A sweeping reorganization of the U.S. Forest Service signals that the agency is planning to lean heavily on states to help manage millions of acres of federal land, foresters across the West say.

State officials and timber industry leaders say they’ve been given scant details about the plan, which will move the agency’s headquarters from Washington, D.C., to Salt Lake City, restructure its regional management, and close scores of research stations in dozens of states.

While they wait for the dust to settle, they’re preparing for the Forest Service — with its workforce slashed by the Trump administration — to ask more of its partners under the new model.

“The Forest Service itself is unable to uphold its mission and cannot alone manage the many challenges on these landscapes,” said Nick Smith, public affairs director with the American Forest Resource Council, a timber industry group. “The transition from regional offices to more state-level offices is a recognition that partnerships are the future for the Forest Service.”

But many forestry veterans fear the shake-up will cause more attrition in an agency that’s already shrunk because of Trump’s cuts to the federal workforce. Some see a clear sign that moving the headquarters to Utah — a state whose leaders are often hostile to federal land ownership — is designed to undermine the Forest Service’s management of its lands.

The closure of 57 research stations, some agency partners fear, will threaten critical science that states and other forest managers rely on to learn about wildfire behavior, timber production and a host of other issues.

Some observers noted that the agency is required to seek congressional approval to relocate offices, which could trigger legal challenges to the plan if lawmakers do not weigh in.

Meanwhile, some foresters feel the uncertainty swirling over the agency will cause chaos as the West heads into a dangerous fire season amid record temperatures and drought.

The plan announced on March 31 will relocate Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz and his headquarters staff to Salt Lake City. The agency will close its nine regional offices, each of which oversee national forests across multiple states. Replacing those offices will be 15 state directors, mostly in Western states.

Many state leaders, from both conservative and liberal states, say they welcome the opportunity to deepen their partnerships with the Forest Service and play a greater role on federal lands. But they’re still anxious to see more details about the agency’s new structure and concerned that national forests remain deeply understaffed.

“There are definitely a lot of vacancies in key positions that need to be filled,” said Jon Songster, federal lands bureau chief with the Idaho Department of Lands. “I hope that a lot of that remaining expertise is not lost, but shifted to the forest level where it’s desperately needed. Hopefully with all these changes there will be opportunities to put more people in some of those key gaps.”

Scarce details

The Forest Service manages nearly 200 million acres of land, mostly in Western states. With a mandate to manage the land for multiple uses, the agency oversees timber harvests, livestock grazing, outdoor recreation and wildlife habitat.

Under President Donald Trump, the Forest Service has lost about 16% of its workforce — nearly 5,900 employees — through buyouts, layoffs and early retirements. Trump’s proposed budget for 2027 would cut billions of dollars from the agency’s funding.

Many observers view the reorganization plan as an effort to force out more longtime agency leaders. The moves are expected to affect about 5,000 employees across the various offices that are relocating.

“If this were a stand-alone proposal where the American public and the public agency employees had trust in the administration, a lot of it makes sense,” said Mike Dombeck, who served as chief of the Forest Service under President Bill Clinton and remains a vocal conservation advocate. “But the level of trust is at rock bottom.”

In its announcement, the agency said that the new state-based model will bring decision-making closer to the forest level and reduce bureaucracy. The Forest Service did not grant a Stateline interview request.

State foresters, who are responsible for managing the forests in their states, say they’ve been given few details other than the new office maps released by the agency. They don’t know when the transitions will happen, which officials will be staffing the new offices or what authority they will have.

“They’ve made the statement that they need to rely more on states,” said Washington State Forester George Geissler. “If you’re going to lean on us, it might help us to know what that means.”

States’ role

In recent years, the Forest Service has increasingly partnered with states, tribes, counties and nonprofits to carry out projects on federal lands. Foresters say agreements such as the Good Neighbor Authority have become a critical tool, allowing more work to happen in national forests even as the feds’ own capacity shrinks.

“We’ve seen some of that institutional knowledge (at the Forest Service) dwindle a little bit,” said Utah State Forester Jamie Barnes. “Building these partnerships, if you do see a decline on one side or the other, you can bridge that loss. We’re working together, making joint decisions so we can get timber off the landscape here in Utah.”

Some foresters said they welcome the chance to work more closely with the Forest Service, but they’re concerned that the agency has not recovered from Trump’s workforce cuts. Reassigning hundreds of employees to new locations could lead to more attrition.

In Wyoming, state officials are excited to have Forest Service leaders working in close proximity. But State Forester Kelly Norris acknowledged that the move could be “bumpy,” given the lack of details and ongoing workforce shortages in the agency.

“The logistics of this may be a lot harder implemented than said,” she said. “We see this as a positive for us, but I do think that this is going to be a real long transition.”

Idaho, Utah and Wyoming are among the Western states that share the Trump administration’s goal of increasing timber production on federal lands. Trump has moved to limit environmental reviews and protections for endangered species to speed up logging projects.

Some Forest Service veterans feel the move to increase states’ role will prove destructive in some parts of the West.

“We’re putting the governance of the forests more subject to states’ interests,” said Kevin Hood, executive director of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, a nonprofit that advocates for civil employees. “I would be concerned that the values that don’t have strong lobbying groups, such as watershed integrity, may be subjugated to extractive values like timber, mining and grazing.”

Several agency veterans stressed that the Forest Service’s state directors should be career professionals, not political appointees.

HQ move

By relocating its headquarters to Salt Lake City, the Forest Service said in its announcement, the agency is moving leaders closer to the forests they manage.

But some are skeptical the move will bring stronger management to the West. During Trump’s first term, he moved the Bureau of Land Management headquarters to Grand Junction, Colorado. Only 41 of the 328 employees subject to the transition actually relocated.

“Shaking things up is going to get people to abandon their positions, and that’s the intent,” said Chandra Rosenthal, Western lands and Rocky Mountain advocate with Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a group that defends whistleblowers in the federal service. “It’s a long-term dismantling of the scientific backbone and staff. The theory is that the federal government will abandon a lot of the public lands and then states will be forced to fill in those gaps.”

Rosenthal and others noted that Utah’s political leaders are hostile to federal land ownership. U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, a Republican, led an effort last year to sell off millions of acres of federal land, which drew widespread backlash before it was withdrawn. Utah’s state government has also sued the federal government, seeking to claim control of 18.5 million acres of federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management.

“Why would you move the headquarters of a public lands management agency to the state that is the most anti-public lands in the country?” said Dombeck, the former Forest Service chief.

Dombeck also noted that the Forest Service chief frequently reports to the White House, testifies in congressional hearings and coordinates national policy with other agency leaders. Moving the position out of D.C., he said, makes little sense.

