As states continue to curb health insurers’ use of artificial intelligence, patients and doctors are arming themselves with AI tools to fight claims denials, prior authorizations and soaring medical bills. (Photo by Anna Claire Vollers/Stateline)

As states strive to curb health insurers’ use of artificial intelligence, patients and doctors are arming themselves with AI tools to fight claims denials, prior authorizations and soaring medical bills.

Several businesses and nonprofits have launched AI-powered tools to help patients get their insurance claims paid and navigate byzantine medical bills, creating a robotic tug-of-war over who gets care and who foots the bill for it.

Sheer Health, a three-year-old company that helps patients and providers navigate health insurance and billing, now has an app that allows consumers to connect their health insurance account, upload medical bills and claims, and ask questions about deductibles, copays and covered benefits.

“You would think there would be some sort of technology that could explain in real English why I’m getting a bill for $1,500,” said cofounder Jeff Witten. The program uses both AI and humans to provide the answers for free, he said. Patients who want extra support in challenging a denied claim or dealing with out-of-network reimbursements can pay Sheer Health to handle those for them.

In North Carolina, the nonprofit Counterforce Health designed an AI assistant to help patients appeal their denied health insurance claims and fight large medical bills. The free service uses AI models to analyze a patient’s denial letter, then look through the patient’s policy and outside medical research to draft a customized appeal letter.

Other consumer-focused services use AI to catch billing errors or parse medical jargon. Some patients are even turning to AI chatbots like Grok for help.

A quarter of adults under age 30 said they used an AI chatbot at least once a month for health information or advice, according to a poll the health care research nonprofit KFF published in August 2024. But most adults said they were not confident that the health information is accurate.

State legislators on both sides of the aisle, meanwhile, are scrambling to keep pace, passing new regulations that govern how insurers, physicians and others use AI in health care. Already this year, more than a dozen states have passed laws regulating AI in health care, according to Manatt, a consulting firm.

“It doesn’t feel like a satisfying outcome to just have two robots argue back and forth over whether a patient should access a particular type of care,” said Carmel Shachar, assistant clinical professor of law and the faculty director of the Health Law and Policy Clinic at Harvard Law School.

“We don’t want to get on an AI-enabled treadmill that just speeds up.”

A black box

Health care can feel like a black box. If your doctor says you need surgery, for example, the cost depends on a dizzying number of factors, including your health insurance provider, your specific health plan, its copayment requirements, your deductible, where you live, the facility where the surgery will be performed, whether that facility and your doctor are in-network and your specific diagnosis.

Some insurers may require prior authorization before a surgery is approved. That can entail extensive medical documentation. After a surgery, the resulting bill can be difficult to parse.

Witten, of Sheer Health, said his company has seen thousands of instances of patients whose doctors recommend a certain procedure, like surgery, and then a few days before the surgery the patient learns insurance didn’t approve it.

In recent years, as more health insurance companies have turned to AI to automate claims processing and prior authorizations, the share of denied claims has risen. This year, 41% of physicians and other providers said their claims are denied more than 10% of the time, up from 30% of providers who said that three years ago, according to a September report from credit reporting company Experian.

Insurers on Affordable Care Act marketplaces denied nearly 1 in 5 in-network claims in 2023, up from 17% in 2021, and more than a third of out-of-network claims, according to the most recently available data from KFF.

Insurance giant UnitedHealth Group has come under fire in the media and from federal lawmakers for using algorithms to systematically deny care to seniors, while Humana and other insurers face lawsuits and regulatory investigations that allege they’ve used sophisticated algorithms to block or deny coverage for medical procedures.

Insurers say AI tools can improve efficiency and reduce costs by automating tasks that can involve analyzing vast amounts of data. And companies say they’re monitoring their AI to identify potential problems. A UnitedHealth representative pointed Stateline to the company’s AI Review Board, a team of clinicians, scientists and other experts that reviews its AI models for accuracy and fairness.

“Health plans are committed to responsibly using artificial intelligence to create a more seamless, real-time customer experience and to make claims management faster and more effective for patients and providers,” a spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans, the national trade group representing health insurers, told Stateline.

But states are stepping up oversight.

Arizona, Maryland, Nebraska and Texas, for example, have banned insurance companies from using AI as the sole decisionmaker in prior authorization or medical necessity denials.

Dr. Arvind Venkat is an emergency room physician in the Pittsburgh area. He’s also a Democratic Pennsylvania state representative and the lead sponsor of a bipartisan bill to regulate the use of AI in health care.

He’s seen new technologies reshape health care during his 25 years in medicine, but AI feels wholly different, he said. It’s an “active player” in people’s care in a way that other technologies haven’t been.

“If we’re able to harness this technology to improve the delivery and efficiency of clinical care, that is a huge win,” said Venkat. But he’s worried about AI use without guardrails.

His legislation would force insurers and health care providers in Pennsylvania to be more transparent about how they use AI; require a human to make the final decision any time AI is used; and mandate that they show evidence of minimizing bias in their use of AI.

“In health care, where it’s so personal and the stakes are so high, we need to make sure we’re mandating in every patient’s case that we’re applying artificial intelligence in a way that looks at the individual patient,” Venkat said.

Patient supervision

Historically, consumers rarely challenge denied claims: A KFF analysis found fewer than 1% of health coverage denials are appealed. And even when they are, patients lose more than half of those appeals.

New consumer-focused AI tools could shift that dynamic by making appeals easier to file and the process easier to understand. But there are limits; without human oversight, experts say, the AI is vulnerable to mistakes.

“It can be difficult for a layperson to understand when AI is doing good work and when it is hallucinating or giving something that isn’t quite accurate,” said Shachar, of Harvard Law School.

For example, an AI tool might draft an appeals letter that a patient thinks looks impressive. But because most patients aren’t medical experts, they may not recognize if the AI misstates medical information, derailing an appeal, she said.

“The challenge is, if the patient is the one driving the process, are they going to be able to properly supervise the AI?” she said.

Earlier this year, Mathew Evins learned just 48 hours before his scheduled back surgery that his insurer wouldn’t cover it. Evins, a 68-year-old public relations executive who lives in Florida, worked with his physician to appeal, but got nowhere. He used an AI chatbot to draft a letter to his insurer, but that failed, too.

On his son’s recommendation, Evins turned to Sheer Health. He said Sheer identified a coding error in his medical records and handled communications with his insurer. The surgery was approved about three weeks later.

“It’s unfortunate that the public health system is so broken that it needs a third party to intervene on the patient’s behalf,” Evins told Stateline. But he’s grateful the technology made it possible to get life-changing surgery.

“AI in and of itself isn’t an answer,” he said. “AI, when used by a professional that understands the issues and ramifications of a particular problem, that’s a different story. Then you’ve got an effective tool.”

Most experts and lawmakers agree a human is needed to keep the robots in check.

AI has made it possible for insurance companies to rapidly assess cases and make decisions about whether to authorize surgeries or cover certain medical care. But that ability to make lightning-fast determinations should be tempered with a human, Venkat said.

“It’s why we need government regulation and why we need to make sure we mandate an individualized assessment with a human decisionmaker.”

