Producers across the central U.S. are facing high input costs as the trade war puts crop markets in an uncertain position. Agriculture economists say they’re watching tariffs and the cattle industry — which has boosted income for some farmers.
The post Farmers head into 2026 facing uncertain trade and crop prices — but beef remains a bright spot appeared first on WPR.
Over the past seven years, a University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire professor and dozens of students have been finding and documenting evidence of one of the darkest chapters in human history.
The post UW-Eau Claire researchers use radar to search for Holocaust mass graves appeared first on WPR.
President Donald Trump holds up the "One, Big Beautiful Bill" Act that he signed into law on the South Lawn of the White House on July 4, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Alex Brandon - Pool/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — This year produced a seemingly endless array of history-making events and nearly constant change to immigration policy, tariffs, the Education Department and federal health care programs.
President Donald Trump came back into office emboldened by a decisive 2024 election victory and empowered by Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress. The unified GOP government enacted a major tax cuts and domestic spending law in July, but hit a roadblock in late September when the federal government shut down for a record-breaking six weeks.
Here’s a look back at some of the biggest news stories from Washington, D.C.
The U.S. House began the year reelecting Louisiana Republican Mike Johnson as speaker and pushing through a series of GOP-favored bills focused on immigration and transgender student athletes.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., officially took over the role from Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., pledging to protect the legislative filibuster, the 60-vote procedural hurdle that requires at least some bipartisanship for major legislation to advance. Meanwhile, several committees began the confirmation process for Trump’s nominees.
Just days ahead of his second inauguration, a judge sentenced Trump in the New York hush money case for paying off an adult film star in the leadup to the 2016 election.
Trump, who moved his inauguration indoors amid arctic weather, marked the first day of his second term by signing a series of executive orders addressing immigration and birthright citizenship, as well as climate change and LGBTQ rights. He also pardoned 1,500 people who were convicted of various crimes related to the Jan. 6. 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Just before the end of the month, Trump signed the first bill approved by the Republican-controlled Congress, the Laken Riley Act. And he announced plans to implement tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, the start of one of his signature economic policies.
Lawsuits against Trump’s actions began piling up within weeks as Democratic attorneys general, immigrant rights organizations and civil liberties groups accused the administration of overstepping its authority.
Trump and other administration officials sought to reduce the size and scope of the federal government by firing thousands of probationary workers and called on the heads of all federal agencies to submit reorganization plans by mid-March. He also fired 20 immigration judges.
Republicans in Congress started working through the several complicated steps of the budget reconciliation process that would eventually lead to the “big, beautiful bill.”
Trump’s efforts to dismantle the Department of Education began advancing shortly after the Senate voted to confirm Linda McMahon as secretary. In one of her first acts leading the department, she wrote in a memo its “final mission” would be to “to send education back to the states and empower all parents to choose an excellent education for their children.”
Trump signed an executive order later in the month directing McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure” of the Education Department, though much of that authority rests with Congress.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts issued a rare public statement defending the judicial branch against criticism from Trump.
The Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee asked the Defense Department inspector general to look into the use of the Signal messaging app by high-ranking officials to discuss an imminent bombing in Yemen. A journalist at The Atlantic was inadvertently added to the chat and later published a series of articles about the experience.
The Trump administration admitted in court filings that officials mistakenly deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia of Maryland to a notorious mega-prison in El Salvador.
The Supreme Court became more involved in the national debate about Trump’s policies toward immigrants, first ruling that the administration didn’t need to bring Abrego Garcia back before reversing course and ruling officials must “facilitate” his return to the United States.
El Salvador President Nayib Bukele, sitting alongside Trump in the Oval Office, later said he wouldn’t send Abrego Garcia back.
Separately, Trump’s tariff policies were the focus of a Senate hearing. Republicans in Congress settled on an outline for their “big, beautiful bill” and later began advancing different parts of that package out of House committees.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he would refocus autism research funding on environmental factors. And Trump signed a series of executive orders addressing education policy.
The Supreme Court ruled that a ban on transgender people serving in the military could remain in place while the case continued at a lower level, that the Trump administration violated due process rights when it tried to deport some Venezuelans under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, that the administration could end temporary protected status for 350,000 Venezuelans, and that the Trump administration could proceed with deportations for 500,000 people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela who had been granted temporary protected status.
Republicans in the House voted to approve a 1,116-page package that combined 11 bills into what would eventually become the “big, beautiful bill,” sending the measure to the Senate.
Former President Joe Biden was diagnosed with “a more aggressive form” of prostate cancer.
Trump doubled tariffs on steel and aluminum, from 25% to 50%, saying during a trip to a U.S. Steel plant in Pennsylvania that he would increase them even further if he thought it would be necessary to “secure the steel industry in the United States.” The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported later in the month that his tariff policies would reduce the country’s deficit but likely slow the economy.
Immigration continued to be a central part of the news cycle with Abrego Garcia returning to the U.S., California Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla being forcibly removed and handcuffed while attempting to ask Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem a question during a press conference in Los Angeles and the Supreme Court weighing in on lower courts issuing nationwide injunctions.
Trump said the U.S. military had bombed “three key nuclear facilities” in Iran before calling for peace.
The Senate approved the final, much reworked version of the “big, beautiful bill,” sending it back to the House, which voted along party lines to clear the sweeping tax and health care package for Trump, who signed it on the Fourth of July.
The legislation included several policy goals for the GOP, including on Medicaid, immigration and deportations and a national private school voucher program. The Congressional Budget Office expects the law will increase the federal deficit by $3.394 trillion during the next decade and lead 10 million people to lose access to health insurance.
The Supreme Court ruled the Trump administration could continue with its plans for mass layoffs and downsizing at the Education Department.
Trump was diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency, a “benign and common” condition for people over the age of 70, according to U.S. Navy Capt. Sean Barbabella, the president’s physician.
Senators from both parties expressed frustration that Department of Agriculture officials didn’t consult with Congress before proposing to move thousands of jobs out of the Washington, D.C., area.
Trump announced a deal with European Union leaders that would result in a 15% tariff on most goods coming into the U.S. from those 27 countries.