In a webpage set up to respond to news coverage of the move, the Forest Service said it is a “myth” that the transition is designed to reduce its workforce or transfer federal lands to the states.

But some agency veterans are skeptical.

“It’s hard not to reach the conclusion that this is an effort to weaken federal agencies and federal management of these lands,” said Robert Bonnie, who served as undersecretary of agriculture for natural resources and environment during the Obama administration. “You’re going to lose some good staff as part of the reorganization, as they move chairs across the deck of the Titanic.”

Meanwhile, some state leaders are concerned that the uncertainty caused by the reorganization and Trump’s staffing cuts could lead to chaos as wildfire season approaches. With record temperatures and drought drying out much of the West, foresters expect a challenging fire season this summer. The Forest Service remains the nation’s largest wildland firefighting agency, even as the Trump administration seeks to consolidate wildland fire operations into a separate service under the U.S. Department of the Interior.

“I’ve got federal firefighters, fire managers, and all they’re talking about is what’s happening at (the Forest Service),” said Geissler, the Washington state forester. “I don’t feel like having a bunch of distracted firefighters on my hands going into a summer fire season.”

Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org.

Wisconsin Sen. Jesse James (R-Thorp) is dropping his challenge to Sen. Jeff Smith (D-Brunswick) — making him the fifth Senate Republican to announce his retirement from office.

James had initially announced that he would be running for reelection in October in Senate District 31, which is currently represented by Smith, saying that he would be coming “home.” James and Smith were drawn into the same district under the legislative maps adopted in 2024, and James moved to continue to represent Senate District 23.

James’ retirement announcement comes after his daughter was charged with stealing funds from his campaign. He turned in his daughter to police in 2024, after discovering that, while  working as his campaign treasurer, she withdrew $32,000 from the campaign account over the year without authorization. She had withdrawn the funds to help with her small business.

James, who was first elected to the Senate in 2022, said in a statement that it has been the “opportunity of a lifetime” to serve in the Legislature, but “this role came at a price, a price of being away from my family.”

“For this reason, and for other personal reasons I have decided to retire from the Wisconsin State Senate,” he said.

James’ departure from the race means Republicans are losing the advantage that comes with having an incumbent candidate in yet another key state Senate district.

Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield) and Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine) have both announced their retirements, and Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green) is the only incumbent Republican running for reelection in one of the four Senate Districts that Democrats are targeting as a part of their plan to win a majority.

Senate District 31 includes the entirety of Eau Claire County and parts of Dunn, Trempealeau and Chippewa counties. It’s one of 17 odd-numbered districts that will be up for election for the first time under new maps.

Other Republicans not running for reelection include Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) and Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater).

According to a Democratic Party of Wisconsin analysis, Senate District 31 voted in April this year for Justice-elect Chris Taylor, who was backed by the party, by 30 percentage points.

According to an analysis by John Johnson, a research fellow at Marquette University, the current 31st Senate district leaned Democratic in the 2024 presidential election by 2.2 percentage points and went Democratic by 4.7 percentage points in the 2024 Senate race. 

Devin Remiker, chair of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, said in a statement that Republicans “know that they’re in big trouble without rigged maps designed to protect them from the outrage voters have about rising prices and the disastrous Trump administration.”

“With last week’s blowout victory, the likes of which this state has not seen for over a decade, we will double down to ensure we can deliver real change for working people in November,” Remiker said. “For the Republicans who are staring down the most competitive elections of their lifetimes, with their leaders and colleagues continuing to flee the sinking MAGA ship, I would urge you to join them in retirement before the wave hits this November.”

Another Assembly Republican declines to run 

Rep. Scott Allen (R-Waukesha) also announced his intentions to not run for reelection on Tuesday, saying he would be taking a “sabbatical” from elected office. Allen lost his bid for the office of mayor of Waukesha last week to Alicia Halvensleben, a Democrat. 

“We are blessed with living in the greatest country of all time. Service is the rent that we pay for such privilege,” Allen, one of the most right-wing members of the Assembly, said in a statement. “Protecting our freedoms and opportunities takes work and when we begin to take them for granted, we run the risk of losing them.”

His campaign statement noted that “this action by Rep. Allen may be the only thing that he has ever done that will thrill liberals.”

Allen joins six other Assembly Republicans, including Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester), in not running for reelection.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources held a public hearing Tuesday on a request from the AI data center company Vantage for an air quality permit to operate 45 diesel backup generators at the company’s proposed hyperscale data center in Port Washington.

The department has already granted a preliminary approval to the permit request. Members of the public complained at the virtual hearing that the DNR chose not to conduct a full environmental impact assessment — despite southeastern Wisconsin’s existing classification as a high air pollution region. 

Michael Greif, an attorney with Midwest Environmental Advocates, said that all 45 generators operating at once for one hour would emit the same amount of nitrogen oxides as more than 5 million cars driving over one mile of nearby Interstate 43 — or seven times the hourly nitrogen oxide emissions for all of Ozaukee County. Exposure to nitrogen oxides have been tied to respiratory issues such as asthma. 

“It is also one of the first hyper scale AI data centers proposed in Wisconsin,” Grief said. “So it raises new and unreserved questions about energy use, climate impacts, air pollution and public health, and for all those reasons and more, DNR is legally required to prepare an EIS for the Vantage data center.”

Residents of the area put it more simply, complaining about the air pollution they’re already dealing with every day. 

“Our lakeshore is at capacity,” Sheboygan resident Rebecca Clarke said. 

Many speakers also expressed frustration at their lack of a voice in the state’s surge in data center development and proposals. 

“This community has not been given a fair process,” Port Washington resident Carri Prom said. “We’ve been speaking about this process for months. We’ve largely been ignored, and yet, here we are.”

The air pollution permit is one of the DNR’s few chances to weigh in on a data center proposal that has drawn widespread opposition in Port Washington and across the state. The Public Service Commission, the agency that regulates utility companies in Wisconsin, has given the public little confidence it will do enough to prevent electric bills from increasing.

Local zoning boards and city councils, enticed by the promise of property tax revenue, have often signed off on data centers after agreeing to non-disclosure agreements to keep the details away from their constituents. 

“I think things are very backwards, and that we’re proceeding with all of these projects before we even have any idea of how to protect residents,” said Sarah Zarling, an environmental organizer who’s been involved in the data center fight. 

Over the past year, as the number of data centers operating, under construction or proposed has continued to increase, public opposition has grown. Multiple pieces of legislation for regulating data centers were proposed by lawmakers of both parties, yet none passed  before legislators adjourned for the year. Data centers have become a big issue in the Democratic primary for governor and a number of environmental groups have called for a moratorium on data center development until stricter regulations can be put into law. 