Witten said there are situations in which AI works well, such as when it sifts through an insurance policy — which is essentially a contract between the company and the consumer — and connects the dots between the policy’s coverage and a corresponding insurance claim.

But, he said, “there are complicated cases out there AI just can’t resolve.” That’s when a human is needed to review.

“I think there’s a huge opportunity for AI to improve the patient experience and overall provider experience,” Witten said. “Where I worry is when you have insurance companies or other players using AI to completely replace customer support and human interaction.”

Furthermore, a growing body of research has found AI can reinforce bias that’s found elsewhere in medicine, discriminating against women, ethnic and racial minorities, and those with public insurance.

“The conclusions from artificial intelligence can reinforce discriminatory patterns and violate privacy in ways that we have already legislated against,” Venkat said.

Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at avollers@stateline.org.

Federal regulations around mifepristone, which has provided abortion access across the United States, are being challenged in multiple lawsuits from opposing directions. (Getty Images)

Despite its strong safety record, the abortion and miscarriage drug mifepristone has been taken to court in several conflicting lawsuits, where some plaintiffs argue the drug should be easier to access, and others say it should be more restricted. 

The medication, sometimes prescribed through telehealth and sent to patients by mail, has provided abortion access across the United States and become a prime target for abortion opponents. 

A group of ongoing federal lawsuits challenges the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s 2023 decision to maintain special requirements for the abortion pill, with a federal court in Washington upholding the FDA’s decision, a federal court in Hawaii asking the FDA to justify its decision, and a court in Virginia still to rule. Yet another lawsuit, filed Nov. 13 by the American Civil Liberties Union, challenges the FDA under the Freedom of Information Act, alleging the agency has, without giving a reason, refused to disclose the parameters of its mifepristone review and related communications with outside groups. 

For more information and updates on pending mifepristone cases, visit the Mifepristone Litigation and Federal Action Tracker from the Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Heidi Purcell et al. v. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. et al.

• Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii
• Claims: Originally named Chelius v. Wright and filed Oct. 3, 2017, by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a family doctor and several medical associations, this lawsuit challenges the FDA’s mifepristone restrictions as unduly burdensome and arbitrarily restrictive, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
• Stakes: This case could determine whether the FDA can continue requiring special certifications for patients and providers, which plaintiffs argue deter and delay care, and present privacy risks for patients and providers post-Roe. If plaintiffs succeed, mifepristone could become easier to dispense and access throughout the country.
• Status: On Oct. 30, Judge Jill Otake, nominated by Republican President Donald Trump, ruled the FDA did not properly justify its 2023 decision or consider all of the evidence when it decided to maintain current restrictions on mifepristone. She ordered the agency to reconsider its decision. Plaintiffs did not seek to vacate the regulations in its lawsuit, so for now they remain in place pending the outcome of the FDA’s review and response to the court. A joint status report from plaintiffs and defendants on how the case should proceed is due Dec. 4.

Whole Woman’s Health Alliance et al. v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration et al. 

• Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia
• Claims: On May 8, 2023, abortion providers in Virginia, Montana, and Kansas challenged the FDA’s mifepristone rules as unduly burdensome and arbitrarily restrictive, similar to the claims in Purcell v. Kennedy.
• Stakes: If plaintiffs succeed in this case, mifepristone could become easier to dispense and access.
• Status: U.S. District Judge Robert S. Ballou, nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden, heard oral arguments on the motions for summary judgment in May but has not yet issued a decision.

Washington et al. v. FDA et al.

• Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington
• Claims: On Feb. 23, 2023, Washington and initially 11 other states challenged the FDA’s mifepristone regulations as burdensome and unnecessary.
• Stakes: Expanding mifepristone access was on the line in this case.
• Status: Terminated. Judge Thomas O. Rice, nominated by former Democratic President Barack Obama, ruled this summer that the FDA’s review and decision regarding the mifepristone restrictions was reasonable, not arbitrary or capricious.  

American Civil Liberties Union v. FDA

• Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
• Claims: On Nov. 13, 2025, the ACLU sued the FDA arguing it has not complied with the Freedom of Information Act. The nonprofit law firm in August sought  expedited records around the parameters of the FDA’s ongoing review of mifepristone and communications with outside groups. The ACLU alleges the agency has failed to provide a determination regarding the request.
• Stakes: Records released as part of this lawsuit could bring transparency to HHS’ review of the abortion pill.
• Status: The government has not yet filed a brief in response to the lawsuit, which has been assigned to Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Sullivan. 

 

Another group of lawsuits challenge state abortion pill restrictions, arguing that federal law, which allows medication abortions to be prescribed via telehealth and by the mail up to 10 weeks’ gestation, supersedes state laws.

GenBioPro v. Kristina Raynes et al.

• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (on appeal from U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia)
• Claims: In 2023, mifepristone generic manufacturer GenBioPro sued West Virginia after the state criminalized abortion and explicitly banned prescription of mifepristone by telemedicine. The company argued federal law preempts West Virginia law and that Congress authorized only the FDA to impose restrictions on access to mifepristone.
• Stakes: A ruling in plaintiffs’ favor could have made abortion drugs easier to access in a state that has cut off access to pregnancy termination in most circumstances.
• Status: Terminated. District court Judge Robert C. Chambers, nominated by former Democratic President Bill Clinton, found in 2023 that the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act did not preempt West Virginia’s abortion regulation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision in July. 

Amy Bryant v. Timothy Moore et al.

• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (on appeal from U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina)
• Claims: In 2023, North Carolina Dr. Amy Bryant sued her state over medication abortion restrictions, arguing the FDA’s mifepristone policy preempts state restrictions, which require in-person prescribing, dispensing and administering; prohibit providers other than physicians from prescribing mifepristone; mandate the scheduling of an in-person follow-up appointment; and require non-fatal adverse events reported to the FDA.
• Stakes: The case could limit states’ ability to restrict medication abortion.
• Status: Chief Judge Catherine C. Eagles, nominated by Obama, found that some restrictions were preempted by federal law but upheld other state requirements, including mandatory ultrasounds and waiting periods. The case is pending appeal.

Birthmark Doula Collective et al. v. Louisiana et al. 

• Court: Louisiana’s 19th Judicial District Court
• Claims: On Oct. 31, 2024, birth workers, medical professionals and a pregnant woman challenged a Louisiana law that classifies mifepristone and misoprostol as controlled dangerous substances, even though the FDA does not. They argue the classification delays access to these medications during emergencies, risking the health and safety of patients experiencing miscarriages.
• Stakes: Drugs used for emergencies during pregnancy could become easier for providers to access if plaintiffs prevail.
• Status: Pending in state trial court. In May, the court held a hearing on a motion to dismiss and ruled the challenge can proceed.

 

Another group of lawsuits seek to reimpose more restrictions on mifepristone and argue the FDA erred in its decision to allow abortion medication prescribed through telehealth and sent through the mail. Both cases cite anecdotes of women being coerced or drugged by partners to argue in-person visits are in the best interest of abortion patients. 

Missouri et al. v. FDA et al.