Trump started off the month instituting a 15% tariff on goods brought into the U.S. from about three dozen countries, though he raised that amount for several nations, including 18% on products from Nicaragua, 30% on imports from South Africa and 50% on goods from Brazil.
A New York State appeals court ruled the $465 million civil penalty against Trump in the case where he was found liable for financial fraud for inflating the worth of some of his real estate holdings was excessive.
Republican and Democratic state legislatures, urged on by the president and members of Congress, sought to begin the November 2026 midterm elections early by redrawing maps for U.S. House seats to give their party a baked-in advantage.
Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook sued Trump after he attempted to fire her, arguing in court documents his actions were an “unprecedented and illegal attempt” that would erode the board’s independence.
A federal appeals court ruled that Trump did need to pay an $83 million penalty for defaming writer E. Jean Carroll.
The Supreme Court ruled that federal immigration agents could racially profile Latinos in Southern California as a lawsuit over the issue continued through the federal courts.
Former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Susan Monarez testified before a Senate committee that she was fired from that role after less than a month because she refused to pre-approve vaccine recommendations.
Trump and several other high-ranking Republicans spoke at the memorial service for conservative political activist Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated during an event at Utah Valley University.
Kirk’s death was one of several instances of political violence this year that also included the killing of Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, the arson at the official home of Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and the shooting at the CDC’s headquarters in Atlanta.
A group of U.S. investors reached an agreement to take over TikTok, the immensely popular social media app, avoiding the need for it to go offline in the United States.
Congress failed to approve the dozen full-year government funding bills before the start of the new fiscal year, leaving an opening for a government shutdown. Democrats tried to bring attention to health care costs and other issues throughout the weeks-long debacle.
The funding stalemate impacted nearly every corner of the federal government, including pay for federal employees like air traffic controllers, food aid for lower-income families, Head Start and public lands.
The No Kings day protests highlighted some Americans’ discontent with Trump and Republican policies a little more than a year before the 2026 midterm elections will measure that frustration at the ballot box.
Trump demolished the East Wing of the White House to make way for construction of a ballroom that will be nearly double the size of the 55,000-square-foot residence and workplace.
The shutdown stalemate ended after Senate Majority Leader Thune promised Democrats a vote on a health care bill of their choosing before the end of the year.
The funding bill approved by Congress and signed by Trump included three full-year funding bills but a stopgap for the rest of government, setting up the possibility of a partial government shutdown beginning in February if lawmakers don’t broker a deal before then.
The final days of the shutdown included a tug-of-war between the judicial branch and the Trump administration over whether they needed to pay full benefits for the 42 million people enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case that will determine whether Trump overstepped when he instituted tariffs using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
Separately, the justices allowed the Trump administration to continue issuing male or female passports based on a person’s assigned sex at birth.
Congress approved a bill forcing the Trump administration to release the Epstein files.
A gunman opened fired on two National Guard members from West Virginia who were just blocks from the White House. U.S. Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, died the next day as a result of her injuries.
The man charged with shooting the two National Guard members pleaded not guilty during an arraignment hearing and was denied bond in the case, which was later moved to federal court as prosecutors contemplated whether to seek the death penalty.
The Trump administration moved to limit legal immigration and pressed for mass deportations, raising concerns about the shooter, an Afghan national who worked alongside allied troops and was granted asylum in the United States.
Separately, the FBI charged a 30-year-old Virginia man with placing pipe bombs outside the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee offices ahead of the 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
A federal judge ordered immigration officials to release Abrego Garcia.
The House and Senate were unable to come up with a bipartisan agreement to avoid a spike in health insurance premiums for the 22 million Americans enrolled in the Affordable Care Act marketplace who have benefited from an enhanced tax credit created during the coronavirus pandemic to make coverage less expensive. But a discharge petition in the House will force a floor vote early in the new year to extend the subsidies for three more years.
The Department of Justice released tens of thousands of documents linked to the investigation into deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein before announcing officials had received a million more pages that will be published in the coming weeks.
From the docks of the Port of Santos, a 58-terminal complex covering an area the size of 1,500 American football fields, ships loaded with soybeans prepare to set sail for China.
Less than 45 miles from São Paulo, the port services nearly a quarter of Brazil’s soybean exports. For decades, U.S. agribusiness giants like Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge and Cargill have operated facilities at the port.
Today, they share space with COFCO International, China’s state-owned food conglomerate, which has invested around $285 million in recent years. The expansion will make it the port’s largest dry bulk terminal.
And Santos isn’t alone. In the west, the Port of Chancay is rising on Peru’s central coast.
COSCO Shipping, a state-owned Chinese company, is investing at least $3.5 billion to construct 15 berths, logistics facilities and a 1.1-mile tunnel, enabling cargo to be channeled directly from the port to nearby highways.
Once fully operational, Chancay will function as a regional redistribution hub for exports from Peru, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador and Colombia: from copper and lithium to soybeans and other agricultural products. Upon completion around 2035, it is expected to become the region’s third-largest port.
These and other recent investments across the region have positioned China to source more agricultural products from Latin America as it pivots away from U.S. farmers in response to President Trump’s higher tariffs.
China first began that pivot in 2018, when Trump’s first-term tariff hikes ignited a global trade war. But since returning to office, the president has renewed that strategy, and China’s investments signal a generational shift that may not reverse if and when the trade war subsides.
“What are the signs that China’s here to stay (in Latin America)? Really, the infrastructure,” said Henry Ziemer, an associate fellow with the Americas program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a U.S. nonprofit policy research organization that reports 23 ports across Latin America have some degree of Chinese investment.
“Ports, railways, roads, bridges, metro lines, energy, power plants are probably the best signs that China has a long-term commitment … These are long-term projects.”
Daniel Munch, an economist with the American Farm Bureau Federation, said that when a country gains control over ports that make trade faster, cheaper and more reliable, such as the Port of Chancay, trade flows tend to “lock in.” Reversing that trend, he warned, would require the United States to narrow its efficiency gap, noting that none of its container ports rank among the world’s top 50.
“It could entrench patterns,” Munch said.
This is bad news for American farmers, particularly soybean growers.
Soybeans are a cornerstone of American agriculture, particularly in the Midwest. Nationwide, more than 270,000 farms grow the crop, according to the latest Census of Agriculture. In Illinois, nearly half of all farms depend on soybean production, and in Iowa and Minnesota, about four in 10 do.