Brett Korte, a staff attorney at Clean Wisconsin, told the Wisconsin Examiner in a statement after Tuesday’s hearing that the disconnected government approval process only highlights Wisconsin’s lack of a coherent plan.

“One of the pressing issues related to the data center boom currently underway in Wisconsin is that there is no overarching plan to ensure they don’t harm communities in our state,” he said. “Nor is there even an effort to fully understand the harm they will cause. Local governments make zoning decisions, the PSC approves the construction of power plants and transmission lines, and the DNR implements water regulations and issues air permits.” Yet no state office is responsible for looking at all of the issues raised by data centers at once.

Korte added that a better process for planning future renewable energy sources, stronger carbon emission standards and a more concrete plan for achieving Gov. Tony Evers’ goal of powering the state with 100% clean energy by 2050 would help the state better manage data center growth. 

“No one is asking: Do the benefits of data centers outweigh their environmental harm?” he continued. “That is why Clean Wisconsin continues to call for a pause on data center construction until the state has a comprehensive plan to regulate their development.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Tuesday he plans to use the complex reconciliation process to fund immigration enforcement for the next three years, though it wasn’t immediately clear if House Republicans were on the exact same page.

The plan to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol with only Republican votes could end the two-month shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security when combined with the regular funding bill for that department, which the Senate already approved but is stalled in the House. 

Thune, R-S.D., said during an afternoon press conference that House GOP leaders “could” add additional provisions to the reconciliation bill, but said he would like it to remain narrow. 

“My hope would be that if we can execute on getting that done here in the Senate, the House would be able to follow through,” he said. 

Thune said the Senate could vote as soon as next week on a budget resolution with reconciliation instructions. That is the first step of the complicated process. But the House must vote to adopt that budget resolution before Republicans can pass the funding bill for ICE and the Border Patrol.  

Speaker Mike Johnson’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

Homeland Security shuttered

The Department of Homeland Security has been shut down since Feb. 14, after Democrats insisted on new guardrails for immigration enforcement following the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis by federal immigration officers.

Without any bipartisan consensus on how to do that, Republicans have instead decided to use the same reconciliation process they used last year to enact their “big, beautiful” law to approve funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol. 

The House would then likely pass DHS’ spending bill without those two line items, which the Senate has already approved. That would provide funding for the other agencies within the department, including the Coast Guard, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Secret Service and Transportation Security Administration.

Safeguards demanded

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said during a separate press conference that Democrats have repeatedly asked for “common sense” safeguards that would require immigration agents to show identification, prevent them from wearing masks and require judicial warrants to enter someone’s home. 

“The bottom line is these are simple. These are common sense,” he said. “They’re what every police department uses and when you ask the American people, they’re on our side. It’s the intransigence, particularly of the hard right, who seem to like what ICE is doing.”

Schumer said Democrats would use the marathon amendment voting session on both the budget resolution and the later reconciliation bill to hold Republicans’ “feet to the fire on DHS, on the war, on so many other issues.”

Thune said he has been “trying to figure out exactly” what Democrats have gotten out of the DHS shutdown, especially considering that immigration enforcement operations haven’t been affected since there was funding for that in last year’s reconciliation bill, exempting those programs from the funding lapse. 

“All of the things that the Democrats made this about, which was supposed to be reforms to the way that ICE and CBP operate. They got none of that. Zero,” he said, referring to Customs and Border Protection, the larger agency that includes the Border Patrol. “And now we’re going to fund those agencies for three years into the future.”

The Department of Justice’s stated reason for obtaining sensitive personal data on millions of voters masks the Trump administration’s true intention for obtaining state voter lists, Michigan’s top election official asserted in federal appeals court Monday.

Attorneys for Michigan Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson made the allegation in a brief in the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The argument reflects a concern broadly held among Democratic state election officials that the Trump administration wants to compile voter data in an effort to influence the upcoming midterm elections. 

The Justice Department, under President Donald Trump, is suing 29 states for refusing to provide voter information. It says it needs the data to evaluate efforts to clean and maintain voter rolls, including whether noncitizens are registered to vote.

But Benson’s brief says that “appears to be a pretext for improper purposes.”

Michigan and other states argue the Trump administration is instead effectively building a nationwide voter registration list — a move not authorized under the 1960 Civil Rights Act, a federal law to combat voting discrimination that the Justice Department has cited in demanding states turn over voter data.

“Collecting Michigan’s voter data to conduct its own list maintenance and to use Michigan’s list as part of creating a national voter file is not encompassed within the purpose stated in DOJ’s demand, which is simply ‘to ascertain Michigan’s compliance with the list maintenance requirements’” of federal election laws, Benson’s brief says.

“Moreover, creating a national voter file of U.S. Citizens is beyond any purpose contemplated by the (Civil Rights Act).”

After U.S. District Court Judge Hala Jarbou ruled in February that the Justice Department isn’t entitled to Michigan’s unredacted voter list containing driver’s license and partial Social Security numbers, the department appealed to the 6th Circuit.

Trump priority

Over the past year, Trump has attempted to exercise greater power over federal elections, which, under the U.S. Constitution, are run by the states.

“Trump does not have the authority to create a Trump voter list,” Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat whom the Justice Department is suing for not providing voter data, said in an interview earlier this month.

Studies have shown noncitizen voting is extremely rare, though Trump has long fixated on the prospect of noncitizen voting and other forms of election fraud. Last year, Trump signed an executive order that would have unilaterally required voters to provide documents proving their citizenship. The order was struck down in court, but Trump is pressuring the U.S. Senate to pass the SAVE America Act, which would implement similar proof of citizenship rules.

Michigan state officials and other critics of the Justice Department’s voter data effort point to actions by Trump and remarks by a DOJ attorney as evidence that the Trump administration is already compiling a national voter list.

Trump’s recent executive order to restrict mail-in ballots directs the Department of Homeland Security to build lists of voting-age citizens in each state and then share those lists with state officials. Homeland Security operates a powerful computer system, called SAVE, that can verify citizenship by checking names against information in federal databases.

And at a federal court hearing in Rhode Island in late March, Justice Department Voting Section Acting Chief Eric Neff said his department intends to share voter lists with Homeland Security, according to a transcript. He said DOJ and DHS have already entered into a use agreement to govern the sharing of data, though he didn’t detail its requirements.

Mail ballot order an ‘iceberg’ to DOJ case

A DOJ attorney, James Tucker, has denied any effort to create a national voter file. 