• Court: U.S. District Court of Eastern District of Missouri
• Claims: Originally filed Nov. 18, 2022 by a group of anti-abortion doctors and groups that claimed that mifepristone is highly dangerous and the FDA unlawfully loosened restrictions. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the case last summer, determining plaintiffs did not have standing to sue and remanded it to lower courts.
• Stakes: If plaintiffs prevail, the FDA could bar telehealth and mail delivery of medication abortion, which would curtail access throughout the country.
• Status: The lawsuit was resurrected by attorneys general in Idaho, Kansas and Missouri. It was transferred last month from Trump appointee Matthew Kascmaryk’s court in Texas to Trump appointee Cristian Stevens’ court in Missouri. 

Louisiana et al. v. FDA et al.

• Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana Lafayette Division
• Claims: Filed Oct. 6, 2025, the state of Louisiana and resident Rosalie Markezich are suing to vacate the FDA’s 2023 decision to remove the in-person dispensing requirement. Markezich says she was coerced by a former partner to take the abortion pill, which she says he ordered in her name and received by mail.
• Stakes: If plaintiffs prevail, the FDA could bar telehealth and mail delivery for abortion medication, which could curtail access throughout the country.
• Status: The case is pending in district court before Trump appointee Judge David C. Joseph.

Read more about the FDA’s high-stakes abortion pill safety review.

Tomorrow, a look at efforts to both reinforce and crack shield laws across the country.

U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., shown here in September, cited a white paper funded and self-published without peer review by anti-abortion groups as grounds for federal scrutiny of a key abortion medication’s safety. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is facing increasing pressure from abortion opponents and advocates over how it regulates a drug that has become central to abortion access since Roe v. Wade was overturned three years ago.

Abortion medication manufacturers, health care providers and state attorneys general have continued to petition and sue the agency to loosen regulations for mifepristone, a key abortion drug. At the same time, anti-abortion policy leaders have successfully lobbied the Trump administration — on the basis of a self-published white paper funded by anti-abortion groups — to review mifepristone’s safety again and consider reviving old restrictions.

On Thursday, Nov. 13, the American Civil Liberties Union sued the FDA under a federal public records law for refusing to disclose the parameters of its new review, as well as communications with outside groups. 

Abortion opponents have called on the FDA to ban telehealth abortion, which has allowed abortion rates to rise slightly nationally despite state bans. A shift in mifepristone regulation could dramatically change abortion access throughout the country, and health advocates and litigators on both sides of this dispute are closely watching how the agency justifies any changes. 

Abortion-rights advocates have also seized on a recent federal ruling from a Trump-appointed judge, which orders the FDA to justify its 2023 decision to maintain restrictions on the abortion pill and argues the agency excluded from its review, without explanation, a wealth of research and evidence that it previously accepted.

Reproductive health legal experts say the action could prevent the anti-abortion white paper from being the main thing the agency considers before modifying its policy. 

“This is where the debate, both in the courts and the FDA, is taking place, around how it is considering evidence, making sure it is reviewing valid evidence and not junk evidence, and getting really reasoned explanations based in that evidence, as opposed to politics or ideology,” said Diana Kasdan, the legal and policy director for the Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. 

Where reproductive health legal experts say the abortion pill has been over-regulated for a drug with a high safety record, anti-abortion attorneys, like senior counsel Erik Baptist of the Christian-right powerhouse Alliance Defending Freedom, have been arguing that the drug’s risks are exacerbated by its increased availability. The law firm, which was integral to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, is also representing a Louisiana woman in an abortion medication lawsuit against the FDA. 

“The FDA’s actions have created an even more unsafe environment for women,” Baptist said. 
“We expect the Trump administration to zealously appeal this dangerous decision.”

‘It’s the same data set, essentially’

Putting pressure on FDA’s review team are national anti-abortion policy groups like Americans United for Life, one of several groups that criticized the agency for approving a new generic version of mifepristone this fall. The group is part of a coalition that helped produce and, at the end of April, publicize the white paper on mifepristone’s safety, which U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. soon after cited as the basis for ordering a new review of the drug. 

The Ethics and Public Policy Center’s self-published paper analyzed a commercially available data set of all-payer health insurance claims from 2017 through 2023 and found an 11% rate of severe adverse events — 22 times higher than the less than 0.5% rate that’s on the label for mifepristone. Reproductive health researchers have criticized the paper’s broad classification of serious adverse events while noting it also reports low rates of the most serious side effects associated with medication abortion, like sepsis (0.1%), transfusion (0.15%), and hospitalization related to the abortion (0.66%). Meanwhile more than 100 peer-reviewed studies have found low rates of serious adverse effects, including for abortion medication provided through telehealth.

The paper, which has also been cited by lawmakers like U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, did not go through a scientific peer review, and the Ethics and Public Policy Center would not disclose the exact data set used. Spokesperson Hunter Estes previously told States Newsroom the group was not legally permitted to provide the data set but that the paper’s description of it should be enough to replicate the study.  

Americans United for Life CEO John Mize said he hopes to see the paper peer-reviewed in the near future. But he said the coalition has for now achieved its goal of convincing the FDA to look at the same insurance claims data set analyzed by the Ethics and Public Policy Center and then do its own analysis.

“What we’ve been told is the FDA is doing their own internal analysis of the EPPC data,” Mize said. “It’s to be seen what the FDA does with methodology. That’s the important component, because the data is the data. It’s the same data set, essentially.”

HHS did not respond to questions about its ongoing mifepristone review or the federal judge’s recent order to review all of the safety data, instead directing States Newsroom to an Oct. 2 post on X from Kennedy defending both the FDA’s review of mifepristone and its approval of a second generic version. 

“Recent studies already point to serious risks when mifepristone is used without proper medical oversight,” Kennedy posted. “@US_FDA only approved a second generic mifepristone tablet because federal law requires approval when an application proves the generic is identical to the brand-name drug.”

But if the FDA’s review ultimately draws different scientific conclusions than the anti-abortion movement, Mize said his side won’t stop pursuing challenges to the drug. 

“If it comes out that it’s not nearly as dangerous as what EPPC is reporting, and the data appears to be quality and not skewed by politics, then personally, I might take a different perspective,” Mize said. “But I am still fairly confident that a drug that induces abortion at home without clinical oversight is probably something that needs a little bit more scrutiny. … We might continue to fine tune methodology and look at pursuing other avenues of peer review.”

Politicized science 

Anti-abortion policy and legal advocates have been lobbying for tighter restrictions on mifepristone since the drug was first approved in 2000, and especially since the FDA started dropping restrictions, such as allowing the regimen to be used until 10 weeks’ gestation instead of seven in 2016. After Roe v. Wade was overturned, the FDA under President Joe Biden’s administration permanently dropped the in-person dispensing requirement, allowing people to obtain the abortion pill via telehealth and through the mail. 

But the FDA maintained other regulations, as part of the drug’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, such as requiring prescribers, pharmacists and patients to sign forms agreeing to meet certain qualifications and acknowledging the drug’s common side effects, like heavy bleeding and nausea, and potential severe risks, like infection. Abortion providers have argued that some of the rules are unnecessary and burdensome.

