaukee’s Mitchell International Airport.
The camp drew national attention in early January after Geraldo Lunas Campos, a 55-year-old Cuban national, died by asphyxiation after guards pinned him to the floor of a cell. The El Paso County Medical Examiner’s Office later ruled the death a homicide.
Lunas Campos’ death came a month after Francisco Gaspar-Andres, a 48-year-old from Guatemala and detained at Camp East Montana, died in an El Paso hospital; ICE attributed Gaspar-Andres’ death to liver and kidney failure.
Another detainee, 36-year-old Victor Manuel Diaz of Nicaragua, died at the camp on Jan. 14 in what ICE described as a “presumed suicide” — an explanation his family questions. ICE agents detained Diaz in Minneapolis only days before his death.
Air Wisconsin hasn’t entirely withdrawn from its home state hubs. Many of the airline’s remaining pilots, flight attendants and ground crew are still Wisconsin-based, and Milwaukee remains the airline’s primary hub.
The airline is now hiring for more than a dozen Wisconsin-based positions — including legal counsel.
Wisconsin Watch used FlightAware AeroAPI data (Sept 2025 – Feb 2026) to reconstruct patterns before and after the Jan. 9 sale to CSI Aviation.
Hubs on these maps represent the 10 airports most frequently used. While the routes align with ICE operations, the data does not confirm if specific flights carried detainees.
Air Wisconsin turns to ICE (static version) 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.
Air Wisconsin turns to ICE 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.
Capping off a contentious week of floor sessions that saw tempers flare as lawmakers raced to adjourn for the year, the state Assembly passed two measures tied to hard-fought deals about food assistance and cleaning up PFAS.
The post Wisconsin Assembly passes deals on PFAS, SNAP funding appeared first on WPR.
President Donald Trump's frequent use of tariffs over the last year has created plenty of economic uncertainty affecting Wisconsin farmers. But producers in the state say it's not clear what the end of the tariff policy will mean for them in the coming months.
The post Wisconsin farmers wait to see how the end of Trump tariffs plays out appeared first on WPR.
Federal prosecutors are pushing back on attempts by former Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan to have her conviction overturned. Last year, a jury found her guilty of obstructing immigration agents.
The post Feds push back on former Judge Dugan’s attempts to overturn conviction appeared first on WPR.
The Milwaukee Police Department and the Milwaukee County Sheriff's Office are among the Wisconsin law enforcement agencies exploring the use of facial recognition technology to help investigate crimes.
The post Police in Wisconsin want to use facial recognition technology but face pushback appeared first on WPR.
A northern Wisconsin tribe wants a court to halt construction of Enbridge’s $450 million plan to reroute an oil and gas pipeline around its reservation after an administrative law judge upheld state permits for the project.
The post Bad River tribe wants court to halt construction of Enbridge’s Line 5 reroute appeared first on WPR.
In “Bear Tracks,” Sherman Funmaker traces his journey from high school dropout to published writer.
The post Ho-Chunk elder channels inner rock ‘n’ roll teenager in new memoir appeared first on WPR.
Federal officials announced that ICE agents are set to leave Minnesota after a months-long immigration crackdown. A Wisconsin business owner said the crackdown has stoked fear — and a Milwaukee nonprofit told WPR fewer agricultural workers are applying to work in Wisconsin.
The post Fewer seasonal migrant workers apply for visas ahead of Wisconsin’s growing season appeared first on WPR.
"Wisconsin Today" spoke with the directors of two higher education child care centers about the needs of student-parents and the challenges they face when it comes to seeking child care and education.
The post Wisconsin’s campus child care facilities offer parents foothold in higher education appeared first on WPR.
The entrance to a Big Lots store in Portland with a SNAP eligibility sign. Up to 3,000 Oregonians who came to the U.S. as refugees, asylum seekers or through other humanitarian protection programs would lose access to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program under new federal rules challenged by Oregon and other states. (Stock photo by hapabapa/Getty Images)
The Wisconsin Assembly passed a bill that will ban Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients from being able to buy soda and candy with their benefits and will provide funding and positions to the state Department of Health Services to help preempt the state from being penalized by the federal government.
Lawmakers also approved a bill aimed at having the state turn SNAP data over to the Trump administration.
Gov. Tony Evers and lawmakers have been discussing providing additional funding and positions to the state Department of Health Services to ensure the state keeps its payment error rate low, to avoid costly federal penalties enacted as part of a huge national tax cut and spending bill.
A SNAP provision in the federal tax and spending law signed by President Donald Trump last year would penalize states for having a payment error rate above 6%. The Evers administration has estimated a penalty due to the error rate could cost the state up to $205 million. Evers recently urged lawmakers in his State of the State address on Tuesday to provide money to the state agency to keep the error rate low and avoid potential penalties.
Lawmakers attached the money and positions to AB 180 in an amendment. The bill passed 71-22 with 23 Democrats joining Republicans in favor of the bill.
The amendment included about $69 million and 70 positions for the agency to help ensure quality control of SNAP — also known as FoodShare in Wisconsin — and keep the error rate low.
When it comes to the candy and soda ban provisions, the Wisconsin DHA would need to submit a waiver to the federal government for approval to make the change to the program.
Under the leadership of U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, the Trump administration has pushed for the ban across the country as a part of his “Make America Healthy Again” agenda. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has approved waivers for 18 states, including Idaho and Oklahoma, so far, and there are at least five states that are actively implementing the ban.
Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee) criticized the bill, saying it “has nothing to do with health,” mentioning he sees people drinking Diet Mountain Dew and other beverages in the Legislature’s chambers, and that the bill is merely “punishing people for poverty.” He also said it is “shameful” to use the candy and soda ban bill to move the money and positions forward.
“I’m glad that with the amendment there are necessary dollars here that are coming to help our agencies provide dozens of staff members to push back on the onslaught from the Trump regime,” Clancy said. An amendment to the bill includes $3.5 million to help with development and administration of a food stamp platform that is meant to ensure grocery stores can follow the ban.
Rep. Russell Goodwin (D-Milwaukee) said lawmakers shouldn’t be “policing check-out lanes” and that the bill will create a two-tiered system where poor families have their food choices restricted.
Rep. Clint Moses (R-Menomonie) said that the bill would ensure that taxpayers are not paying the costs of people eating unhealthy foods.
“The original intent… was to go down a path to start looking at what we’re feeding our children, what we’re feeding our families and what’s that doing to our families,” Moses said, adding that he has been interested in the issue long before the “Make America Healthy Again” movement.
Moses said “the amount of money that we could lose from the federal government is astronomical” if the bill doesn’t become law.
Under the bill, candy is defined as “any solid, semi-solid, or molded preparation of sugar, sweeteners, whether natural or artificial, or chocolate, with or without added ingredients such as flavorings, fruit, nuts, or flour, that is commonly marketed, advertised, or recognized as candy, chocolate bar, chewing gum, or similar confectionery and includes chocolate bars, including chocolate bars containing flour, hard candies, gummies, caramels, taffy, licorice, mints, and chewing gum.” It does not include baked goods.
Soda is defined as a “nonalcoholic beverage that contains natural or artificial sweeteners, including soda, pop, cola, energy drinks, sports drinks, or flavored water, or any product, regardless of its ingredients or labeling, that is marketed, labeled, or advertised as a soda, pop, cola, energy drink or energy supplement.” It does not include beverages that include milk or coffee or unsweetened tea.
A separate bill would require Wisconsin to compile and turn over data to the federal government on all Wisconsin FoodShare recipients since 2020 in accordance with a July letter from the federal Department of Agriculture. The Trump administration says it is seeking the data so it can investigate fraud and has threatened to cut off SNAP benefits to states that don’t comply. The Assembly passed the bill, AB 1027, in a 54-39 vote with Rep. Jodi Emerson (D-Eau Claire) joining Republicans in favor.
On behalf of Wisconsin, Attorney General Josh Kaul joined a lawsuit with 21 other states to block the order. A federal judge in California recently granted the request for a temporary restraining order.
Rep. Ryan Spaude (D-Ashwaubenon) accused his Republican colleagues of being “happy to take up the bidding of the Trump administration” with the passage of the bill.
No Republicans spoke on the bill.
Evers has expressed opposition to turning over the data, saying that Wisconsin’s system works. He told WISN 12 in December that the SNAP system is “analyzed every single year and we feel confident in it.”
“We have people in the state of Wisconsin that need help making sure they’re having nutritious meals. We feel the program right now is working just fine,” he said.
Both bills need to pass the Senate before they go to Evers.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
DNR Secretary Karen Hyun peers through the window after the Assembly passed one of two PFAS bills. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)
More than 30 months after Gov. Tony Evers signed the 2023-25 biennial budget into law, setting aside $125 million to help Wisconsin communities mitigate PFAS pollution in the state’s drinking water, the Wisconsin Assembly on Friday unanimously passed two bills to get the money out the door.
This is the second time legislation to spend the money has reached this point after Evers vetoed a PFAS bill in 2024 over objections that the bill was too friendly to polluters. Since the money was set aside, the issue has been mired in partisan feuding.
As the Assembly scrambled to finish its work by its self-imposed Friday deadline before lawmakers head home to campaign for reelection, negotiations over the specific language of the legislation pushed the vote, initially scheduled for Thursday, past 8:30 p.m. on Friday evening.
The two bills were among the last pieces of legislation the Assembly voted on in normal session before adjourning.
The bill establishes programs to spend the money through grants for private well owners and municipal drinking water systems, boosting the state’s testing capabilities and research into PFAS at Universities of Wisconsin institutions.
Republicans, with the support of business groups, have been trying to craft legislation that protects “innocent landowners” from being held responsible for PFAS pollution while Democrats and environmental groups have argued the initial bill too widely defined “innocent,” letting polluters off the hook while weakening the state’s toxic spills law.
The return of the bill this session was met with renewed optimism that a bipartisan agreement could be reached. However, after Republicans narrowed the definition of innocent landowners, business groups such as Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce and representatives of the state’s paper industry abandoned the effort, saying they couldn’t support the proposal anymore.
Throughout the two and a half years of debate, residents of communities affected by PFAS pollution have continued to struggle, often calling for the Legislature to instead enact standards for the acceptable level of PFAS in the state’s groundwater — the source of drinking water for the hundreds of thousands of Wisconsinites with private wells.
PFAS pollution has affected larger communities such as Madison and Wausau and small communities such as French Island near La Crosse and the town of Stella near Rhinelander. The class of man-made chemical compounds was widely used in certain kinds of firefighting foams and household goods such as nonstick pans and fast-food wrappers. PFAS have been connected to health problems such as developmental problems in children and certain types of cancer.
On the floor of the Assembly Friday evening, with lawmakers desperate to hit the road, only three representatives spoke on the bill.