“There is not going to be a national voter registration database,” Tucker said at a hearing in Maine on March 26 — less than a week before Trump signed the executive order.

But David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research, likened the Justice Department’s litigation strategy to a legal Titanic and the executive order to an iceberg: The order effectively creating a nationwide voter list could sink a strategy that denies such a goal exists.

“The DOJ … has been trying to assure the courts that this data is not going to be used to create a national voter list,” Becker said during a press briefing this month.

The Justice Department didn’t respond to a request for comment Tuesday.

Civil Rights Act argued

The Justice Department has so far failed to persuade any federal judges that it’s entitled to state voter data. Judges have dismissed the DOJ’s lawsuits against California, Massachusetts, Michigan and Oregon. 

At least a dozen states, all Republican led, have voluntarily provided their voter lists. The Justice Department has also reached a settlement agreement with one state, Oklahoma, to obtain its data. 

When Jarbou, a Trump appointee, dismissed the Justice Department’s lawsuit for Michigan’s voter roll, she ruled that the Civil Rights Act doesn’t require the disclosure of the information. The law, signed by President Dwight Eisenhower, empowered federal officials to investigate state and local discrimination against Black voters.

The law requires states to preserve election records for at least 22 months after a federal election, including any documents that come into the possession of an election official. Jarbou wrote in her decision that the state’s voter registration list is created by election officials but isn’t a document, such as a voter registration application, that comes into their possession.

When the Justice Department filed its brief in March, it argued that Jarbou misinterpreted the Civil Rights Act. “The CRA’s text … does not exclude self-generated documents,” the department’s brief says.

The Justice Department’s appeal of the Michigan loss has advanced the furthest, with state officials filing their brief on Monday. The DOJ has pushed for quick timelines in the appeals, arguing that court rulings are needed ahead of the midterms to ensure the fairness of elections.

Local officials back states

Regardless, 18 local election officials from across the country, including seven in Michigan, on Monday filed a brief in the case arguing that the Justice Department hasn’t provided a legitimate basis to obtain election records under the Civil Rights Act.

As election misinformation has proliferated in recent years, local election officials face increasing requests for information, the group wrote. They are accustomed to providing public voter registration information, with steps in place to exclude sensitive, nonpublic data.

Courts act as a “backstop” to enforce bans on disclosing sensitive information in response to records requests from the public, the local election officials argue.

“Courts should perform that same function for requests for records under the CRA,” the group said.

Kris Seals, a Brookfield alderman, has resigned following public outcry over anti-Muslim social media posts he made. Though Seals initially resisted calls for his resignation, he has since backpedaled and apologized for his comments, which discussed violence against Muslims. 

“I would like to apologize to the Muslim community for my insensitive and inappropriate statements I made online,” Seals said in an emailed statement which was shared by Brookfield City Attorney Jenna Merten, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. 

Shortly after Seals was reelected in an uncontested race on April 7, Fox 6 Milwaukee reported on numerous posts the alder made on LinkedIn. “They will take over your country with out (sic) one shot,” read one of Seals’ posts. “They will out vote you in less then (sic) 30 years and then you will be living under Sharia Law.” Fox 6 Milwaukee said the posts were first noticed by a local resident who shared them with the TV news station. “They are a sick religion,” Seals wrote in  another post. “This must stop. deport them all.” In yet another post Seals wrote “It’s time to wipe out the immigrants from Britain and all of the EU.” Another of his  posts referred to shooting Muslims and Somalis with  “bacon rapped (sic) bullets,” topped off with laughing emojis. 

Seals had also made a post reading “Obummer is not the President anymore! So Presidential immunity is Mute. Hang him for treason,” and another one suggesting that criminals should be shot twice in the head to save “the people tons of money in court cost and prison cost, also eliminating the dems from becoming involved in trying to save their voter base.” Images of another post have been shared with the Examiner, with the posts alleging that “every blue state has Billions in fraud” which Seals re-posted and commented that, “I think it’s way past time for Public Executions.”

Fox6 Milwaukee reporters questioned Seals at his home. Seals said “it’s obnoxious, these people,” referring to what he called “extreme Muslims” and asking the reporter to “put that word in there, because it’s not all Muslims.” Grinning, Seals admitted to making the posts about bacon-wrapped bullets, a discriminatory trope mocking the Muslim prohibition on eating pork. Seals told the reporters that the only post he regretted was the one calling for criminals to be shot. “Sometimes we say a lot of things online that we don’t necessarily mean,” Seals said. He later claimed that his LinkedIn posts were  bringing attention to important issues. “Those are problems,” said Seals. “I have a right to say how I feel.”

The comments caused an uproar and Muslim community organizations called for Seals to resign. “Public officials take an oath to serve all constituents, not to demonize them,” said Robert McCaw, government affairs director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. “Seals’ violent and dehumanizing remarks targeting Muslims and immigrants are not just offensive, they are dangerous. This rhetoric fuels hate, legitimizes discrimination, and puts real people at risk. It is fundamentally incompatible with the responsibilities of public office.” 

Seals said in his resignation statement that he spoke with a member of the Muslim community. “I appreciate they are willing to forgive me for the rude statements I made,” he said. “I look forward to meeting with them and to get an even better understanding of the Community.”

The common council will now need to determine how to fill Seals’ empty seat. It wasn’t the first time Brookfield’s common council had to contend with inflammatory comments made by Seals. 

In 2023, Seals drew attention for speaking against a proposed affordable housing development in his wealthy, mostly white suburb. “The problem that I have is the future of Brookfield,” said Seals. “What we are trying to do is step down to a West Allis or a Wauwatosa. No, we’re Brookfield. We don’t step down to allow the people who can’t afford to live in Brookfield to come in, because then we become West Allis, then we become Wauwatosa. This is not what Brookfield is. I’ve been here 60 years, this is not Brookfield.” Seals also said people who want to live in Brookfield need to “put your nose to the grindstone” until they can afford to live there. 

An attempt to censure Seals for his comments on affordable housing failed, with 16 local residents appearing to speak in support of the alder. One woman called his opposition to the housing project “exemplary.”

Brookfield Ald. Michael Hallquist pushed for Seals’ censure in 2023. In an emailed statement to Wisconsin Examiner, Hallquist applauded his common council colleague’s resignation over three years later.

“First and foremost, I want to reassure the Muslim members of our community that you belong here, you are loved, and you are every much as Brookfield as my family is,” said Hallquist. “You are our neighbors and we will continue to show up for you.”