In 2024, more than 40% of U.S. soybean production was exported, with about half going to China.
But tensions between the United States and China have risen this year – Trump has increased tariffs and recently threatened a 157% tax on all Chinese imports, while China responded by reducing U.S. soybean imports to near zero for six months.
A trade deal announced in November ends the suspension and includes commitments for China to buy 12 million metric tons of U.S. soybeans in the final two months of 2025 and at least 25 million metric tons annually through 2028, according to Purdue University and farmdoc Daily.
Brazil has stepped in as China’s biggest supplier of soybeans, which are used to feed livestock to support protein demand.
China has become one of the two main export markets for at least 10 nations, most of them in South America, according to the International Trade Outlook for Latin America and the Caribbean 2023 report by the U.N. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).
From 2010 to 2022, the region accounted for nearly one-third of China’s food imports. Brazil alone supplied about 21% of those imports over the same period.
“In recent years, there has been significant growth in telecommunications projects and across all areas of transportation – including airports, ports, roads, railways, and subways – as well as in sanitation and urban mobility. These sectors account for nearly 60% of the total number of projects,” said José Manuel Salazar-Xirinachs, executive secretary of ECLAC, who highlighted the scale of China’s involvement during the 2024 International Seminar on Contemporary China Studies in Costa Rica.
China has viewed Brazil as a strategic partner for several years, primarily because of its soybean supply, and has responded with infrastructure investments, according to Fernando Bastiani, a researcher with ESALQ-LOG, the Group of Research and Extension in Agroindustrial Logistics at the University of São Paulo.
“Today, COFCO has direct access to farmers, purchases soybeans and oversees the entire commercialization chain, including storage and transport to China,” Bastiani said. “In recent years, (COFCO) has also realized it needs to control logistics systems and infrastructure, because that’s a key part.”
In Brazil, Bastiani explained, logistics costs account for 20% to 25% of the final soybean price, mainly due to the long distances between farms and ports and the high cost of trucking. “China understood that by investing in infrastructure, it could help make Brazil more competitive,” he said.
In May, the two countries signed new agreements to deepen their agricultural trade ties, granting Brazil authorization to export meat and ethanol byproducts.
“Amid the changing and turbulent international landscape, China and Brazil should remain committed to the original aspiration of contributing to human progress and global development,” said Chinese President Xi Jinping.
While Latin America has seen growth, many U.S. ports have experienced a significant decline in business.
At the New Orleans District — a dominant grain corridor — soybean exports grew by less than 3% between September 2024 and September 2025, according to the most recent data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics at the U.S. Department of Transportation. Shipments through the Los Angeles District fell almost 15%, while the steepest drop came in the Seattle District, where exports plunged 81%.
Nearly half of all U.S. corn, soybean and wheat exports move through the Mississippi River system, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation’s Market Intel report.
This major inland trade artery connects the Midwest’s farming regions to the Gulf of Mexico, carrying an average of 65 million metric tons annually of bulk agricultural products by barge over the past five years to export terminals near New Orleans, where shipments depart for international markets.
“The facilities that purchase soybeans from farmers extend to our freight railroads, where they don’t have as much volume that they’ve been moving, at least for soybeans,” said Mike Steenhoek, executive director of the Soy Transportation Coalition.
Steenhoek noted that corn exports have remained strong, which has helped sustain some port activity — but it hasn’t solved the underlying problem: “China imports more U.S. soybeans than all of our other international customers combined,” he said.
At the Port of Los Angeles, the largest container port in the Western Hemisphere, agricultural exports have also weakened as trade with China cools.
“Exports in general have been very soft, and we attributed it to the retaliatory tariffs that have been put in place by China,” said Gene Seroka, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles. “Our single biggest export sector is agriculture … of that, soybeans are the number one export commodity.”
Before the first tariffs were introduced in 2018, China accounted for about 60% of the port’s business. Today, it’s closer to 40% and falling, as trade flows and sourcing shift toward countries such as Vietnam, Indonesia and Thailand.
“We’ve been very aggressive in finding cargo out of other countries,” Seroka said. “But there is no doubt in my mind that we are concerned every day that these policies could impact the amount of cargo that comes to Los Angeles.”
The decrease in exports is not just a hit to farmers, but also to port workers; each four containers handled at the port generates one job, according to Seroka.
“In Southern California, one in nine people has a job related to this port,” said Seroka, referring to dockworkers, truck drivers, brokers and warehouse employees. “It truly is a conversation of national significance.”
U.S. port traffic isn’t poised for a quick rebound despite a recent trade agreement that ends China’s suspension of U.S. soybean imports. After six months of near-zero shipments due to retaliatory trade measures, Beijing in November agreed to purchase 12 million metric tons of U.S. soybeans in the final two months of 2025 and to commit to annual purchases of at least 25 million tons through 2028.
A recent analysis from Purdue University’s Center for Commercial Agriculture and farmdoc Daily said the announcement offered some relief to U.S. farmers at the tail end of harvest, but overall exports to China this year are still on track to be the weakest since 2018, when trade tensions during the first Trump administration slashed volumes to 8 million tons.
“It is very difficult to take a market (China) of over a billion people and replace that,” said John Bartman, a soybean farmer from Marengo, Illinois.
By October, Brazil had exported a record 79 million metric tons of soybeans to China, nearly 80% of its total soybean shipments during the period, according to a farmdoc Daily analysis of data from Brazil’s Foreign Trade Secretariat. Brazil’s total soybean exports reached about 100 million tons between January and October, already surpassing the country’s full-year total for 2024, which was just under 99 million tons.
“U.S. soybean farmers are standing at a trade and financial precipice,” Caleb Ragland, president of the American Soybean Association, wrote in a statement.
While China builds long-term infrastructure to secure its supply chains, Washington is still struggling to define its trade strategy and to contain the political fallout of renewed tariffs.
In mid-September, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives moved to block Congress from influencing Trump’s tariff policy, even as Senate Democrats prepared to force votes challenging his trade war, The New York Times reported. The maneuver effectively stripped lawmakers of the ability to advance measures to lift tariffs until March 31, 2026, extending a prohibition first imposed in the spring to spare members from taking a politically difficult vote.