Rep. Lori Palmeri (D-Oshkosh), a member of the environment committee that produced the bills, touted the measures as a “great compromise” despite late-night final revisions to the bill, while Rep. Jill Billings (D-La Crosse) recounted the “horrifying” struggles PFAS contamination has caused for her constituents on French Island.
Rep. Jeff Mursau (R-Crivitz), one of the bill’s authors, said the bill is a “small step” toward fully solving the PFAS problem in the state but that the body was finally passing a bill that was the hardest to get across the finish line of his whole career in the Assembly.
Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto), one of the co-authors and lead negotiators on the PFAS legislation, celebrated the compromise that came from long negotiations with Evers and the Department of Natural Resources.
“Today’s vote in the Assembly will bring a massive, multiyear effort to address PFAS contamination in Wisconsin even closer to fruition,” he said in a release sent before 6 p.m. Thursday, more than a day before the Assembly actually voted. “Wisconsinites across the state have suffered for far too long from PFAS polluting their land and water. Bill passage will put innocent communities and landowners on the best path forward to remediate PFAS while ensuring they are not punished or forced into bankruptcy over pollution they did not cause.”
In a week in which the Assembly broke through on a handful of issues that have long been mired in the Legislature’s partisan muck, Wimberger said the bipartisan compromise was notable.
“Even a broken squirrel can find a clock twice a day,” he said.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
President Donald Trump delivers remarks during a working breakfast with governors in the State Dining Room at the White House on Feb. 20, 2026 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump told governors Friday during a meeting at the White House he has no plans to surge federal immigration operations in states where it’s not wanted.
New York Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul said during an afternoon press conference with several other governors that Trump was asked during the closed-door meeting about what lessons he learned from immigration enforcement operations in Minnesota, where federal officers killed two U.S. citizens.
“The president said, ‘We’ll only go where we’re wanted.’ And said, for example, ‘I won’t go to New York unless Kathy calls and says she wants me to come to New York,’” she said. “I took that as a very positive outcome from this meeting. And I would want to hold him and the administration to that statement.”
Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, vice chair of the National Governors Association, said Democratic governors were able to express “how problematic” actions by immigration enforcement officials have been, especially after Republicans in Congress drastically increased funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement as well as Customs and Border Protection in their signature tax and spending cuts law.
“We were actually encouraged to hear the president say that one of the takeaways from Minnesota was that he only wants to go places that he is welcomed. So we were very glad to hear that,” he said. “I want to be very clear that until we can have an accountable agency, the type of surge that we saw in Minnesota is not welcome in the state of Maryland.”
Louisiana Republican Gov. Jeff Landry said during the press conference at the NGA’s winter conference there have been “no problems” with federal immigration enforcement actions in his state.
“Why? Because it was a completely integrated operation under which local, state and federal partners worked together,” he said. “We did not allow people to break our laws and get in the way and impede law enforcement in doing their lawful duty.”
Landry said Trump “made it very clear, if you don’t want our help, we won’t give you any help.”
Governors from throughout the country traveled to Washington, D.C., this week to attend their annual winter conference and meet with Trump at the White House, though that meeting was diverted somewhat after the Supreme Court ruled on tariffs.
Trump is scheduled to host a black tie dinner for some of the governors this weekend, though he decided not to invite certain Democrats to that event, provoking controversy throughout the lead-up to the governors’ meeting.
Oklahoma Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt, chairman of the National Governor’s Association, said during the afternoon press conference the morning meeting with Trump included 12 GOP and 10 Democratic governors.
“It was overall a really productive meeting and a great show of ‘Hey, here is how the governors can come before the president and bring up issues that affect all of us,’” he said.
Moore said the White House meeting was “productive” and “a chance for us to be able to share our thoughts and our perspectives and our ideas with the Cabinet secretaries and the agency heads and with the president himself.”
“We had a chance to talk about the things that matter to the people of our states. We had a chance to speak with Cabinet secretaries about energy prices and how we have to have a singular focus to bring energy prices down,” he said. “We had a chance to speak with the Transportation secretary about transportation issues. In the case of Maryland, it was the American Legion Bridge and the Francis Scott Key Bridge.”
Moore added the meeting was an important opportunity to “speak truth to power” and show that bipartisanship still exists on certain issues.
Moore said he didn’t bring up Trump blaming him for a sewage spill that began with a discharge into the Potomac River in the District of Columbia, opting instead to use the meeting to focus on talking with Cabinet secretaries on infrastructure, natural disaster relief and housing.
“I am here to focus on helping the people of my state,” he said. “I am not going to spend a second talking about a petty attack that the president of the United States had.”
Hochul said she appreciated the Cabinet secretaries were at the meeting and that governors were able to talk with them about several issues.
“I was able to talk about the Gateway Tunnel and keeping the funding on for the largest infrastructure project in America today,” she said, referring to a project to build new rail track between New York and New Jersey under the Hudson River. “We’d like to keep our offshore wind on and not have to go to court constantly to get that turned back on.”
North Carolina Democratic Gov. Josh Stein said he was able to speak directly with Trump about the state’s ongoing recovery needs from Hurricane Helene.
“We’ve got to rebuild houses. We’ve got to rebuild roads and bridges. We’ve got to rebuild businesses. And we cannot do that in North Carolina without the partnership of the federal government,” he said. “We have a $13.5 billion request with (the Office of Management and Budget) and with the Congress. And I asked the president and he said that they are eager to talk about that.