Hallquist said that Seals “represents an ever-decreasing attitude of hate and intolerance in our community. While I appreciate his apology, I hope he sincerely intends to learn more from his neighbors on his pathway to forgiveness, and I wish him well on that journey. It speaks volumes to the kindness of our Muslim community to offer him the opportunity to do-so.” Hallquist concluded that, “Brookfield is what we make it, so I hope we continue to create a culture for our city where everyone feels safe, appreciated, and welcome.”

This article has been updated with comment from Ald. Michael Hallquist.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Wisconsin lawmakers agree on the importance of providing public access to state government meetings through livestreams, but they finished their work this year without an agreement on a short-term or long-term plan to fund the Capitol livestreaming service WisconsinEye. The nonprofit organization faces an uncertain financial future. Jon Henkes, president and CEO of WisEye, now says the organization is hoping for further action in a special or extraordinary session.

Henkes, who was not available for an interview, said in a statement that WisconsinEye “remains hopeful of some level of support from the state, but right now that’s a big question given both houses of the legislature adjourned without agreement on a plan to be supportive.” 

WisconsinEye was started as an independent nonprofit in 2007 to livestream and archive government meetings and legislative sessions. For most of its history, WisconsinEye has relied on donations and is run independently from the state Legislature, but since the pandemic, Henkes has said the organization has had trouble raising funds for its operations. It has a budget of about $900,000 a year. 

The organization, which shut down it operations and pulled its archives offline for several weeks in December and January, turned to state lawmakers for help at the end of last year, but the path to a solution reached a halt as lawmakers deadlocked on what to do.

On March 23, WisconsinEye released a public statement saying that “access to the WisconsinEye archive may be curtailed to facilitate needed preparations for a possible permanent shutdown of the network.” It also said on its GoFundMe that “coverage of upcoming events is being reduced due to funding constraints.”

“There was much hope as leadership of both parties and houses energetically expressed support and gratitude for the mission and work of WisconsinEye,” Henkes wrote in his April message. “Bringing their good intentions across the finish line can still happen but it’s going to take an extraordinary or special session of the legislature, and the support of Governor Evers to come through for us. And by ‘us’ I mean all citizens who care about transparency and access, and who appreciate the network’s 18 years of exceptional public service.”

Gov. Tony Evers and lawmakers have talked previously about taking additional action in a special or extraordinary session this year, but those discussions have been centered around property tax relief and school funding, not WisconsinEye. It’s unclear whether additional issues could become wrapped up in those negotiations, though one Republican leader previously said a bill would focus on taxes and wouldn’t be a “mini budget.” 

There were two legislative efforts to address the crisis at WisconsinEye leading up to the final regular floor session this year.

A bipartisan Assembly bill would have placed $10 million, which had already been set aside in the form of matching funds for WisconsinEye, in a trust fund to accrue interest that the nonprofit would then be able to use for its operational costs, without the requirement that it match those funds. WisconsinEye still would have needed to raise a few hundred thousand dollars each year for its operations. 

The Wisconsin Senate passed a separate bill, which was amended to provide some stopgap funding for WisconsinEye and would have opened up the possibility of replacing WisconsinEye with another streaming service, launching a “request for proposals” (RFP) — or a bidding process for the job of livestreaming government proceedings. 

Neither body took up the other body’s proposal.

Other states have also navigated conflict over livestreaming government proceedings, including disagreements over funding, what is shown and how it is shown, according to a 2016 Stateline report. There are two legislative chambers in the U.S. that don’t livestream floor proceedings: the North Carolina Senate and the Missouri Senate. The latter has been debating allowing video livestreaming.

It’s unclear whether there is enough of an appetite from Wisconsin lawmakers for further action this year to ensure continued streaming into the future. The state Legislature finished its regular session business this year in March, meaning that action from lawmakers will be limited for the remainder of the year as many turn their attention to running for reelection.

Sen. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit), who voted for the state Senate proposal, told the Wisconsin Examiner in an interview that he is open to exploring a long-term solution over the next nine months. 

“We’re not back in session till 2027 and so the opportunity really to implement the results of an RFP wouldn’t really be there, and so I have no objection to spending the next nine months exploring, what might be out there to provide this service through an RFP,” Spreitzer said, “The real question… is what are we doing between now and next January? Are we providing some funding to keep WisconsinEye going?”

Spreitzer voted for the Senate proposal after amendments addressed some of his key concerns including providing stopgap funding to WisconsinEye to get it through the next year and the inclusion of some accountability measures. He said the sense of urgency to come to a solution faded after the session came to an end.

“I mean to be really blunt there was a sense that perhaps the only reason that they got stopgap funding for the month of February was that [Assembly] Speaker [Robin] Vos wanted his farewell address to be on WisconsinEye,” Spreitzer said. “I think once the legislators, who want their own speeches to be televised aren’t in session anymore, even though there are other government meetings, I think the urgency does fade, which is a problem.”

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester), who is retiring at the end of his term, said at a WisPolitics event last month that he prefers having an independent organization responsible and that he thinks the Assembly proposal is the better option. 

“The idea that we’re going to go out to bid for a money-losing proposition that requires you to cover every hearing for free… doesn’t seem to be one that’s workable,” Vos said. “I don’t think that’s going to happen, but I don’t know.”

The bill’s lead author Sen. Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin) did not respond to requests for an interview. Spreitzer noted that Bradley has said he is open to providing state funding, but it would be open to those submitting proposals to speak to that. 

Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg), who is also retiring at the end of his term, also did not respond to a request for comment. 

Vos said that while he hopes WisconsinEye will “survive” and “make it to the next budget cycle,” after that, “frankly, I’m gone” next session. 

Spreitzer said there should be some urgency attached to the recent update provided on March 23 from WisconsinEye. He said maintaining access to the archives is important, even when there are fewer legislative meetings going on to be livestreamed. 

“People don’t just want to watch meetings live. They want to be able to go back and see what happens,” Spreitzer said. “There’s an election coming up, and voters want to see what their elected officials were actually saying and doing during the session, and to not be able to go back and do that and have that accountability, I think would be a huge loss.”

In February, the Joint Committee on Legislative Organization voted to provide $50,000 to WisconsinEye to resume coverage, but the organization hasn’t received additional funds in the following months despite saying that it needed them. 

Spreitzer said he would support providing a “minimal monthly amount” to WisconsinEye to keep operations going until at least 2027, whether that has to be done through committee action or through a special session as suggested by WisEye. The Senate bill would have set aside over $580,000 and, if approved by JFC, the money would be paid out to WisconsinEye in monthly payments of about $48,000.

“That’s, you know, obviously up to Republican leadership,” Spreitzer added.