Of the more than 20,000 prescription drug products approved by the FDA, less than 100 have REMS, and many of those are injectables with serious side effects like coma and death. In a quarter century, the FDA has reported 36 deaths associated with, but not necessarily caused by, mifepristone.

U.S. District Judge Jill Otake on Oct. 30 ordered the FDA to review all the relevant safety data on mifepristone, ruling that the agency erred years ago when it failed to justify maintaining strict rules on the drug despite a strong safety record after 25 years on the market. One week later, the U.S. Senate Democratic Caucus sent a letter to Kennedy and FDA Commissioner Martin Makary demanding the ongoing mifepristone review be based on science and evidence. 

“That court order reinforces that, in conducting this new review, FDA may not cherry-pick junk science serving an anti-abortion agenda, but must instead look at the full body of evidence both confirming mifepristone’s safety and underscoring the harms of the FDA’s onerous restrictions,” reads the letter obtained by NOTUS. The senators ask HHS to respond by Nov. 28, to questions about the evidence being considered and the methodology.

Anti-abortion research groups also produced new studies for their first legal attempt to reinstate restrictions on mifepristone in a lawsuit filed in 2022. The plaintiffs persuaded a Trump-appointed district court judge to order the FDA to change its policy on the basis of studies funded by the anti-abortion movement that were later retracted by the journal’s publisher because of their methodology. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the case, not on the merits but because plaintiffs did not have proper standing. The high court is expected to consider similar questions again, as at least seven mifepristone-focused lawsuits work their way through the lower courts.

University of Pittsburgh law professor Greer Donley said that to meet the FDA’s policy on approving new drug regulations, the agency will need more than one or two outlier studies as justification. 

“To survive arbitrary and capricious review, they have to provide a reasoned decision that’s based on the facts, and if the facts taken as a whole suggest that this is a safe and effective drug, even though there’s one new paper out there that suggests it’s maybe a little less safe than it was before, they’re going to have to justify why that one paper outweighs the 50 papers on the other side that were published in peer-reviewed journals,” Donley said. “I don’t know how they could explain that.”

Donley has studied mifepristone regulation closely and said she watched the science around the medication become increasingly politicized, much more than other drugs. While controversial medicine, like gender-affirming care, involve drugs with multiple purposes, mifepristone was approved for the explicit purpose of ending a pregnancy. 

The FDA’s medication abortion regimen involves another drug, misoprostol, which was approved to treat ulcers, and is used off-label for abortions and miscarriages. It has not faced the same scrutiny as mifepristone. Abortion providers have said they would likely pivot to a misoprostol-only regimen if mifepristone were to become much harder to access, which it has even for miscarriages in states that have banned abortion entirely, like Kentucky and Louisiana.

Mifepristone manufacturer Danco Laboratories last year confirmed ongoing efforts to add miscarriage management as an approved use to its drug label. Were that to happen, it could be a game changer for access, Greer said.  

“It actually would be a pretty huge deal if they added it,” she said. “Because all of these attacks against mifepristone for abortion, even if they succeed, then mifepristone would theoretically remain on the market for miscarriage care, and then it could be used off-label for abortion.”

Read the latest on legal cases over mifepristone winding their way through the courts. 

Tomorrow, a look at efforts to both reinforce and crack shield laws across the country.

Don't look at the gas plant behind the curtain! If you feel like tech companies and energy utilities are gaslighting you with their assurances that AI data centers won't hurt our environment, you're probably right.

In this episode, how AI is causing a fossil fuel boom in Wisconsin and the lawsuit just filed to try and stop it.

💾

Among registered voters, 49 percent said they would vote for a Democrat for Congress if the election were held today compared to 44 percent who said they'd vote for a Republican.

The post Marquette pollster: National survey results ‘huge’ problem for GOP appeared first on WPR.

“The Unmapping is what happens when your city sort of gets sick and reacts very negatively. Every building rearranges with each other at four o'clock in the morning. Every single day.”

The post In ‘The Unmapping,’ the world rearranges itself — starting in Door County appeared first on WPR.

State agencies are teaming up to prevent an invasive forest pest from making its way into Wisconsin and threatening millions of the state’s hemlock trees.

The post Invasive tree-killing pest ‘highly likely’ to show up in Wisconsin, expert says appeared first on WPR.

A Republican-led proposal would require new fees for people looking to hike, cross-country ski, bike, canoe or forage on state-owned land. 

The post Republican lawmakers propose new fees for hiking, biking, cross-country skiing on state-owned land appeared first on WPR.

Environmental groups are asking a federal judge to overturn a plan to fast-track connecting new power plants to the Midwest electric grid, including a proposed natural gas plant in Wisconsin.

The post Groups ask judge to overturn plan fast-tracking connection of new power to Midwest grid appeared first on WPR.

Touring three of London’s palaces — the Tower of London, Hampton Court and Kensington Palace; host Lucy Worsley.

The post Lucy Worsley’s Royal Palace Secrets appeared first on WPR.

ACL spotlights next-gen artists Role Model and MJ Lenderman & The Wind in captivating debuts.

The post Austin City Limits:Role Model; MJ Lenderman & The Wind appeared first on WPR.

Eleanor doubles down on her efforts to confront racism; Betty helps Jerry secure the Republican nomination for reelection while her problems with addiction worsen; Michelle grieves after gun violence tragedies […]

The post The First Lady:Nadir appeared first on WPR.

Madison police say a woman who stabbed a sixth grade classmate in order to appease a fictional horror character known as Slender Man cut off her ankle monitor and hasn't returned to a group home in the city.

The post Slender Man stabber cut off ankle bracelet and hasn’t returned to group home appeared first on WPR.

President Donald Trump meets with New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani n the Oval Office on Nov. 21, 2025. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump and New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani turned around their heated criticism in remarks to the press after an Oval Office meeting Friday.

After months of attacking each other, Trump and Mamdani pledged to address the high cost of living for New Yorkers. The White House has tried to steer messaging toward affordability in recent weeks as Trump’s approval ratings on the economy have sunk. 

“Some of his ideas really are the same ideas I have,” Trump said. “You know the new word is affordability. Another word is just groceries. It’s sort of an old-fashioned word, but it’s very accurate. They’re coming down.”

Food prices have risen considerably in recent years. Groceries overall cost 3.1% more than they did a year ago, according to the government’s latest Consumer Price Index.

Mamdani campaigned on lowering the cost of living, including property tax reform, making buses free and floating the idea of city-run grocery stories.

The mayor-elect described the meeting as “a productive meeting focused on a place of shared admiration and love, which is New York City, and the need to deliver affordability to New Yorkers.”

“We spoke about rent, we spoke about groceries, we spoke about utilities, we spoke about the different ways in which people are being pushed out, and I appreciated the time with the president,” Mamdani said.

The pair fielded questions on housing costs, crime, whether either of them would retract their recent barbs and whether Trump would backtrack his threats to cut federal money to New York City.

“Well, I think if we didn’t get along, whether it’s cut off or just make it a little bit difficult, or not give as much, we want to see,” Trump said.

“We had a meeting today that actually surprised me. He wants to see no crime. He wants to see housing being built. He wants to see rents coming down. All things that I agree with. Now, we may disagree how we get there,” Trump added.