“So I came away very encouraged that he will bring renewed focus from this administration to help western North Carolina recover from Hurricane Helene.”
Landry said the Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs, which was released during the meeting, “completely overshadowed, which, in my opinion, was getting ready to be a very productive meeting with the president.”
“It was unfortunate that the Supreme Court came out with a bad ruling at that time because I think we were going to have a great meeting,” he said.
Trump vowed to keep the tariffs in place under other authorities he believes he holds during an afternoon press conference at the White House, where he also rebuked the six Supreme Court justices who wrote “that (the International Economic Emergency Powers Act) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”
Hochul disagreed with the assertion the Supreme Court’s decision wasn’t the right one.
“I think the Supreme Court, many of whom are appointees by the president, sided with supporting the Constitution and doing what’s right,” she said. “So we support this decision and hope that we can continue to find ways to work together to drive down costs, not do the opposite as we saw tariffs do in our states.”
The state Assembly passed a bill to eliminate the school revenue limit increases that are the result of Gov. Tony Evers’ 400-year veto. Evers signing the 2023 state budget which included the 400-year veto. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)
During its final planned floor session this week, the Wisconsin State Assembly passed a constitutional amendment proposal that would limit the executive partial veto power and a bill to eliminate the school revenue limit increases that are the result of Gov. Tony Evers’ 400-year veto.
Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine) said it was the “wrong decision” for lawmakers to finish their work in February and “take quite a long vacation.”
“There is a lot left on the table for us to address but we all know that an arbitrary deadline has been set for us to go home,” Neubauer said. “Thankfully, it does seem like the tide is turning in this body and one day things will be different and operate under a different framework that is focused on people rather than politics and power.”
Neubauer mentioned the passage of the postpartum Medicaid extension bill and the breast cancer screening bills that are now on their way to Gov. Tony Evers.
The session wrap-up will free Assembly lawmakers up to campaign for reelection, and the body could look much different next session as some longtime lawmakers, including Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester), are retiring. Under newly competitive maps, the balance of power in both the Assembly and Senate is up for grabs.
“We have a lot left to accomplish this session. There is still time for us to act on funding our public schools, protecting our rights and freedoms, lowering costs and helping Wisconsinites make ends meet,” Neubauer said. “This is the moment to act boldly and do the right thing for the people of Wisconsin.”
Vos told WISN-12 on Friday that leaders and Gov. Tony Evers had not yet reached a deal on how to use the state’s projected $2.5 budget surplus. The leaders have been negotiating on ways to ease property taxes and provide funding to schools.
“We’re going to figure a way to get it done,” Vos said, adding that he wants the money to “go back to the people” while Evers wants additional investments. “The middle ground is a little of each.”
“We’ll probably have to come back in a special session or extraordinary session, something like that,” he said.
Lawmakers passed proposals that were introduced in reaction to the veto as well as bills to ban phones in school, regulate app and social media companies and to provide state money towards “Trump accounts.”
The Assembly passed two proposals that took aim at the partial veto Evers used when he signed the 2023 state budget that extended an annual $325 per-pupil school revenue limit increase for 400 years. Evers, who recently defended the veto in his State of the State address, said he wanted to provide school districts with a consistent way to raise revenue in the absence of reliable state funding increases.
The Assembly also approved in a 54-41 vote along party lines a third constitutional amendment to go before voters later this year.
The amendments will go before Wisconsin voters in November. Two others, including one to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs from state and local governments and one to prohibit the state from ordering the closure of places of worship during a state of emergency, passed the state Legislature earlier this year.
Constitutional amendment proposals have to pass the state Legislature in two consecutive legislative sessions before they go to voters. If approved, SJR 116 would prohibit partial vetoes from raising or creating any taxes or fees.
Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) introduced the amendment proposal after Evers’ veto.
“You never know for sure who’s going to be the next governor,” Nedweski said on the Assembly floor Thursday. “Choose wisely on this.”
The Assembly also concurred in a bill that would outright eliminate the annual $325 per pupil revenue limit increases that are the result of the partial veto. The vote on SB 389 was 54-40 and it sends the bill to Evers, who is likely to veto it.
Despite its likely rejection, Republican lawmakers still made the case for why Evers should sign the bill into law.
Rep. Karen Hurd (R-Withee) read a letter from superintendents on the professional advisory committee for the Cooperative Educational Service Agency 10, which serves parts of northwestern Wisconsin, urging Evers to reverse his veto. They argued in part that $325 per pupil is not an increase that allows schools to keep pace with the rate of inflation, doesn’t fix chronic underfunding of special education funding and puts it all on property taxpayers.
The superintendents said that they thought the veto could impede reform of school funding in Wisconsin.
The veto doesn’t stop lawmakers from being able to put more state funding into schools, but Republican lawmakers have refused to do so. During the state budget process, Republican lawmakers angered by the veto opted not to provide any increase in general school aid in the 2025-26 or 2026-27 fiscal years. School advocates said the decision would only further exacerbate the funding issues they face, especially since their decision on whether to use the additional $325 increase would rely only on property tax increases.
“Every year we put together a budget, a budget that has to be sustainable. There may be a year that we could put more aid into schools than $325 per student. We have to look at that each year,” Hurd said. “We are people that are trying to fund the schools in every way that we can, but when it is set at $325 per year for the next 400 years, then that opportunity for us to work within the budget and increase it has been ripped away.”