Spreitzer said taking the time to think through the long-term solutions is important, especially with a number of concerns about WisconsinEye and how it has navigated its advocacy efforts. He noted that the organization appears incapable of doing the fundraising that it has done in the past. 

“I did not feel like they were as up front or direct in communicating about that as they should have been, particularly with the Legislature,” Spreitzer said, adding that he received no direct communication and only saw press releases and messages posted to WisconsinEye’s website. “I just found that really inappropriate. We’d go on their website and we’d see — “if we don’t get money by this date we’re going to turn the archives off,” then they did turn the archives off. It felt more like extortion than somebody actually coming forward and saying, ‘Here’s our business model, here’s what’s not working, please help us.’ I just am not a big fan of handing a check to somebody that acts that way, at least not without accountability measures to make sure that doesn’t happen in the future.”

Ahead of the temporary shutdown in December and January, WisconsinEye said it had raised no funds for the year. It then launched a GoFundMe for small-dollar donations, and as of April 13, the nonprofit’s GoFundMe has raised over $94,000. The amount is less than half of WisEye’s $250,000 goal, which would cover three months of its operating budget.

The organization has said that coupled with a “solid state commitment” that raising the additional funds for its operating budget would be achievable, and donors view that approach with “confidence.” 

While he wants to see a short-term solution to continue access, Spreitzer said he thinks the conversation about a long-term solution should not be led by LeMahieu or Vos. 

“Speaker Vos and Majority Leader LeMahieu are not going to be the two people in charge next session,” Spreitzer said, adding they have been “running point” on the issue and were incapable of finding an agreement. “We should let them provide some gap funding to get us to next year, but I don’t see any reason why they should be part of a long-term conversation here when they’re not going to be here next year.”

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers, who would need to sign off on any legislation, is also on his way out of office at the end of his term. 

Spreitzer said he thought his bill was a good starting point for the conversation, but he didn’t know whether he would pursue creating a state-run public affairs network next year. Democrats are putting their efforts towards winning the Senate majority, which would put them in a better position to shape legislation.

“That’s a conversation we would all need to have as Democrats if we’re in the majority again — whether you do something fully public, or you do something that is more similar to the Assembly bill this session [and] WisconsinEye makes some changes to its board and how it operates in order to get public money,” Spreitzer said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

(The Center Square) - Wisconsin’s Senate and Assembly decided to keep Gov. Tony Evers’ special session open on Tuesday as conversations continue on redistricting in the state, with Assembly Republican leaders saying that will allow for “meaningful dialogue” on the…

(The Center Square) – Two more Wisconsin Republicans announced onTuesday that they will not be running for reelection as Sen. Jesse James, R-Thorp, and Rep. Scott Allen, R-Waukesha, will not attempt to retain their seats.

(The Center Square) - The Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa will have another chance to halt construction on a Line 5 pipeline reroute during a Thursday morning hearing at the Bayfield County Courthouse.

(The Center Square) – There is now a legal challenge to Wisconsin’s recently lowered state test scores.

Reading Time: 6 minutes

Strong winds whipped around Doug Bartek, a fifth-generation farmer, as he headed into a grain bin to shovel soybeans onto a conveyor chute. The 60-year-old was anxious at the onset of the spring planting season, rattling off the long list of issues affecting his family’s livelihood at their 2,000-acre farm near Wahoo, Nebraska.

The high cost of fuel, equipment and fertilizer — compounded by the Iran war — and also tariffs, perceived “price gouging” by suppliers, and low soybean prices driven by a global supply glut. All of it weighs on Bartek, who is chairman of the Nebraska Soybean Association.

“Our biggest struggles are our inputs, be it fertilizer, seed, chemical, parts,” Bartek said. “There has been so much drastic markup in all of these. And I just kind of feel like the farmer’s kind of painted in the corner.”

Bartek’s concerns are shared by many Midwest soybean producers. Costs, such as equipment, have crept up over time while soybean prices have stayed low. Tariffs levied by the Trump administration last year and the resulting monthslong trade war with China only made things worse, they say. Then the Iran war bottled up shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, restricting global fertilizer supplies and sending fertilizer prices sky high. A ceasefire deal announced April 7 raised hope that bottlenecks in the strait would abate, but the future of the agreement was uncertain.

“A lot of producers are pretty nervous going into this year,” said Justin Sherlock, a soybean farmer and president of the North Dakota Soybean Growers Association. “It looks like we’re going to have another year of negative returns.”

Years of rising costs, low soybean prices

Soybeans, which are used for livestock feed, food and biofuels, are among the top U.S. agricultural exports. That hasn’t always been the case. Before the 1960s soybeans weren’t a major crop in the U.S, according to Chad Hart, an agricultural economist at Iowa State University. It wasn’t until the 1990s that soybean production accelerated due to international demand — primarily from China — and soybeans and corn are now dominant in U.S. agriculture.

But U.S. soybean farmers, who typically also grow corn, have been facing financial issues for years even before the onset of the Iran war. Soybean prices have been persistently low in recent years. The global market has been awash in soybeans, driven in part by Brazil, which surpassed the U.S. as the world’s largest soybean producer years ago.

“If we look at global soybean production over the past several years, it continues to set record after record, after record,” Hart said. “There’s been just large supplies globally, and that has led to depressed prices.”

Meanwhile, Midwest soybean farmers’ costs have risen. Overall farm production expenses, including seed and pesticide, have increased over time, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Operating costs for soybean production have stayed elevated since 2020 and are projected to increase again in 2026, according to the agency.

The cost of land also is a major issue for farmers, experts say. Midwest crop land values have increased. And most regional farmers rent some of their land, according to Joana Colussi, research assistant professor in the department of agricultural economics at Purdue University.

Bartek, who rents three-quarters of his land, said landowners are increasing rents, causing further financial strain.

“There’s a lot of what I call absentee landowners that have absolutely no idea what goes on on the farm,” he said. “All they know is their taxes went up and you get to make up the difference, some way, somehow.”

“They’re very concerned about negative margins driven by low prices and high cost,” said Paul Mitchell, a professor of agricultural and applied economics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, of farmers. “There’s just a liquidity cash crunch for a lot of them and they’re just trying to figure out how to deal with everything.”

The number of farms in the U.S. has shrunk over time, and consolidation in farming is a long-term trend, though farmers’ financial pressures wrought by high input costs and low commodity prices have contributed, Hart said. Larger farms tend to be more competitive and depend on large, expensive machinery.

“The financial reserves need(ed) on a farm are much greater than they used to be,” Hart said. “We’re a bit more sensitive to the financial conditions these days because so much capital is being utilized within the farm business.”