In response to a question about GOP Rep. Elise Stefanik, a Trump ally, calling Mamdani a “jihadist” as she eyes the New York gubernatorial seat, Trump said “she’s out there campaigning, and you say things sometimes in a campaign.”

“I met with a man who is a very rational person. I met with a man who wants to see, really wants to see, New York be great again,” Trump continued, adding “I’ll be cheering for him.”

Mamdani will be the city’s first Muslim mayor, as well as the youngest ever elected.

Mamdani sought meeting

Mamdani said he sought the meeting with Trump.

“My team reached out to the White House to set up this meeting because I will work with anyone to make life more affordable for the 8 and a half million people who call this city home,” Mamdani said in a press conference Thursday.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Thursday the meeting “speaks to the fact that President Trump is willing to meet with anyone.”

“It speaks volumes that tomorrow we have a communist coming to the White House.”

Trump and congressional Republicans have repeatedly referred to the 34-year-old Mamdani as a “communist.” Mamdani, who ran on the Democratic ticket, identifies as a Democratic Socialist, an organization that claims roughly 85,000 members nationally. The ideology as a movement received a boost after the 2016 presidential run of U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who represents Vermont and caucuses with Democrats.

Mamdani beat out former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo this month by a 50.4% to 41% margin, according to the New York Times election coverage. Republican candidate Curtis Sliwa took just over 7% of the vote. Cuomo, who ran as an independent, resigned from office in 2021 after multiple women accused him of sexual harassment.

Trump endorsed Cuomo, seemingly reluctantly, on the eve of the election, in a post on his social media platform Truth Social.

“Whether you personally like Andrew Cuomo or not, you really have no choice,” he wrote. “You must vote for him, and hope he does a fantastic job. He is capable of it, Mamdani is not!”

Threat to pull funding

As Mamdani’s campaign gained momentum, Trump threatened to cut off billions in federal funding to New York City, Trump’s own home city.

Trump repeated the threat on election eve, writing on Truth Social that if Mamdani won, New York City would be a “total economic and social disaster” and that NYC should not expect any federal dollars “other than the very minimum as required.”

In Mamdani’s victory speech, he referred to Trump as a “despot.”

In July, Trump threatened to arrest Mamdani if the incoming mayor does not comply with the administration’s mass deportation campaign, including sending an influx of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to New York City.

 

Farmworkers gather produce near Hemet, Calif. The Trump administration is making it easier for farmers to employ guest workers from other countries. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

In a tacit admission that U.S. food production requires foreign labor, the Trump administration is making it easier for farmers to employ guest workers from other countries.

At the same time, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in recent months appears to be refraining from conducting agricultural workplace raids, even as it scours Democratic-led cities for immigrants who are in the country illegally.

“We really haven’t seen agriculture targeted with worksite enforcement efforts, and early this year we did,” said Julia Gelatt, associate director of U.S. immigration policy at the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank.

The shifts come as many Americans are concerned about the rising cost of food, creating political problems for a president who campaigned on lowering them. Last week, the administration also announced it would lift tariffs on some foreign food products, including bananas, beef, coffee and tomatoes.

To ease labor shortages on farms and ranches, the administration last month made changes to the federal H-2A visa program, which allows employers to hire foreign workers for temporary agricultural jobs when there aren’t enough U.S.-born workers available. Under the new rule, the Department of Homeland Security will approve H-2A visas more quickly.

“Our immigration system has been broken for decades, and we finally have a President who is enforcing the law and prioritizing fixing programs farmers and ranchers rely on to produce the safest and most productive food supply in the world,” the U.S. Department of Agriculture said in an email to Stateline.

But the move to increase the supply of foreign agricultural workers conflicts with a July statement by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins that “the promise to America, to ensure that we have a 100% American workforce, stands.”

Rollins also said the administration was committed to the mass deportation of immigrants who are here illegally, but that it would be “strategic so as not to compromise our food supply.” Ultimately, she said, the solution would be increased automation of agricultural jobs.

The government has issued about 420,000 H-2A visas for agricultural workers every year since 2023, which amounts to about half of the 812,000 agricultural worker jobs. They are concentrated in states that grow fruits and vegetables as opposed to grains, which are increasingly planted and harvested using machines. The government expects an additional 119,000 visas to be issued under the new rule.

Almost half the H-2A visas in the 2025 fiscal year were in Florida (60,000), Georgia (44,000), California (37,000), Washington state (36,000) and North Carolina (28,000).

Lower wages

The new H-2A rule also includes new hourly wage guidelines that vary by state but are lower than previous wages, and allows employers to charge workers for housing that used to be free. In North Carolina, for instance, the new rate is $11.09 for unskilled workers compared with $16.16 last year. In California, the rate is $13.45 for unskilled workers compared with $19.97 last year, though minimum wage laws in California and some other states would apply to those jobs, according to a Cornell University analysis.

In North Carolina, farmers are looking forward to lower labor costs, said Lee Wicker, deputy director of the North Carolina Growers Association, a trade association that brought 11,000 guest workers to the state through the H-2A guest worker program last year.

“If you think farmers are making more money in these conditions, you’re wrong. They’re going broke,” Wicker said. Workers will take a pay cut under new guidelines and will have to pay for housing, but that may help farmers stave off bankruptcy, he said.

“I’m not saying the workers are going to be happy about this, but I think they’ll come back. Wages have gone down before and they kept coming,” he added.

Jeffrey Dorfman, an agricultural and resource economics professor at North Carolina State University, said the changes will be a boon to the state’s farmers.

“The move to lower the H-2A wages by the Trump administration will be very well received by growers in North Carolina and will save farmers tens of millions of dollars statewide,” Dorfman said. “For many farmers, it will turn money-losing crops into money-making crops, if prices stay about where they are now.”

Unionized California farmworkers are opposed to the pay cuts and loss of free housing in the new guest worker visa plan, said Antonio De Loera-Brust, a spokesperson for the United Farm Workers, which represents about 10,000 workers in California.

The union sued the administration over ICE raids in the fields earlier this year, but recently “it’s been pretty quiet,” he said.

“For us it’s been really a one-two punch,” De Loera-Brust said. “First came the raids, which hurt workers, and now in order to appease business interests, they make all these concessions on wages and the guest workers program.”

Fewer raids

The administration quickly walked back a June directive to avoid raids on the agriculture and hospitality industries. Nevertheless, ICE raids on those employers have been more infrequent in the months since.

In June, ICE raided a dairy farm in New Mexico and a meatpacking plant in Nebraska. Since then, the agency has raided only a handful of food and agriculture employers, such as a July raid on a California marijuana grower and an Arizona restaurant chain, and a September raid to arrest Wisconsin dairy workers.

Earlier this month, ICE agents descended on an onion farm in Northern California, arresting four immigrants on charges of illegally selling farmworker visas.

Even as ICE ramps up its activity in North Carolina cities such as Charlotte and Raleigh, Wicker, of the growers trade group, said farms in the state have not been targeted.

Gelatt, of the Migration Policy Institute, said that’s been true of farms and ranches in many states since June.