“Tariffs not only cause farmers to pay more for their inputs, but they have also seen tariffs reduce markets for U.S. farm products,” said U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, during an October session.
If the November soybean agreement between Trump and the Chinese president holds, Beijing’s purchases would still fall short of recent norms. Even if China buys at least 25 million metric tons of U.S. soybeans annually over the next three years, that volume would remain about 14% below the five-year average shipped to China from 2020 to 2024, according to an analysis from Purdue University’s Center for Commercial Agriculture and farmdoc Daily.
Some purchases have started rolling in. But April Hemmes, an Iowa soybean farmer who has promoted increased trade with China, said the agreement would be difficult to fulfill, noting that delivering 12 million metric tons of soybeans by early next year is “not very realistic.”
As China establishes new trade routes across Latin America, every new port or shipping lane makes a future recovery for U.S. farmers more challenging.
Despite the tensions, Hemmes still views China as an essential market.
“I don’t think our relationship with China has been damaged,” the Iowa soybean farmer said. “China is a low-cost buyer and will need soybeans from the U.S. for a long time. But we will never be their number one source.”
For her, the changing politics and policies have made the United States an “unreliable trading partner.”
“The only way that we become their top choice would be if our soybeans were far cheaper than South America’s.”
This story is a product of the Mississippi River Basin Ag & Water Desk, an independent reporting network based at the University of Missouri in partnership with Report for America, with major funding from the Walton Family Foundation.
Wisconsin Watch is a member of the Ag & Water Desk network. Sign up for our newsletters to get our news straight to your inbox.
China is investing billions in Latin America, potentially sidelining US farmers for decades to come 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.
Justice has been getting quicker in recent years as Wisconsin works through post-pandemic backlog of criminal cases.
The post How long are cases taking to go through Wisconsin’s court system? appeared first on WPR.
The Pettit National Ice Center has made Milwaukee, the first indoor speedskating oval built in the U.S., is going solar.
The post Milwaukee’s Pettit Center indoor Olympic speedskating oval goes solar appeared first on WPR.
The newly created Chippewa Valley Tool Library will let residents borrow tools and take home renovation classes for a monthly fee.
The post Eau Claire tool library aims to spread self-reliance during economic uncertainty appeared first on WPR.
The Boulder Junction Town Park board, along with more than a dozen volunteers, created The Glide. It’s an 0.8-mile long trail through a portion of the Northern Highland American Legion State Forest that the town uses as its Winter Park.
The post After a successful first year, ‘The Glide’ returns to Boulder Junction appeared first on WPR.
Wisconsin voters could get more information about statewide referendum questions in advance of voting, under a proposal being considered at the state Capitol.
The post Statewide referendums keep coming. Some lawmakers want to simplify them for voters. appeared first on WPR.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia stands outside U.S. District Court in Greenbelt with his wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, left, and Lydia Walther-Rodriguez with CASA, after a federal judge ruled earlier this month he was allowed to remain free. (File photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters)
A federal judge in Tennessee is ordering federal prosecutors to turn over some documents to lawyers for Kilmar Abrego Garcia as they try to show his indictment on human smuggling charges was the product of vindictive prosecution.
U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw’s nine-page ruling — issued under seal Dec. 3, but unsealed at noon Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Nashville — said a “subset” of more than 3,000 government documents he reviewed appear to undercut the government’s defense against vindictive prosecution.
“Specifically, the government’s documents may contradict its prior representations that the decision to prosecute was made locally and that there were no outside influences,” Crenshaw wrote.
The order is a partial victory for Abrego Garcia, the Salvadoran native who lives in Maryland, where he was stopped by immigration agents in March and deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador. His removal came without due process and despite an earlier court order that prohibited immigration officials from deporting Abrego Garcia to his home country, for fear of violence.
A series of court battles ended with the U.S. Supreme Court in April ordering Abrego Garcia be returned to the United States. He was finally brought back to the U.S. in June, where he faced new charges of human smuggling, stemming from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee where he was let go without a citation.
Abrego Garcia argues that the smuggling charge was concocted years after the fact to punish him for embarrassing the administration in court, and should be thrown out.
The charges of “conspiracy to unlawfully transport illegal aliens for financial gain” and “unlawful transportation of illegal aliens for financial gain” are tied to a 2022 traffic stop in Putnam County, Tennessee, where he was pulled over for speeding. There were nine passengers in the back of his car.
Abrego Garcia was not arrested. No ticket was issued.
But three years later, as he was winning his case to be returned to the U.S., federal prosecutors were revisiting that traffic stop. A Homeland Security agent told a federal judge earlier this year that he was told on April 28 of this year to investigate the traffic stop.
Abrego Garcia pleaded not guilty to the charges, that his attorneys have claimed were filed as retaliation against their client. They claim senior officials in the Justice Department pushed for the indictment, citing television interviews where Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said the investigation began after “a judge in Maryland … questioned” the government and accused it of “doing something wrong,” according to Crenshaw’s order.
The government denies involvement by higher-ups, saying the decision to prosecute Abrego Garcia was made solely by Robert McGuire, the U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee.
Crenshaw’s order includes a timeline of events. In it are several communications between McGuire and D.C.-based U.S. Associate Deputy Attorney General Aakash Singh that began on April 27, one day before a federal agent was assigned to investigate the 2022 traffic stop.
In an April 30 exchange, Singh writes that Abrego’s case is “a top priority.” McGuire writes “we want the high command looped in.”
In a May 15 email, McGuire writes about the pending indictment.
“Ultimately, I would hope to have ODAG [Office of the Deputy Attorney General] eyes on it as we move towards a decision about whether this matter is going to ultimately be charged,” he wrote, according to Crenshaw’s order.
McGuire adds: “While ultimately, the office’s decision to charge will land on me. I think it makes sense to get the benefit of all of your brains and talent in this process and as we consider this case. I have not received specific direction from ODAG other than I have heard anecdotally that the DAG and PDAG would like Garcia charged sooner rather than later.”
Singh is updated about the indictment over the next week, according to Crenshaw’s timeline.
“These documents show that McGuire did not act alone and to the extent McGuire had input on the decision to prosecute, he shared it with Singh and others,” Crenshaw wrote.