Tariffs, trade war have lasting impacts

Market forces aren’t the only issue weighing on farmers. Sweeping tariffs levied by President Donald Trump in April 2025 exacerbated a trade war with China, the top buyer of U.S. soybeans. China responded with retaliatory tariffs and effectively boycotted U.S. soybeans, cutting off a major export market for Midwest farmers and driving the price of soybeans even lower.

“When that was announced and soybean prices basically collapsed, if you could afford to hold on to your beans and wait for better times, you were OK,” said Mike Cerny, a soybean and winter wheat corn farmer in Sharon, Wisconsin. “If you had a mortgage due or payments due or cash flow needs and you had to sell at that point, you were taking it pretty rough.”

The U.S. and China eventually reached a deal in late 2025. Beijing committed to buying 12 million metric tons of soybeans by January and at least 25 million metric tons annually for the next three years. China has since met its initial soybean purchase goal, and the Trump administration also rolled out a $12 billion temporary aid package in December to boost farmers affected by the trade war.

But the damage is already done, experts and farmers say. While China’s renewed purchases and the federal payments are helping, it’s not enough to recover farmers’ losses. Even after federal assistance, farmers still lost almost $75 per harvested acre of soybeans in the 2025 crop, according to the American Soybean Association. And the trade war further pushed China toward competing soybean exporters, such as Brazil — accelerating a trend of declining U.S. soybean exports to China.

“When China decided to stop purchasing, we couldn’t find enough other markets to replace those sales,” Hart said. “We’re still feeling the impacts today. When you look at where soybean exports are today versus where we would normally expect them to be, we’re still running anywhere from 15% to 20% behind normal.”

Joseph Glauber, former chief economist at the Department of Agriculture between 2008 and 2014, said global competitors to U.S. soybean farmers gained from the trade war.

“When China has put on tariffs against the U.S. they’ve tended to buy them from Brazil or Argentina, largely Brazil,” Glauber added. “We’re not nearly as dominant in the world as we used to be in terms of the global export market for soybeans.”

Iran war drove up fuel, fertilizer costs

After the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran on Feb. 28, a severe slowdown in shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz sent the price of oil soaring. The shipping disruption also largely stopped the export of nitrogen fertilizers manufactured in the Persian Gulf and limited access to key fertilizer ingredients. The price of urea, the most widely traded nitrogen fertilizer, skyrocketed.

Soybeans don’t require nitrogen fertilizer, but it’s vital for corn, and most soybean farmers also grow corn. About half the global supply of urea comes from the Middle East, and Qatar and Saudi Arabia are two of the top sources of U.S. fertilizer imports, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation.

The U.S. and Iran last week agreed to a two-week ceasefire that included reopening the Strait of Hormuz, but traffic remained slowed amid disagreements over Israeli attacks in Lebanon, and the price of urea remains elevated.

Many Midwest farmers bought their fertilizer well in advance of the spring planting season. But some farmers who didn’t buy early face elevated prices. Dave Walton, a corn, soybean and hay farmer in Iowa and vice president of the American Soybean Association, said in March that some of his neighbors didn’t have cash on hand last fall to buy fertilizer and were struggling to budget for fertilizer due to high prices.

The war also caused gasoline and diesel prices to surge, causing further headaches for farmers. Oil prices dropped following the ceasefire announcement, but the war and the closure of the strait will have lasting impacts on farmers, said Seth Goldstein, a senior equity analyst at Morningstar, an investment research company. Facilities in the Middle East that are critical for exporting chemicals, oil and other commodities were damaged or destroyed during the war, and it will take time for supply chains to recover, he said.

“Facilities have been hit, like liquid natural gas plants,” Goldstein added. “You are also looking at a big supply crunch in commodity chemicals, which are the inputs for crop chemicals.”

“We burn a lot of diesel fuel,” said Chris Gould, a corn and soybean farmer in Maple Park, Illinois. “It’s hard to say if I’m gonna come out ahead or behind on this whole deal. But I suspect I’m gonna come out behind.”

Concerns about the future

Farmers’ financial problems are showing up in some measures. Farm bankruptcies, while still relatively low, continued to climb in 2025, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation. In a survey of 400 farmers conducted by researchers at the Purdue Center for Commercial Agriculture in late March, almost half said their farm operation is financially worse off than it was a year ago.

Goldstein, the Morningstar analyst, said farmers’ high costs and low revenues contributed to the spike in bankruptcies between 2024 and 2025. If costs rise faster than crop prices going forward, he added, that “would strain farmers again and likely lead to more bankruptcies.”

After 43 years of farming, Bartek said the smell of fresh dirt still gets him excited for spring planting. But he’s also heard of farmer suicides, bankruptcies and “retirement sales” where farmers are forced to auction off their operations due to financial problems. Bartek compares farmers to gamblers who put “millions of dollars in the dirt” hoping for returns.

At times, Bartek doubts his own decision to go into farming. He’s also worried about his son, who purchased a farm a few years ago.

Bartek wonders: “Did I do the right thing helping him get into farming?”

This story is a collaboration between Lee Enterprises and The Associated Press.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup. This story is published in partnership with The Associated Press.

Already under financial pressure, Midwest soybean farmers are squeezed further by tariffs, Iran war 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.

Port Washington residents and environmental advocates urged Wisconsin regulators to deny air quality permits for a massive data center there and conduct further environmental review of the project.

The post Port Washington residents urge DNR to deny air quality permits for data center appeared first on WPR.

A Milwaukee alder is calling on the state Department of Transportation to take over management of the Milwaukee Intermodal Station following a sexual assault that occurred at that facility recently.

The post Milwaukee alder calls on DOT to improve safety at city train, bus station  appeared first on WPR.

During a forum framed as vetting Wisconsin's next governor who will "blunt the authoritarian thrust of the Trump regime," the seven Democrats vying for their party's nomination called for more state regulations on AI data centers and a pivot to 100 percent renewable energy.

The post Democrats vying for Wisconsin governor sound off on data centers, climate accountability during forum appeared first on WPR.

A special session of the Legislature to consider banning partisan gerrymandering came and went Tuesday. But it's not gone for good.

The post Partisan gerrymandering special session goes nowhere — for now appeared first on WPR.

In another setback for Wisconsin Republicans hoping to hold their slim state Senate majority, Sen. Jesse James of Thorp announced Tuesday he's dropping his campaign against Democratic Sen. Jeff Smith of Brunswick.

The post Republican Sen. Jesse James to retire from Wisconsin Legislature appeared first on WPR.

When beekeepers saw widespread honeybee die-offs last year, researchers at the USDA Beltsville Agricultural Research Center stepped in to help. The Trump administration now plans to close the facility.