Democrats said that before taking away authority from schools, lawmakers should consider improving the state’s system for funding schools. Rep. Christian Phelps (D-Eau Claire) said that the annual school revenue limit increase is the “only predictable source of revenue” for Wisconsin public schools.
“We should not close public schools,” he said, alluding to Republican lawmakers who have proposed consolidating school districts as a way of helping with funding challenges. “We should fund them.”
Rep. Angelina Cruz (D-Racine) said the GOP bill does not answer the question of how to fund schools and provide relief to property taxpayers
“The answer is to reconnect school funding to inflation. The answer is to increase state aid so local property taxes are not the backstop. The answer is to modernize the formula to reflect demographic realities. The answer is to fulfill our constitutional obligation to fully fund public schools,” Cruz said.
AB 460 would allow siblings of students in the state’s school voucher program to qualify for participation even if their family no longer meets the family income requirements. It passed on a voice vote. It now goes to the state Senate.
“I’m not going to do anything that further exacerbates the zeroing out of the state’s resources on public schools or expands privatization on the Wisconsin taxpayers dime, particularly Wisconsin property taxpayers dime,” Phelps said. “Unfortunately, this bill proposes removing income caps on the students that Wisconsin property taxpayers would be funding to attend private schools.”
AB 948 would require school districts to adopt policies that prohibit the use of cell phones for the entire school days, taking a step further than the recent law signed by Evers that bans phones during class. It passed via voice vote and will now go to the Senate.
Rep. Alex Joers (D-Waunakee) said he would support the bill but thought it was the “easy way out,” saying he wasn’t sure with advancing technologies in the future that to “blanketly ban things” would be an effective solution.
Rep. Alex Penterman (R-Hustisford), who has worked as a substitute teacher, said students in middle and high school can become a “social piranha” if they don’t have the latest smartphone.
Rep. Lindee Brill (R-Sheboygan Falls) said the bill would encourage students to engage with each other and bring back “loud lunches” where “kids aren’t on the phones but instead negotiations are happening between peanut butter and jelly and grilled cheese and not Snapchat. We need to go back to kids making their after school plans while they’re eating their lunches instead of bullying each other online.”
Goeben said her bills would support the “God-given constitutional right of parents to protect and guide their children, not tech platforms.”
The Assembly also passed a set of bills meant to put regulations on apps and social media companies that are intended to give parents more oversight over their children’s activity.
Rep. Joy Goeben (R-Hobart) said the bills were aimed at protecting children in “digital world that was not built with their safety in mind.”
“We’re living in an age of online predatory behavior, instant access and algorithm driven exposure. Children are encountering explicit material at younger and younger ages and many parents feel that they are fighting a losing battle.”
“We cannot pretend that warning labels will solve every problem but we can insist on honesty and accountability from those who profit from this content.”
AB 961 passed 61-34. It would would require digital distributors of media to display prominent “explicit content” warning labels on material that “predominantly appeals to the prurient, shameful, or morbid interest of children,” “is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable for children” and “lacks serious literary, artistic, political, scientific or educational value for children.”
The bill calls for the warning label to be displayed on the front page of digital platforms, the label would need to appear for at least 10 seconds or until a user acknowledges the warning.
AB 962 passed 58-37. It would require app developers and app stores to verify the age of users and get parental consent before children are able to download or purchase apps or make in-store purchases. Accounts belonging to a minor would have to be affiliated with an account owned by a parent.
AB 963 passed 60-35. It would require social media platforms that bring in more than $1 billion in revenue per year to take several steps, including estimating the age of users and for minors, setting their privacy to the most private settings, turning off addictive features and prohibiting profile-based, paid commercial advertising in their feeds.
The Assembly also approved bills to provide state funds to the “Trump accounts” program.
The federal tax and spending bill signed into law by President Donald Trump last year included a measure to allow parents to create dedicated “Trump accounts” similar to IRA accounts, for their children. Parents of babies born between Jan. 1, 2025 through the end of 2028 and who are U.S. citizens with a valid Social Security number will be eligible to have $1,000 deposited in the account from the federal government.
AB 996 would provide a state match for the accounts. AB 997 includes the $60 million in annual funding for the 2025-27 budget cycle for proposal. Both passed 62-35 with eight Democrats joining Republicans in favor.
“People are not saving at the right pace for retirement,” said the author of both bills, Rep. Elijah Behnke (R- Town of Chase). “The reason this is the best possible policy is because you’re investing in your kids’ future.”
Joers said the money should be invested in other priorities that could help children and parents more and expressed concerns about the federal program not being up and running yet.
“I think that we need to do a lot better for our kids and our parents,” Joers said. “This bill takes money that we should be giving to our children and our parents right now and instead takes it and gives it to a federal program that has not even been set up yet. I know the president wandered around stage with Nicki Minaj, but this program has not started yet.”
“Kids need this money now, not 18 years from now. They need it now in their schools they need this money. Let’s keep the promise that we made in our budget to fund special education reimbursement.”
The Assembly also approved two additional bills that were introduced after an investigation by the CapTimes that found there were over 200 investigations into teacher licenses due to allegations of sexual misconduct or grooming from 2018 to 2023.
The bills seek to provide new rules on how “immoral conduct” investigations are conducted.
AB 1003, which passed on a voice vote, would prohibit the Department of Public Instruction from ending an investigation into a license holder accused of immoral conduct without a determination on whether there should be a license revocation or termination. The prohibition wouldn’t apply if a licensee permanently surrenders the licenses and waives their rights to a future appeal.