Abrego’s attorneys successfully made a case before Crenshaw that prosecutors had acted vindictively. They sought the release of documents through discovery. Federal prosecutors balked and withheld those documents, citing privilege.
Crenshaw, in his now-unsealed order, said allowing the privilege assertion to trump due process protections would undermine rulings by other federal courts.
“The Court recognizes the government’s assertion of privileges, but Abrego’s due process right to a non-vindictive prosecution outweighs the blanket evidentiary privileges asserted by the government,” Crenshaw wrote. “If the work product, attorney-client, and deliberative process privileges asserted by the government precluded all discovery in the context of a vindictiveness motion, defendants would never be able to answer the question ‘what motivated the government’s prosecution?'”
This story was originally produced by Maryland Matters, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Wisconsin Examiner, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.
Democratic and Republican candidates for governor appeared for a joint forum in early November. Shown are, from left, Matt Smith of WISN-12, Francesca Hong, Sara Rodriguez, Kelda Roys, David Crowley and Missy Hughes, all Democrats, and Josh Schoemann, a Republican. Republican Tom Tiffany did not participate. Since that event two more Democrats have entered the contest, former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes and former cabinent member Joel Brennan. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)
A popular two-term governor decides to retire, and triggers a flood of prospective replacements. Democrats vow to flip the Republican-majority Legislature. A state Supreme Court race blows the doors off spending records, and another one is waiting in the wings.
Each of those could be considered a big story by itself in Wisconsin, but they’re all part of this year’s single biggest story in government and politics. And that story — that it was a really big year for Wisconsin politics — wasn’t just about 2025: It set the stage for 2026.
The three-stories-in-one about Wisconsin politics are just the beginning of the news that flooded our pages in 2025. Wisconsin Examiner’s five-person staff published 550 stories in 2025, a total that includes opinion columns by Editor Ruth Conniff, but doesn’t include briefs that also appeared under the bylines of Conniff, Erik Gunn, Isiah Holmes, Henry Redman, Baylor Spears and Criminal Justice Fellows Andrew Kennard and Frank Zufall.
Herewith, then, our list of 10 big stories that the Wisconsin Examiner covered over the course of the last year.
Democratic Gov. Tony Evers put an end to the last Wisconsin governor’s quest for a third term when he defeated Republican Scott Walker in 2018. Midway through his own second term, Evers surprised many by deciding to call it quits when his current term ends rather than run again.
The decision created the first open race for governor in more than a decade and opened the floodgates, with a bevy of Democrats entering the fray. By contrast, the Republican field was down to two at year’s end, with one early contender dropping out after the entry of Congressman Tom Tiffany.
In the Wisconsin Legislature, Democrats, having narrowed the Republicans’ majority in 2024 thanks to new maps that undid the state’s 15 years of GOP gerrymandering, launched twin efforts to flip both the Assembly and the Senate in 2026. Republicans vowed to maintain their majority in both houses.
The new Senate and Assembly maps were made possible after the 2023 state Supreme Court election flipped the seven-member Court’s ideological majority from conservative to liberal. With the balance of the Court at stake again after liberal Justice Ann Walsh Bradley retired in 2025, Democrats went all out, electing Dane County Judge Susan Crawford to the nominally nonpartisan Court and handily overcoming the efforts of billionaire Elon Musk who spent millions supporting Crawford’s opponent, former state Attorney General Brad Schimel. The contest set both state and national records for campaign spending in a U.S. judicial election, and maintained the one-vote liberal majority. Now supporters of the current Court majority have their eyes on extending that ideological advantage in 2026.
Chris Taylor, currently a District IV appeals court judge and a former Democratic state representative, is running to succeed sharply conservative Rebecca Bradley. Bradley opted not to seek a new term on the Court, and conservative Appeals Court Judge Maria Lazar has announced plans to seek the post.
Evers went into the 2025-27 state budget process with an ambitious list of goals. Lengthy negotiations between the Democratic governor and Republican lawmakers produced a deal. While the final result fell well short of his original vision, Evers claimed victory nevertheless, with gains on paper for child care funding and for public school special education funding.
Both, however, left their strongest advocates disappointed, and by the end of the year, the special education funding did not live up to the promises made when the budget was signed.
The budget’s lack of additional school aid for regular classes was especially upsetting to public school advocates, and was exacerbated by the state’s expanding school choice systems that use tax dollars to pay for private schools and charter schools outside the common public schools. It also underscored the extent to which local communities have been voting to raise their own property taxes to support their school systems.
The defeat of some school referendum requests further accentuated the sense of crisis, while Republican lawmakers called for new restrictions on the referendum process. And in the state’s largest system, Milwaukee Public Schools, an audit called for sweeping changes in response to a range of challenges, from declining enrollments and staff turnover to the continuing pressure of having to fund the parallel voucher and charter systems.
Throughout the year, the state Department of Public Instruction came under intense scrutiny from Republican lawmakers over policies ranging from school performance evaluations to the handling of sexual abuse complaints against school employees.
With the inauguration of President Donald Trump to a second term in the White House, the fallout from new federal actions reached Wisconsin in a myriad of ways. The giant legislation to cut taxes (mostly for the wealthy) and spending (much of it for health care) that Trump signed in July was one cause, setting the stage for future cuts to Medicaid and to health care under the Affordable Care Act, while also imposing new restrictions on programs aimed at reducing hunger.
But there were other reductions as well, some coming from the actions of the “Department of Government Efficiency” or DOGE that Trump authorized, and others from unilateral — and often legally challenged — actions by the administration itself. Clean energy and climate change projects, scientific research, education assistance, help with removing lead from public schools, community service, child care, economic policies, numerous federal agencies and the federal workforce itself along with countless other federal initiatives were swept up in the administration’s first year.
The record-long federal shutdown — when Congress failed to agree on a temporary spending plan and the GOP majority refused to extend extra tax breaks for Affordable Care Act health plans into 2026 — added to the chaos, with a temporary halt to the federal SNAP food assistance program.
Wisconsinites joined people from across the country in the recurring protests that started just weeks into the Trump presidency, culminating in the Oct. 18 “No Kings” rallies from coast to coast that some analysts identified as the largest mass protest ever in the United States.