The post Soon after massive honeybee deaths, Trump moves to close the nation’s premier bee lab appeared first on WPR.

The Medical College of Wisconsin in Wauwatosa has named Dr. Shekar N. Kurpad as its next president and chief executive officer.

The post Medical College of Wisconsin neurosurgeon named next president appeared first on WPR.

Some anti-abortion state lawmakers are pushing to revise the definition of “abortion” so abortion bans don’t apply to cases in which the death of an “unborn child” is the result of medical care provided to the pregnant woman.

In the four years since the U.S. Supreme Court allowed states to ban abortion, stories continue to emerge of women with doomed pregnancies who developed life-threatening infections, had to travel to another state, or even died because doctors were afraid to provide what was once considered standard pregnancy-loss care.

Thirteen states have abortion bans, and all of them include a medical exception that allows abortions to protect the life of the pregnant woman. Some, but not all, of the bans also have exceptions to protect the health of the woman.

But patients and providers have argued in lawsuits challenging the bans that such exceptions are too ill defined to give doctors and hospitals the confidence to provide timely care. As a result, they say, providers end up denying care until the woman’s condition deteriorates to a point where the exceptions definitely apply, jeopardizing her health and future fertility.

Last year, states including Texas, Kentucky and Tennessee enacted laws designed to provide additional clarity. Confusion persists in those states and others, however, and research has linked abortion restrictions to higher rates of maternal death and injury.

The latest measures, crafted and promoted by national anti-abortion groups, would redefine “abortion” as the intentional ending of the life of the “unborn child.” Supporters say they would clear the way for doctors to manage miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies and other pregnancy-related emergencies.

“No one wants a physician to hesitate or pause and further endanger the life of the mother,” said Ingrid Duran, director of state legislation for the National Right to Life Committee, which has advocated for all of the measures, in a written statement. “This is why providing clearer language in defining terms can be beneficial.”

But reproductive rights advocates and many OB-GYNs say the real purpose of the bills is to fortify abortion bans that are broadly unpopular, even in states with full bans, and under legal challenge in multiple states. They argue the new measures are still too vague because they hang on the intentions of individual physicians, and many of the same procedures and medicines used in abortions are used to treat miscarriages.

They also say the language in the bills could grant embryos legal rights, thereby making some fertility treatments illegal.

“If you’re trying to define what is and is not an abortion, and you’re creating really specific, narrow guidelines, it could really unintentionally classify some pregnancy-related procedures as abortion care, and therefore within the law not medically necessary,” said Elias Schmidt, state legislative counsel for the Center for Reproductive Rights, an advocacy group.

South Dakota is first

In March, South Dakota became the first state to enact such a law. Its measure states that the state’s abortion ban only applies to “the intentional termination of the life of a human being in the uterus,” and not to medical treatment that results in “the accidental or unintentional death of the unborn child,” treatment to resolve a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy, “the removal from the uterus of a deceased unborn child,” or a medical procedure that aims to save the fetus.

To the concern of fertility-treatment advocates, the law also defines “human being” as “an individual living member of the species of Homo sapiens, including the unborn human being during the entire embryonic and fetal ages from fertilization to full gestation.”

A similar bill introduced in Missouri defines abortion as “the act of using or prescribing any instrument, device, medicine, drug, or any other means or substance with the intent to destroy the life of an embryo or fetus in his or her mother’s womb.” It explicitly exempts miscarriage management and treatment for ectopic pregnancies from the definition.

And a bill in Utah, where abortion is still legal up to 18 weeks’ gestation, would regulate how an abortion procedure is recorded in a patient’s chart, distinguishing between an elective abortion and a medically indicated abortion. It defines the latter as an abortion “to remove a deceased fetus,” resolve an ectopic pregnancy, or to avert the death or “serious physical risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function of a woman.”

Wisconsin’s legislature recently voted not to advance a similar bill this past legislative session.

Blame for the confusion

Anti-abortion groups blame doctors and abortion-rights advocates for creating the confusion around the medical exceptions in abortion bans, insisting it is clear what is a medically indicated abortion and what is purely elective.

“The fact that we’re in a place now that states actually have to define (abortion) is a result of my field, particularly (the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) not clarifying it,” said Dr. Susan Bane, vice chair of the board of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which is made up of about 7,500 physicians and other medical professionals who oppose abortion.

The organization has launched a medical education and messaging campaign arguing that abortion bans do not prevent necessary health care.

According to Bane, the main difference between an induced abortion and medically indicated termination is that in the first case, “you want a dead baby at the end of whatever you do.”

The author of the South Dakota law, Republican state Rep. Leslie Heinemann, said he sponsored the measure to quell some of the criticism that the medical exceptions in his state’s ban were ill defined. He admitted he underestimated how difficult it would be to codify in law when care for a miscarriage is necessary.

“Even the medical community had trouble with helping define some of the issues,” he said.

The version of the bill that became law names only a few conditions and leaves the rest up to the discretion of physicians, who must exercise “appropriate and reasonable medical judgment that performance of an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant female” to avoid felony charges.

Heinemann insisted his measure would not restrict fertility treatments or birth control. But reproductive health and legal experts say that by defining the beginning of human life as “the entire embryonic and fetal ages from fertilization to full gestation,” it could have that effect.

“Embedding personhood language into state laws does really bring up concern around contraceptive access and IVF access,” said Kimya Forouzan, principal state policy adviser for the Guttmacher Institute, a think tank that supports abortion rights.

“As personhood provisions grow in the state code, it brings up the question: At what point are we granting the legal rights of a person and placing those rights above the individual themselves?”

Dr. Amy Kelley, an OB-GYN in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, who was the chair of the South Dakota chapter of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists from 2023 to 2025, said lawmakers ignored her and other doctors’ concerns that the amended abortion ban is still too vague.

“The whole point of medicine is to prevent people from becoming on the brink of death, right? So are they expecting us to wait until that?” Kelley said. “It’s still not very clear, and the definition for miscarriage and ectopic is also not the one we wanted. It’s just not helpful.”

Kelley said that since her state enacted an abortion ban, she often waits longer to terminate a pregnancy for medical reasons, and will sometimes send patients out of state for care. She noted that the new law doesn’t explain what level of risk to the pregnant woman justifies terminating a pregnancy.

“They want to say elective abortions are not allowed. But what do they consider elective?” she said. “Let’s say they have a heart condition and their risk of dying in pregnancy is 40%. Is that an elective abortion because their risk is not 100%?”

Stateline reporter Sofia Resnick can be reached at sresnick@stateline.org