“In past administrations we’ve seen a very quiet de-emphasis of immigration enforcement at farms. You don’t need to make an announcement. You don’t need to fight in the courts,” Gelatt said. “It is possible just to direct enforcement activities away from farms. It’ll be hard to know if that’s happened now, but I would not be surprised.”

While farmworkers in California are seeing some relief from raids, life is still uneasy for them, De Loera-Brust said.

“Overall, they have clearly slowed down [raids] in ag areas, but that’s not policy. They could resume at any time. People are living with uncertainty,” he said.

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.

A U.S. Department of Education regulation slated to take effect in July 2026 would give the secretary broad discretion to decide which organizations qualify for a program to forgive student loans for borrowers that enter public service. (Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A new U.S. Department of Education regulation to narrow eligibility for a key student debt relief program for public service workers has drawn strong opposition from advocates who argue the regulation is an attempt to target organizations whose missions do not align with President Donald Trump’s agenda. 

Under a final rule slated to take effect in July, employers that participate in “unlawful activities such that they have a substantial illegal purpose” would be excluded from the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which is meant to encourage college graduates to pursue careers in public service.

The language of the final rule, which focuses on issues such as gender-affirming care and illegal immigration, has also raised concerns it meant to enforce the Trump administration’s priorities.

At least three lawsuits from Democratic attorneys general, cities, labor unions and nonprofit advocacy groups argue that the regulation is overly vague and exceeds the department’s authority. 

The rule would hurt not only the institutions that benefit from the program, but the public service workers themselves, Winston Berkman-Breen, legal director at the advocacy group Protect Borrowers, told States Newsroom.

“It’s not just about the macro effect of whether these organizations, including governments, will be able to do the work they do,” he said. “It’s also the individual financial health and security of borrowers and their households that will be really, really detrimentally affected by this rule, and we’re already sort of seeing that happen.” 

The organization is representing a coalition of cities, nonprofit advocacy groups and labor unions in one of the lawsuits over the regulation. 

Here’s a closer look at the policy and what it would mean for borrowers and employers: 

What is Public Service Loan Forgiveness?

Congress created the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, or PSLF, in 2007 via the College Cost Reduction and Access Act to incentivize people to take on public service careers. 

PSLF forgives the remaining student debt for borrowers after they make 120 qualifying monthly payments while working for an eligible employer. 

How will the regulation work? 

The department’s final rule — which stems from a March executive order — is only forward-looking, meaning workers would not lose any credit earned prior to the July 1, 2026, effective date. 

Under the policy, the Education secretary can determine “by a preponderance of the evidence” that an employer has taken part in “illegal activities such that the organization has a substantial illegal purpose.” 

Affected employers can either reapply to serve as a qualifying employer after 10 years or try to regain eligibility in a quicker timeframe if they enter into a “corrective action plan” that needs the secretary’s approval. 

The activities that could disqualify employers, according to the department, include: 

• “Aiding and abetting” illegal immigration or “illegal discrimination”
• Providing gender-affirming care
• Supporting terrorism or “engaging in violence for the purpose of obstructing or influencing” federal government policy
• Trafficking children across states “for purposes of emancipation from their lawful parents”
• Violating state laws

What’s the debate about?

Though the administration has framed the rule as an effort to punish “criminal activity,” advocates and Democratic officials see it as a way to target organizations that are not aligned with the administration’s goals.

“The bases for the disqualification that are in the final rule for the secretary of Education are pretty clearly just proxies for being engaged in activities that this administration doesn’t agree with or that don’t align with its agenda,” Berkman-Breen said.

He pointed to supporting immigrant communities, gender-affirming care, transgender rights, diverse hiring, teaching an accurate portrayal of racial history in this country and the right to peaceful protest as examples. 

Berkman-Breen said these activities are “very clearly things that this administration in other parts of the government has already attacked in civil society and in the states and local communities, but they’re now bringing that sort of attack into the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program.”

In response to a request for comment, the department shared a statement from Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent, who said “it is unconscionable that the plaintiffs are standing up for” what he describes as “criminal activity.” 

“This is a commonsense reform that will stop taxpayer dollars from subsidizing organizations involved in terrorism, child trafficking, and transgender procedures that are doing irreversible harm to children,” he said. “The final rule is crystal clear: the Department will enforce it neutrally, without consideration of the employer’s mission, ideology, or the population they serve.”

How will employers be affected? 

Michele Zampini, associate vice president for federal policy and advocacy at the Institute for College Access & Success, said the final rule will divert nonprofits’ ability to focus on their mission and impede their ability to keep staff on and attract new workers.

The final rule “will have the effect of putting a lot of nonprofits doing a lot of really important work in their communities in a defensive position, whether they’re being preemptively defensive to try and avoid running afoul of the administration, or whether they’re already kind of in a position where the administration has identified them as a target,” she said. 

Zampini, whose group aims to advance affordability, accountability and equity in higher education, added that the program was crucial in attracting talent to service-oriented work. 

“PSLF is a big part of what … enables people to take on what may be lower-paying jobs in exchange for being able to manage their debt over time,” she said. “If people don’t have that option, or even if they feel like they don’t have that option or are afraid they won’t have that option, it becomes a lot harder to kind of attract people to those roles.” 

What legal challenges have come out against the policy? 

The administration is already facing a handful of lawsuits over the final rule, with critics urging federal courts to vacate the policy and deem it “unlawful.”

The challengers include a slew of cities, labor unions and nonprofit advocacy groups who filed suit in a Massachusetts federal court Nov. 3. 

Another lawsuit was brought the same day in the same federal court from Democratic attorneys general in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and Wisconsin. 

Four nonprofit advocacy groups also filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Nov. 4 against the administration over the rule.

Hemp plant at a farm in Minnesota. (Photo by Baylor Spears)

When Jacob Diener first heard that the status of hemp could be reviewed, he wasn’t too concerned. With his company, A Good Plug, the 32-year-old expected to continue producing small batch hemp products like gummies, brownies, and cheesecakes. 

“It seems around this time it happens every year that they want to re-assess the Farm Bill,” Diener told the Wisconsin Examiner. But 2025 was different and Diener, like others across the industry, was caught off guard when what amounted to a prohibition on his livelihood was discreetly attached to a deal to end the longest government shutdown in U.S. history. “It’s just weird and scary,” he said. 

Hemp businesses were allowed to flourish after the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, which legalized the production and distribution of hemp products with no more than 0.3% THC on a dry weight basis. But under new rules that were included in the stopgap spending bill ending the federal government shutdown last week, products must contain no more than 0.4 milligrams of THC per container. 

Steve Hampton, owner of the Eau Claire-based company Steve’s Hemp, says that standard is biologically impossible to meet. “[The] hemp plant struggles to grow to meet that guideline before it’s even harvested,” Hampton told the Wisconsin Examiner. “So, we’re seeing upwards to 99% of the industry get wiped out from this.” 

THC is the primary psychoactive compound in the cannabis plant. Although hemp and the psychoactive variety commonly known as marijuana are the same plant species, they have different chemical compositions. Many cannabis varieties are cultivated with high levels of THC for markets in states where the plant has been legalized medical or recreational. 