AB 1004, which passed 87-8, prohibits public and private schools from entering agreements that would suppress information on the immoral conduct of an employee, would affect the report of immoral conduct by an employer or employees or require an education employer to expunge information about allegations of findings or immoral conduct.
Other bills on the issue that have passed the Assembly or Senate include one to create a “grooming” crime in Wisconsin, one to ensure school districts have policies on appropriate communications and one to require DPI to maintain an online licensing portal that is searchable by the public at no cost.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
President Donald Trump speaks during a press briefing at the White House Feb. 20, 2026 in Washington, D.C., after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against his use of emergency powers to implement international trade tariffs. Also pictured on stage, left to right, are Solicitor General John Sauer and Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said Friday he plans to keep tariffs in place using different authorities after the Supreme Court ruled he exceeded his power under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act.
During the afternoon press conference in the White House briefing room, Trump repeatedly criticized the six justices who wrote “that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”
“The Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing and I’m ashamed of certain members of the Court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country,” he said.
Trump’s disdain of Chief Justice John Roberts as well as Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor did not stop there.
He said the justices’ opposition to his tariff policies meant they were a “disgrace to our nation” as well as “unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution.”
Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh wrote dissenting opinions. Justice Samuel Alito and Thomas joined Kavanaugh’s dissent.
Trump appointed Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh during his first term.
But, Trump said, the ruling would not change the tariffs he has implemented under IEEPA since he planned to institute the same tax on goods coming into the country under different laws.
“The good news is that there are methods, practices, statutes and authorities as recognized by the entire Court in this terrible decision, and also as recognized by Congress, which they refer to, that are even stronger than the IEEPA tariffs available to me as president of the United States,” he said.
Trump said he would sign an order later in the day to “impose a 10% global tariff under Section 122, over and above our normal tariffs already being charged.”
Trump didn’t commit to returning the tens of billions of dollars the U.S. government has collected from IEEPA tariffs, saying the ruling didn’t address that issue.
“They take months and months to write an opinion, and they don’t even discuss that point,” Trump said. “I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years.”
Trump said he didn’t plan to ask Congress to pass any new laws or give the president broader tariff authority.
“I don’t have to. I have the right to do tariffs. And I’ve always had the right to do tariffs. It has all been approved by Congress, so there’s no reason to do it,” he said. “All we’re doing is we’re going through a little bit more complicated process, not complicated very much, but a little more complicated than what we had. And we’ll be able to take in more tariffs.”
Trump is set to address a joint session of Congress, which will likely be attended by many, if not all, of the Supreme Court justices, on Tuesday night.
Trump said he “couldn’t care less” whether the justices attend the speech, which is held in the House chamber. He said they are “barely” still invited, even though the president, who leads the executive branch, doesn’t hold the authority to exclude guests from either chamber of Congress, which makes up the separate but equal legislative branch.
Justices can, however, choose not to attend.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 9, 2024. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a major blow to President Donald Trump’s trade agenda Friday, ruling the tariffs he issued under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act are illegal.
In a 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court said Congress alone holds the power to tax in almost all circumstances. The Trump administration’s argument that trade deficits and illegal drug imports granted it emergency power to levy tariffs was not justified, the court said. Tariffs are taxes on imported goods.
The Trump administration had argued that a provision in the law, known as IEEPA, that said the executive branch could “regulate” imports empowered the president to levy tariffs.
“Based on two words separated by 16 others (in the law)—‘regulate’ and ‘importation’—the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time,” Roberts wrote. “Those words cannot bear such weight.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Roberts’ opinion.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh filed dissenting opinions. Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito joined Kavanaugh’s.
Kavanaugh’s dissent accepted the administration’s reading of the law and said it was not the justices’ role to decide a policy matter that has “generated vigorous” debate.
“The sole legal question here is whether, under IEEPA, tariffs are a means to ‘regulate . . . importation,’” he wrote. “Statutory text, history, and precedent demonstrate that the answer is clearly yes: Like quotas and embargoes, tariffs are a traditional and common tool to regulate importation.”
Trump blasted the ruling at an afternoon press conference. Asked if he regretted nominating Gorsuch and Barrett, he said the decision was “an embarrassment to their families.”
He said the judges were “being politically correct” and catering to special interests rather than fairly interpreting the law.
He also said he would impose global 10% tariffs under a provision of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to unilaterally apply tariffs for up to 150 days.
“Today, I will sign an order to impose a 10% global tariff under Section 122 over and above our normal tariffs already being charged,” he said.
Tariffs were an important tool to balance the country’s trade and hold leverage over other countries, he said.
In the opinion of the court, Roberts wrote that Trump’s expansive use of the emergency tariff powers would upend the balance of powers between branches of government.
The administration’s position would empower the president “to unilaterally impose unbounded tariffs,” simply by declaring an economic emergency, Roberts wrote. Further, that declaration would be unreviewable and could be overturned only by a veto-proof majority in both houses of Congress.
That view “would replace the longstanding executive-legislative collaboration over trade policy with unchecked Presidential policymaking,” he wrote.
When Congress intends to convey that kind of power to the executive branch, it generally does so in uncertain terms, Roberts said.
“In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it,” he wrote.
The government’s argument that IEEPA authorized that power, “falls short,” the opinion said.
The chief justice added that it was telling that in the nearly 50 years since the IEEPA became law, no other president has read such broad powers into it.