The Trump administration’s immigration crackdown reverberated in Wisconsin from Inauguration Day. At the start of this term, Editor Ruth Conniff traveled to Mexico, documenting the longstanding relationships Wisconsin farmers have had with migrants who provide 70% of the labor that the state’s dairy industry has relied on.
Republican lawmakers called for cementing the state’s relationship with the newly unleashed Immigration and Customs Enforcement — ICE — agency , while the Evers administration resisted those calls. Individual counties signed on to assist ICE, sometimes facing opposition, but while Wisconsin was less in the national spotlight than other states, it wasn’t immune to periodic episodes of immigration enforcement.
Visa cancellations caught up students from overseas, and migrant arrests rose across the state. Immigration enforcement officers focused on the Milwaukee County Courthouse in their search for immigrants to take into custody, prompting criticism from advocates who warned the result would drive migrants underground rather than encouraging them to show up for court dates as witnesses, plaintiffs or defendants.
After a four-day trial in December, Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan was convicted on a felony charge of obstruction but acquitted of a misdemeanor charge of concealing a man who had appeared in her courtroom in April and was targeted by immigration officials. The case had national repercussions as the Trump administration targets judges it sees as opponents to its policies.
In Wisconsin a statewide — indeed, nationwide — the rush to embrace massive data centers to serve emerging artificial intelligence-based technology sparked widespread debate over water use, electricity demands and power generation.
Meanwhile, a longstanding and widely popular land preservation program — the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship fund — hovered on the verge of collapse as Republican lawmakers demanded the power to veto stewardship decisions after a state Supreme Court ruling in 2024 removed the Legislature from the process.
After a running battle against rerouting an Enbridge oil pipeline, the Army Corps of Engineers approved permits for the project over the strenuous objections of opponents, only to be sued by the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.
A standoff between the Evers administration and the Legislature’s Republican leaders over how to address PFAS “forever chemicals” was eased by a state Supreme Court ruling allowing the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to apply Wisconsin’s spills law to PFAS contamination, along with a bipartisan bill that would require the DNR to notify local and tribal officials about groundwater PFAS contamination.
A lengthy investigation by Isiah Holmes of the Wisconsin Examiner in partnership with Type Investigations documented how the Milwaukee Area Investigative Team, assigned to probe death investigations for people killed by metro Milwaukee police officers, use protocols that grant officers privileges not afforded to the general public.
Among many other issues involving policing and law enforcement in Wisconsin, police surveillance was a recurring matter, with debates arising over facial recognition technology, department interest in expanding phone-tracking resources and increasing attention to how police agencies make use of widespread surveillance cameras.
Evers’ budget proposal included a sweeping plan for prison reform, but the result was more limited, leaving advocates dissatisfied. One concrete element is the start of a project to close the Green Bay Correctional Institution, a longtime objective, but divisions remain between the governor and GOP lawmakers about the details.
With the return of President Donald Trump to the White House, the conspiracy theories that were amplified after his reelection loss in November 2020 got a new burst of energy. The Wisconsin Elections Commission twice rejected an administration demand for the personal identifying information of Wisconsin voters.
Trump issued a largely symbolic pardon of the Republicans who signed certificates falsely stating he won the 2020 presidential election in Wisconsin, while a Dane County judge kept alive a criminal case against three men charged with orchestrating the fake elector scheme.
Although bipartisan lawmakers in the Assembly sought common ground over absentee ballot drop boxes and a measure to allow election clerks to begin counting absentee ballots on the Monday before Election Day, their efforts stalled.
August flooding in Southeast Wisconsin that followed torrential storms and was centered on the metro Milwaukee area left behind devastation, damaging nearly 2,000 homes and some $34 million worth of public infrastructure.
The Trump administration’s Federal Emergency Management Agency approved $30 million in initial relief to support the victims of flood damage, but the administration denied a subsequent request for aid to mitigate future disasters.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
The Social Development Commission spent 2025 trying to restore services and funding in the face of legal challenges, board friction and government audits and reviews.
Commonly known as the SDC, the organization has a long history of providing services for low-income residents in Milwaukee County, including tax help, job training and rental assistance.
Since it stopped running its programs in April 2024, SDC has been trying to create a path to resume its anti-poverty work.
Here are some of this year’s major stories on the SDC.
In March, the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families scheduled a public hearing on SDC’s status as a community action agency.
The community action agency designation allows SDC to receive a federal block grant to support its anti-poverty work.
Jorge Franco, interim CEO and chair of the SDC board, said at the board’s next meeting he felt the department had not been transparent with SDC about its concerns on SDC’s ability to restart services and meet other requirements while they had been meeting and providing documents over past months.
In early April, the Department of Children and Families held a hearing in Milwaukee on SDC’s community action status to get public comments from members of the community, who spoke in favor of SDC.
The Wisconsin Department of Justice, on behalf of the Department of Workforce Development, filed a lawsuit in May that alleges the SDC failed to pay $360,000 in wages and benefits owed to former employees, according to court records.
William Sulton, SDC’s attorney at the time, acknowledged SDC owes workers wages, but said the lawsuit would not be the most effective way to get them paid.
Franco has said SDC is committed to repaying employees for wages and benefits.
After reviewing materials from the public hearing, Secretary Jeff Pertl of the Department of Children and Families decided in May that it would remove SDC’s community action status in July.
However, SDC leaders said they had concerns that the state did not follow the proper decision process, so they requested a review from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in June.
The department agreed to take up the review, which suspended the state’s decision.
Three vendors filed a money judgment lawsuit against SDC in an effort to collect reimbursements for weatherization work completed for the agency. In September, a judge granted a total judgment of $186,500 plus statutory costs and accrued interest.
The SDC board received a letter of intent from Wings Credit Union indicating it is interested in providing the SDC with a credit facility, or a type of loan, of up to $15 million. In SDC’s case, the credit facility would be used to cover upfront expenses for government-funded programs that are paid through reimbursements.
In March, Forward Community Investments Inc. filed a foreclosure lawsuit against SD Properties Inc., which owns SDC’s buildings, alleging it defaulted on mortgage payments for the main office and warehouse buildings on North Avenue.
At an October hearing, a judge ordered a judgment of foreclosure against the North Avenue buildings and ruled that Forward Community Investments was entitled to a money judgment of approximately $3.1 million.