Hemp, with far lower concentrations of THC, is mostly used for rope, paper and industrial products. It is also offered in states that do not have legal cannabis markets as an alternative — a source for  products containing delta-9 THC, THCa, THCp and other derivatives. 

The law reopening the government, however, effectively bans those products and gives the industry until next November to adapt or fizzle out. Erin Kelly, owner of the Wauwatosa-based hemp goods store Kelly’s Greens, told TMJ4 that even CBD products contain trace amounts of THC which make them effective medicine, and that the new rules would render that medicine ineffective. Wisconsin’s hemp industry is estimated to be valued at $700 million and accounts for at least 3,500 jobs, according to the Wisconsin State Journal. 

“Everybody’s frantic, you know, we’re all worried,” Hampton told the Examiner. Without an amendment to the new rules or legislative intervention, Hampton says the nation’s $28.4 billion hemp industry won’t survive, and that most of his own store’s inventory would be banned. 

More than just a cash crop

When he was a teenager in Fond du Lac, Diener was introduced to cannabis through his grandmother, who used it to manage her pain and chronic illnesses. He began using it to help with his stress and the early signs of Crohn’s disease he was experiencing

After years of working in the restaurant industry, Diener realized he wanted more out of life. “And so I started to get permission from my chef to start making candy in the kitchen behind the scenes, just learning the basics, but with the intentions that I wanted to make infused candy, gummy worms, stuff like that,” he said. “Stuff that I didn’t see on the market at the time.”

Hampton also became involved in hemp after experiencing the medicinal value of the plant. “I was a college student at the time,” he said, “and was looking for some relief with some back pain, some sore muscles from the gym. And my dad had actually bought me some CBD oil to test out for my birthday. And it was from a local farm up here in northern Wisconsin. That helped me a ton with what I needed it for.” 

Hampton realized that there were not many such products marketed to younger people like him. He grew his business online before opening a storefront during Small Business Week in 2021. Today Hampton, 29, owns and operates his business alongside his wife and five employees. People of all ages come into his store. “In-store, we have a lot of customers who come in just looking for relief,” he said. Many of the customers are seeking a remedy for anxiety, as well as “a large handful of customers that have chronic pain,” he said. 

Steve’s Hemp carries flowers, vapes, gummies, candies, topical ointments and other products. Diener, who specializes in culinary cannabis products, makes everything from Nerds-covered gummies (a popular product he calls “Stoney Bites”) to other sweets. Diener describes his customers as “such a community of oddballs and people who have unique personalities. And that’s what I’ve always hoped for, and that’s kind of what I come from and who I am a person. People authentic to themselves.” 

The cost of  prohibition

Before the federal ban on THC-derived hemp products was added to the bill to reopen the government, Republican lawmakers in Wisconsin were already working on bills to restrict or prohibit the industry in the state. Representatives Lindee Brill (R-Sheboygan Falls), Jim Piwowarczyk (R-Hubertus) and others introduced what they called “a common-sense corrective bill” to close the “loophole” that allowed what they called “dangerous, psychoactive THC-laced products to proliferate in Wisconsin.” 

The lawmakers pointed to health advisory warnings issued by federal agencies about the use of delta-9 THC, and issues with unregulated markets across the country. In Wisconsin, hemp products from CBD to delta-9, HHH, THCa, and others can either be found at dispensaries where employees are often knowledgeable about their products, or at gas stations and smoke shops where customers don’t receive information and guidance. Wisconsin lawmakers have raised an alarm about emergency room visits and poison center calls linked to delta-8 THC and similar compounds, as well as concerns that children could easily purchase the products. 

Hemp business owners say they often applaud common sense regulation. They also support fully legalizing cannabis in Wisconsin —  ending prohibition. To address concerns about health consequences and children’s access to cannabis, “what would really help that is regulation, not prohibition,” Hampton said.

Everything from clear packaging guidelines to age restrictions, lab testing and education about where the product comes from and what it does could be part of a legal regulatory structure, Hampton argued. Rather than allowing any gas station to carry hemp products, Hampton would like to see licensed facilities staffed by people who care about what they’re doing. “Our main goal with this business was to educate our customers, and know what’s in our product, and recommend what would work best for our customer,” he said. 

One 2024 study analyzing national poison data systems found that between 2021 and 2022, reports of exposure to delta-8 THC increased by 79%. The study also found that poison center calls for delta-8 were significantly lower in places where either delta-THC was banned, or where cannabis use was already legalized. “Consistent regulation of delta-THC across all states should be adopted,” the study recommended. Other poison center data shows that since 2022, exposures to delta-8 THC have plummeted, a trend which has continued into 2025. 

Prohibition also creates economic stagnation,  advocates contend. Tim Frey, of Ignite Dispensary and Cigar calls it “Wisconsin’s half a billion dollar loss.”

Frey lobbied against state Republican bills to restrict hemp, and he argues that hundreds of millions are essentially handed over to Michigan and Illinois every year when Wisconsinites make the sometimes difficult decision to travel across state lines to obtain cannabis. 

“Now that Minnesota is opening up, with the largest border, we’re probably going to be losing approximately up to $200 million,” Frey told Wisconsin Examiner. “And then if they came up with a small tax on hemp-derived stuff, that’s easily $100 million there, if not more, give or take. So it’s going to be around half a billion dollars that Wisconsin could use to give to law enforcement, get fentanyl off our streets, reduce property taxes, invest in roads” and other uses. 

Hampton fears that now customers will go to the black market or risk being pulled over after driving to a neighboring state. “I just don’t understand why they thought that prohibition would be the right answer,” he said. 

As some Wisconsin legislators are working to enact a new prohibition on hemp products, others are trying to legalize medicinal THC cannabis in the state. Earlier this year, two-thirds of registered voters polled by Marquette Law School said that cannabis should be legalized in Wisconsin. Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers have introduced what would be one of the country’s most restrictive medicinal cannabis programs. 

Frey is cautious of the medical-cannabis-only approach, however, “because it’s very hard to qualify with some ailments,” he told the Wisconsin Examiner. He added that if Wisconsin passed a restrictive medical cannabis program, then it would open the door for the state’s indigenous tribal communities, as sovereign nations, to open their own recreational programs. “So then we would be a recreational state without the control, or the revenue,” he said.  

Diener said that when conservative lawmakers talk about cannabis, they sound at least 10 years behind the times. “I think that right now there’s such extreme viewpoints on it that are outdated, and really just don’t line up with today’s market or today’s values with the plant,” he said.

Frey believes that it’s past time Wisconsin had a serious discussion about legalization. “Limit the licenses,” he declared. “Control this, tax it, get licenses out there to responsible people that are going to do things the right way —  that card people, that do truth-in labeling, that care about the quality of their products.”

In addition to strict regulation, Diener said parents can protect their children from hemp products instead of the government banning them. “You have the responsibility just the same as if you have a gun in the home to keep your things in a safe space that your children cannot access,” Diener said. “You wouldn’t have your alcohol bottle sitting just, like, within reach or in a cupboard that your kids know they can access. Even growing up as a teen, when my mom knew that I was starting to go to parties and stuff, she would start to hide her alcohol.” 