The ruling opens a new debate about how to handle tariff revenue that the government has already collected since Trump first imposed the IEEPA tariffs a year ago.
Kavanaugh noted the likely confusion the issue would cause.
“The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers,” he wrote. “But that process is likely to be a ‘mess,’ as was acknowledged at oral argument.”
U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat and prominent economic liberal, said that revenue should be sent to small businesses that were harmed by the imposition of tariffs.
“Any refunds from the federal government should end up in the pockets of the millions of Americans and small businesses that were illegally cheated out of their hard-earned money by Donald Trump,” she wrote in a statement.
Main Street Alliance, a national trade group representing small businesses, called for the revenue collected under the tariffs to be returned to small businesses.
“If the authority was unlawful, the collections were unlawful,” Executive Director Richard Trent said in a statement. “Every penny taken from small businesses under this framework should be returned.”
With the court ruling that taxing power lies with Congress, efforts to codify the tariffs Trump had applied could become a priority for Republican lawmakers.
“No one can deny that the President’s use of tariffs has brought in billions of dollars and created immense leverage for America’s trade strategy and for securing strong, reciprocal America-first trade agreements with countries that had been taking advantage of American workers for decades,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, wrote on social media. “Congress and the Administration will determine the best path forward in the coming weeks.”
Adrian Smith, a Nebraska Republican who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee’s subpanel on trade, said Congress should work with the president to legislate tariffs.
“Nebraska’s farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers create world-leading products and deserve reliable access to global markets,” he said. “I am committed to working with the administration to deliver long-term certainty through comprehensive and enforceable trade agreements. The President has made clear his intention to use every available tool to secure strong deals, but only Congress can ensure that these agreements provide lasting stability beyond any single administration.”
Ohio Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno, though, said in a social media post that the ruling would severely hamper efforts to rebalance trade, and called for Congress to codify the tariffs.
“SCOTUS’s outrageous ruling handcuffs our fight against unfair trade that has devastated American workers for decades,” he wrote. “These tariffs protected jobs, revived manufacturing, and forced cheaters like China to pay up. Now globalists win, factories (sic) investments may reverse, and American workers lose again. This betrayal must be reversed and Republicans must get to work immediately on a reconciliation bill to codify the tariffs that had made our country the hottest country on earth!”
Democratic lawmakers praised the court’s decision, while blasting the tariffs as a matter of policy.
“This is a win for the wallets of every American consumer,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said. “Trump’s chaotic and illegal tariff tax made life more expensive and our economy more unstable. Families paid more. Small businesses and farmers got squeezed. Markets swung wildly. We’ve said from day one: a president cannot ignore Congress and unilaterally slap tariffs on Americans. That overreach failed.”
Sen. Jeff Merkley, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, called the decision “a win for farmers, small businesses, and hardworking, middle-class families across the country,” he said in a statement.
“Trump’s illegal and chaotic tariffs have harmed American consumers and businesses, leaving them to foot the bill for rising prices due to Trumpflation,” the Oregon Democrat added. “While Trump continues his ‘families lose, billionaires win’ agenda, we’re using every tool at our disposal to fight back against his reckless policies and build an economy where families thrive, and billionaires pay their fair share.”
The justices heard arguments in early November in what was the first major case of the second Trump term to move beyond the court’s emergency docket and be heard on the merits of the case.
Small businesses and Democratic state attorneys general led the legal challenges against Trump’s tariffs in the two separate cases, consolidated before the Supreme Court. They alleged Trump usurped taxing power, which belongs to Congress as outlined in Article I of the Constitution.
Victor Schwartz, founder and president of the family-owned, New York-based wine and spirits importer VOS Selections led the small business plaintiffs, which included a Utah-based plastics producer, a Virginia-based children’s electricity learning kit maker, a Pennsylvania-based fishing gear company and a Vermont-based women’s cycling apparel company.
State attorneys general who sued included those from Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon.
Two Illinois-based toy makers that primarily manufacture products in Asia filed a separate challenge.
For nearly three hours on Nov. 5, the justices dissected the language of IEEPA, a 1970s-era sanctions law that Trump invoked during the first year of his term in a series of emergency declarations and proclamations triggering import taxes on goods from nearly every country.
The high-profile case drew Cabinet officials to the court, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who sat shoulder-to-shoulder with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer.
Members of Congress also attended. Among the crowded rows were U.S. House Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Democratic Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Ed Markey of Massachusetts.
Trump began imposing tariffs under IEEPA via executive order in February and March on products from China, Canada and Mexico, declaring the countries responsible for illegal fentanyl smuggled into the United States.
The president escalated the emergency tariffs April 2, which he dubbed “liberation day,” when he declared trade imbalances a national emergency. In addition to a new baseline 10% global tariff, Trump announced hefty additional duties on products from countries that export more goods to the U.S. than they import from U.S. suppliers.
The White House calculations baffled economists, as the administration proposed steep duties on close trading partners — including 20% on products from the European Union, 25% on South Korea, 32% on Taiwan and 46% on Vietnam.
Inexplicably he also announced a 50% tariffs on goods from the landlocked, 11,000-square-mile African nation of Lesotho, and 10% on the Heard and McDonald Islands, only inhabited by penguins and seals.
Trump’s announcement crashed markets, wiping trillions of dollars away in just a matter of days. He relented and delayed most of the tariffs, but escalated a trade war with China — shooting up the levy to 125%, and eventually to 145%.