SDC moved out of the buildings and started a three-month redemption period.
Sulton, SDC’s attorney and legal counsel since late 2022, resigned from his volunteer position in mid-October.
Sulton represented SDC in lawsuits, served as a spokesperson and advised the board.
Some members of the board attempted to call an emergency meeting to vote on removing Franco as the board chair and interim CEO, but they ultimately did not vote on anything because of a disagreement on meeting procedure. Franco opposed the meeting and called it “out of order.”
The Department of Children and Families notified SDC on Nov. 21 that it believes the federal review period ended as of Nov. 18 and would be moving forward with removing SDC’s community action status. It selected UMOS to be an interim provider of block grant-funded services.
SDC commissioners raised questions about the timeline of the federal review at a board planning session in November.
The director of a division in the federal Office of Community Services found that the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families’ process of removing SDC’s community action status was compliant with federal law, according to a letter it sent to the department on Dec. 5.
SDC is seeking further clarity from senior leadership at the Department of Health and Human Services, Franco said in a statement.
The three-month redemption period for the North Avenue buildings expires on Jan. 6, according to SDC, although they technically can be redeemed up until there is a hearing to confirm the sale of the properties at auction.
Lawsuits filed against SDC from TriShulla, an information technology company, and the Department of Workforce Development are still ongoing.
Meredith Melland is the neighborhoods reporter for the Milwaukee Neighborhood News Service and a corps member of Report for America, a national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on under-covered issues and communities. Report for America plays no role in editorial decisions in the NNS newsroom.
Jonathan Aguilar is a visual journalist at Milwaukee Neighborhood News Service who is supported through a partnership between CatchLight Local and Report for America.
A year of challenges for Milwaukee’s Social Development Commission is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.
The James H. Shannon Building (Building One), on the National Institutes of Health campus in Bethesda, Maryland. (Photo by Lydia Polimeni,/National Institutes of Health)
The Trump administration will review frozen grants to universities without using its controversial standards that discouraged gender, race and sexual orientation initiatives and vaccine research.
In a settlement agreement filed in Massachusetts federal court Monday, the National Institutes of Health and a group of Democratic attorneys general who’d challenged the new criteria for grant funding said the NIH would consider grant applications made up to Sept. 29, 2025, without judging the efforts related to diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, or vaccines.
The settlement provides an uncontested path for the agency while courts decide whether the administration can use its controversial analysis. The administration did not agree to permanently ditch its campaign to evaluate health research funding decisions based on schools’ DEI programs.
NIH officials “will complete their consideration of the Applications in the ordinary course of NIH’s scientific review process, without applying the Challenged Directives,” the settlement said, adding that the agency would “evaluate each application individually and in good faith.”
The settlement was signed by U.S. Department of Justice lawyers and the attorneys general of Massachusetts, California, Maryland, Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Wisconsin.
In a Tuesday statement, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell said the agreement commits the Department of Health and Human Services to resume “the usual process for considering NIH grant applications on a prompt, agreed-upon timeline.”
The 17 attorneys general sued in April over $783 million in frozen grants.
A trial court and appeals court in Massachusetts sided with the states, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in August that the trial judge lacked the authority to compel the grants to be paid, especially in light of a similar decision involving the Education Department.
A U.S. Postal Service employee sorts packages inside the Los Angeles Mail Processing & Distribution Center in December. A new USPS rule on postmarks took effect on Dec. 24 that says mail might not be postmarked on the day it’s dropped off. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)
The U.S. Postal Service has adopted a new rule that could create doubt about whether some ballots mailed by voters by Election Day will receive postmarks in time to be counted.
A USPS rule that took effect on Dec. 24 says mail might not receive a postmark on the same day the agency takes possession of it. The postal service says it isn’t changing its existing postmark practices and is merely clarifying its policy, but some election officials have looked to postmarks as a guarantee that mail ballots were cast before polls closed.
The new rule holds implications for 14 states and Washington, D.C., that count ballots arriving after Election Day if they are postmarked on or before that day — commonly called a “ballot grace period.” In these states, ballots placed in the mail by voters before the deadline may not be counted if the postal service applies a postmark after Election Day.
The USPS rule says that “the postmark date does not necessarily indicate the first day that the Postal Service had possession of the mailpiece.”
The USPS rule comes as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to consider a case that could eliminate ballot grace periods nationwide. The court’s decision, expected late this spring or next summer, could render the issues raised by the postmark rule moot.
Mail-in voting surged in 2020’s general election amid the COVID-19 pandemic, when 43% of voters cast their votes by mail. The percentage of voters mailing their ballots has fallen from that peak but remains above pre-pandemic levels. About 30% of voters cast mail ballots in 2024, according to data gathered by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
While the vast majority of mail ballots were successfully cast last year, hundreds of thousands weren’t counted. During the 2024 election, 584,463 mail ballots returned by voters were rejected by election officials — 1.2% of returned mail ballots. About 18% of those ballots were rejected because they didn’t arrive on time.
The USPS defended the change in a lengthy response to criticisms published in the Federal Register. The agency emphasized that it does not administer elections and doesn’t advocate for or against voting by mail.
The postal service repeated its advice that voters mail their completed ballots at least a week before Election Day. And it noted that voters may request a manual postmark at their local post office free of charge.
“If customers are aware that the postmark date may not align with the date on which the Postal Service first accepted possession of a mailpiece, they will be better equipped to adjust their plans accordingly,” the response reads.
“And if policymakers or other entities that create rules utilizing the postmark date are aware of what the postmark date signifies, they are better equipped to determine whether their rules adequately serve their purposes.”
Stateline reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@stateline.org.
This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Wisconsin Examiner, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.
Medical bills are spread out on the kitchen table of a cancer patient in Salem, Va. (Photo by Don Petersen/The Associated Press)
This article first appeared on KFF Health News.
As Congress debates whether to extend the temporary federal subsidies that have helped millions of Americans buy health coverage, a crucial underlying reality is sometimes overlooked: Those subsidies are merely a band-aid covering the often unaffordable cost of health care.
California, Massachusetts, Connecticut and five other states have set caps on health care spending in a bid to rein in the intense financial pressure felt by many families, individuals and employers who every year face increases in premiums, deductibles and other health-related expenses.