After the federal hemp laws were changed, Piwowarczyk, in a television interview, said unsympathetically of hemp business owners that “you guys took a gamble when you decided to open up your hemp business.” 

Hampton counters that lawmakers like Piwowarczyk should “open their eyes, and look around, and actually meet with the constituents of their districts” who are the consumers driving the industry. 

Uneasy months ahead

For now, hemp distributors and their allies have until next November to adjust to the new federal restrictions. Frey said Wisconsin could provide some protection for the industry by enacting its own regulations for hemp products, similar to the way states have legalized cannabis industries despite the ongoing federal prohibition. 

There are already state-level legislative responses in the works, he said. One bill, AB 503, would redefine the definition of hemp to prohibit THC-derived products. Another, AB 606, would add hemp to the responsibilities of the agency in the Department of Revenue that regulates alcohol. A bill authored by Senate Democrats, SB 644, would create a regulated framework and age limits for hemp products, though it lacks Republican co-sponsors. Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point) is circulating a draft bill for co-sponsorship that also regulates hemp products. 

“That bill is probably the best, most common-sense written bill that I’ve seen,” Frey told the Wisconsin Examiner. While the Democratic bill would be promising, he said, he thinks it won’t gain Republican support. 

“It’s more crucial to protect this industry in Wisconsin than it is to craft the most perfect bill,” said Frey, adding that he thinks the hemp industry will get behind Testin’s bill “full force”. 

At the same time, however, Frey wonders whether the federal regulations will change by next November. He points out that the new law gives the industry a year to adapt instead of imposing a ban immediately. 

Frey thinks that if Wisconsin passes hemp regulations but the federal laws remain the same, then the hemp industry would risk losing its federal task deductions and also lose the ability to conduct interstate commerce. 

If there is no change to save the hemp industry, a cascade of effects will ripple out. Earlier this year, Hampton  opened a new manufacturing facility just down the street from the Steve’s Hemp storefront. In the middle of next year, he will likely have to close that as well, he said. 

Once the new law takes effect, “our hands are pretty much tied,” said Hampton. “My wife and I will have to find new jobs for each other, continue to make ends meet. And then those families that work for us — those employees that work for us — will have to do the same.” Until then, Diener said, “I am going to continue to serve the people who need us the most and work to continue growing this dream and keeping this dream alive.” 

Hampton and his employees “are obsessed and passionate about this industry,” Hampton said. “We started this industry with hopes to run a legal dispensary out of Wisconsin, and hopefully transition into that. Now that plan is crushed. And so we don’t know what we’re going to do. We’re just going to try to keep our hopes up, and try to fight as much as we can to keep [hemp] legal, and if that isn’t possible, get recreational cannabis pushed through the state of Wisconsin.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

DPI announced this week that initial special education payments would reimburse schools for their special education costs at 35%. A hallway in La Follette High School in Madison. (Wisconsin Examiner photo)

Initial special education reimbursement payments to school districts this year will be about 35% of their costs — about 7 percentage points below the estimated rate approved in the state budget.

When the 2025-27 state budget was passed by the state Legislature and signed by Gov. Tony Evers in July, policymakers boasted that their investments would bring the special education reimbursement rate to a historic 42% in the first year of the budget and 45% in the second year. 

While school districts will still receive more aid for special education costs this year than in previous state budgets, it appears that the state funding set aside probably won’t be enough to reach the rate that was estimated when the budget was signed in July.

The Department of Public Instruction (DPI) announced in a bulletin on Monday that initial special education payments for November through March would reimburse schools 35% of their special education costs. While DPI uses a slightly lower rate to avoid overpayment and this is not the final reimbursement rate, Chris Bucher, DPI director of communications, said in an email that the agency has anticipated the rate falling below the estimate.

Special education reimbursement rates for public school districts can vary from the estimate because it is a sum certain allocation, meaning that payments come from a fixed pot of money.

During the budget process, public education advocates, DPI and Gov. Tony Evers called for that to change to a sum sufficient allocation, meaning that the amount of money provided by the state would be enough to meet the set reimbursement rate. Republican lawmakers rejected the request.

Bucher said having a lower reimbursement rate than what is estimated has been relatively typical with budgets, given that there is a fixed amount of state funding as well as a rising amount of unaided special education costs and a rising number of students with disabilities.

According to a Legislative Fiscal Bureau memo released Thursday, in 2024-25 the state had appropriated about $574 million to special education aid. When the 2023-25 state budget was passed, the appropriation was estimated to bring schools to a 33.3% rate in each year of the budget. In November 2024, DPI estimated a rate of 29.16%, and the final rate for that school year was 30.64%.

Based on cost increases in recent years, DPI projected costs would grow by 4% for its 2025-27 state budget request. It had estimated that aidable costs would be about $1.8 billion in 2025-26 and $1.9 billion in 2026-27. Those estimates were also used as Evers prepared his budget request and as the Legislature prepared the budget. 

According to the new memo, DPI now projects that aidable costs in 2024-25 increased by an estimated 9% — a rate more than twice the original projection when the 2025-27 budget was being drafted.

For the 2025-27 state budget, the DPI requested about $2 billion across the biennium to cover special education costs for school at a rate of 90% by the second year of the budget and to change the funding from “sum certain” to “sum sufficient.”

Gov. Tony Evers also requested the change from sum certain to sum sufficient, though he requested increasing it to a 60% rate by the second year. The Joint Committee on Finance denied those requests instead choosing to provide $207 million in the first year of the budget to cover an estimated 42% of costs and $297 million in the second year to cover costs at an estimated rate of 45%.

Advocates called attention to the reimbursement rate in statements this week, saying the funding system needs an overhaul.

Peggy Wirtz-Olsen, president of the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the state’s largest teachers union, blamed the rate on lawmakers, saying that they “turned their backs on our most vulnerable children, failing to deliver on promised special education funding and leaving our students without the supports they need to succeed in school.” 

“This shortfall will mean even more communities forced into holding school referendums in 2026 just to meet basic needs, causing uncertainty and hardship for students who deserve better from their elected leaders,” Wirtz-Olsen said in a statement. 

Wirtz-Olsen said lawmakers have been “caught lying about the scant resources they are providing.” 

“It’s time for these politicians to fix Wisconsin’s school funding formula and fulfill what the state Constitution requires,” she said. “Taxpayers have had enough of picking up the tab on our property taxes to make up for their refusal to fund schools. If they won’t take action for the students who most need help, educators and families will.” 

Beth Swedeen, executive director of the Wisconsin Board for People with Developmental Disabilities, called on the state to change the way it funds school districts. 

“It’s time to build a budget that is rooted in real costs and can provide budget certainty to schools and parents that the promises made by the legislature will translate into real dollars schools can use,” Swedeen said in a statement. “We should not be in this position cycle after cycle where students with disabilities and schools are undercut by accounting codes.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

(The Center Square) – Gov. Tony Evers made an unprecedented move by changing characters on a bill to make a $325 per student annual school funding levy increase each year until 2425.

(The Center Square) – Wisconsin’s liquor rules for wedding barns are here to stay.