The administration’s trade war with China cooled a bit in May, but left the rate on some products at an effective 55%.
Trump maintains his tariffs have forced the hand of other governments to invest in the U.S. in exchange for lower tariffs. For example, Trump officials claimed victory in a framework deal with Japan that lowered duties on Japanese products to 15%, from 25%, with a promise from Japan to invest $550 billion in the U.S.
As recently as late August, Trump imposed an extra 25% tariff on goods imported from India, bringing the total tariffs on Indian products to 50%, because of the country’s usage of Russian oil.
In early August, Trump slapped a 40% tax on all Brazilian goods after he disagreed with the country’s prosecution of its former right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro for plotting a coup to remain in power in 2022.
Republican lawmakers watch Gov. Tony Evers’ final State of the State address, shaking their heads, making side comments and pulling their phones out during portions of the speech. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)
Before Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) announced his retirement Thursday, it was obvious something had changed. The longest serving speaker in Wisconsin history, known for keeping Assembly Republicans on a tight leash, slipped out of a caucus meeting late Wednesday night. Capitol reporter Baylor Spears tracked him down at a fundraiser at the Madison Club, where, she reported, Vos told her his caucus was meeting without him. Later that evening, Assembly Republicans announced that Vos had suddenly dropped his yearslong opposition to letting Wisconsin expand postpartum Medicaid coverage for new mothers for one year. Vos’ last-minute change of heart allowed eight Republicans facing competitive reelection races to hold a late-night press conference proclaiming the news that they planned to pass postpartum coverage, along with another measure extending life-saving breast-cancer screenings that Vos was suddenly permitting to come up for a vote. Vos himself didn’t bother to attend.
With both Vos and Gov. Tony Evers retiring, the two most powerful politicians in the state — and the often dysfunctional dynamic between them — are going away. It’s the end of an era characterized by toxic partisanship, although probably not the last we’ll see of divided government in our 50/50 state.
Still, as Vos relaxes his grip, Wisconsin Republicans are starting to wrap their heads around the new reality that they no longer hold complete control over what was once, effectively, a one-party state.
New, fairer voting maps have already eroded gerrymandered GOP supermajorities in the Legislature that previously endured even when Democrats won every statewide race. In the upcoming November elections, the new maps will, for the first time, take full effect.
The creation of more competitive districts has not immediately ushered in an atmosphere of productive bipartisanship in the Capitol. But it did cause enough of a thaw that Wisconsin could finally join the other 48 states that have already expanded postpartum Medicaid. Republicans running in newly competitive districts can campaign on this bit of belated progress. Two cheers for Wisconsin! We’re 49th!
At the Vos-less press conference Wednesday night, Republicans gave emotional testimony about “the women who need this protection.” They thanked the speaker for finally listening to their pleas. Then, instead of reaching across the aisle, they delivered a scorching rebuke to Democrats who had been pushing for months for a vote on both of the women’s health bills they were celebrating. When the bills were not scheduled, Democrats vowed to bring them up as amendments to other bills, holding up action on the floor and threatening to put their GOP colleagues in the embarrassing position of having to vote down their efforts.
“I’m very angry at what happened today — very angry,” Rep. Patrick Snyder (R-Weston) said. “I talked to my Democratic colleagues and told them that I was close, that it was going to get done, but then they throw this crap at us today. It almost blew it up.”
By speaking up, Democrats nearly ruined Republicans’ efforts to gain support within their own caucus, according to Snyder. That analysis caused Democratic Minority Leader Greta Neubauer to roll her eyes. “It seems that the bills are going to the floor after years of Rep. Pat Snyder telling us that these bills were going to be passed and them not being passed, so it does seem like our actions made a difference today,” Neubauer said.
Partisan habits die hard. For much of the most recent legislative session, Republicans formed a Sorehead Caucus whose sole aims were rehashing grievances about their loss of power and trying in vain to recreate the dominance they enjoyed when they controlled every branch of government.
Back in 2018, when Evers won the first time, breaking the GOP stranglehold by beating former Republican Gov. Scott Walker, Republicans held a lame duck session to claw back the incoming governor’s powers. Eight years later, as Evers is about to leave office at the end of his second term, they’re still at it. Motivated by spite over Evers’ line-item veto extending their modest, two-year increase in school revenue limits for the next 400 years, they have insisted on starving school districts of state funds, punishing not only Wisconsin schoolchildren but also the property taxpayers who, in the absence of state funding, are forced to pick up the tab.
In a similarly spiteful vein, Republicans just killed off the popular, bipartisan Knowles Nelson stewardship program, setting up the 36-year-old land conservation effort to die this summer. Over and over in hearings on whether to renew the program or drastically cut it back, Republicans cited a state Supreme Court decision that held they cannot anonymously veto individual conservation projects. GOP legislators said the decision — written by the most conservative justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court — left them no option but to gut the program just to show who’s boss.
As Henry Redman reports, a handful of conservation-minded Republicans could have joined forces with Democrats to save the program, but Republican bill authors insisted on negotiating only within their own caucus, ignoring Democratic efforts to make a deal and instead trying to please the program’s far-right enemies by making deeper and deeper cuts before finally giving up and letting the program lapse.
This style of governing — a hangover from the Walker era — might satisfy certain politicians’ hunger for power, but it’s ill-suited to getting anything productive done for the people who live in the state.
Let’s hope Vos’ departure marks the end of the petty partisanship that has blocked progress in Wisconsin for far too long.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
Login