Hospitals and other health care providers are citing Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed by President Donald Trump in July, as one more reason to challenge those limits.
The law is expected to reduce federal Medicaid spending by more than $900 billion over a decade, which mathematically should help the overall health care system meet the caps. But the law is also expected to increase the number of uninsured Americans, mostly Medicaid beneficiaries, by an estimated 10 million people. Health care analysts predict hospitals and other providers will raise prices to cover the double whammy of lost Medicaid revenue and the cost of caring for an influx of newly uninsured patients.
Whether regulators in some states will allow providers to justify higher prices and exceed the spending caps is unclear. Only California and Oregon can penalize providers financially if they fail to meet targets.
“Are we going to say, ‘That’s OK’? Or are we going to say, ‘Well, you exceeded the target. We’re still going to penalize you for that’?” said Richard Pan, a former state lawmaker and a member of the California Office of Health Care Affordability’s board. “That has not yet been decided.”
The California Hospital Association, the industry’s main state lobbying group, filed a lawsuit in October asking a state court to strike down the spending caps, which it argued fail to account for all the cost pressures hospitals face. Those pressures, it said, include an aging, sicker population; the rising cost of labor; expensive advances in medical technology; large capital outlays on required seismic retrofitting; and changes in federal policy, including the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The hospital group’s lawsuit also asserted that the state affordability office, by hastily imposing ill-considered cost-cutting targets, was undermining its other key mission of improving health care access, quality and equity.
California’s affordability office last year set a five-year target to cap statewide spending growth, starting at 3.5% in 2025 and declining to 3% by 2029. The annual caps apply to a wide range of health care entities, including hospitals, medical groups, insurers and other payers.
Earlier this year, it imposed much lower spending growth caps — starting at 1.8% in 2026 and declining to 1.6% by 2029 — for seven “high-cost” hospitals.
“The spending caps set by politically appointed bureaucrats could force cuts that result in many Californians traveling farther for care, facing longer emergency room wait times, experiencing more overcrowding and losing access to critical services,” Carmela Coyle, the hospital association’s president and CEO, said in an October press release.
The California attorney general’s office, which will represent the affordability agency, has not yet filed a response to the hospital group’s complaint and did not respond to a request for comment.
California is not the only state taking a close look at hospital prices, which are widely considered a primary driver of health care costs.
“States, armed with information that points to payments to hospitals as a driver of what is way beyond affordable commercial premiums, have begun to take increasingly targeted actions focused on commercial hospital prices,” said Michael Bailit, founder of the Needham, Massachusetts-based consultancy Bailit Health, which has advised multiple states, including California, on ways to tame health care spending. “It is not surprising that the hospital industry is going to oppose such state actions.”
In its lawsuit, the California Hospital Association said the affordability office’s own report showed that pharmaceutical and insurance companies are largely responsible for high costs.
Hospitals in some states with cost growth limits, including Connecticut and Massachusetts, have expressed objections similar to the ones raised in the California lawsuit. They could follow their counterparts in California if their lawsuit succeeds, said Peter Lee, who led California’s Affordable Care Act marketplace, Covered California, for over a decade and is now a senior scholar at Stanford Medicine’s Clinical Excellence Research Center.
Lee said the work of California’s affordability office and similar agencies in other states is just about the only systemwide effort being made to cut health care costs. They are basically saying, “‘Look, health care is taking money away from education, it is taking money away from the environment, it is taking money away from everything in the public sector, and in the private sector it is taking money away from wages,’” he said. “‘We don’t know how you, the health system, are going to do it, but it is your job not just to provide quality but to lower costs. Here’s the target.’”
To be sure, achieving the cost savings that California and those other states are seeking is no easy lift. It will ultimately require persuading large, financially powerful players that compete fiercely for health care dollars to adopt a different mindset and begin cooperating to reduce costs instead. And that, in many cases, will mean lower revenue.
But the status quo, as many people know all too well, means continued financial pain for millions.
In early 2020, Estevan Rodriguez, a bartender at California’s Monterey Beach Hotel, had surgery for a staph infection in his leg. The bill came to nearly $168,000. His insurance paid most of it, but he still owed $5,665, which took him two years to pay, more than $200 every month. “It may not be a lot to some people, but it was a lot to me,” Rodriguez said.
He said he dropped his Hulu subscription, switched to a lower-cost cellphone, and got cheaper car insurance. He started going to food banks rather than the grocery store, he said, and had a lot less time with his kids, because he was constantly working to pay off the hospital bill.
Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula, where Rodriguez had his surgery, is one of the seven hospitals identified by California’s affordability office as high-cost. A study by the office attributed high hospital prices in Monterey County to a lack of market competition “rather than higher operating costs or superior quality of care.”
The Monterey hospital referred a request for comment about its “high-cost” designation to the California Hospital Association. CHA spokesperson Jan Emerson-Shea declined to comment beyond the language of the lawsuit and Coyle’s press release statement.
Health care analysts worry the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will reduce market competition even further by stressing already weak hospitals, leading some to shut services, merge with larger health systems, or close. One study estimates 338 rural hospitals are at risk of closing nationwide.
Less competition, in addition to fewer Medicaid dollars and an increase in uninsured patients, will only strengthen the incentive of health systems with the requisite market clout to raise their commercial prices, increasing premiums for employers and individuals.
“We think commercial prices will continue to increase as health care providers, and hospitals in particular, will seek to preserve or increase their revenue,” said Rachel Block, a program officer at the Milbank Memorial Fund, a foundation that focuses on health equity.
That in turn could pose a challenge to state affordability regulators tasked with overseeing compliance with growth targets for health care spending.
California’s affordability office is required to consider mitigating factors, including changes in federal and state laws. But some of its board members have expressed skepticism about letting hospitals offset Medicaid losses with higher commercial prices.
“There’s a lot of talk about using HR 1 and other federal policies as an excuse to raise prices on commercial payers,” Ian Lewis, an affordability office board member and policy director for UNITE HERE Local 2, a hospitality workers union in the Bay Area, said at the agency’s July board meeting, referring to the One Big Beautiful Bill. “There’s no more blood to be squeezed from this stone.”
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — an independent source of health policy research, polling and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Wisconsin Examiner, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.
Login