WPR spoke with three church leaders in the state to see what they are experiencing in their growing congregations after a recent report from the Hartford Institute for Religion Research found church attendance across the country increased for the first time in 25 years.

The post Wisconsin church leaders see rising interest in faith, reflecting national trends appeared first on WPR.

Budget constraints are forcing liberal-leaning states that spend their own money on healthcare for noncitizens to scale back that aid, as they grapple with federal Medicaid cuts and the expiration of federal subsidies that helped people buy Obamacare plans.

Under federal law, immigrants who are in the country illegally are not eligible for federally funded health coverage.

But as of last month, six states — California, Colorado, Illinois, New York, Oregon and Washington — plus the District of Columbia were spending state dollars to cover some income-eligible noncitizen adults regardless of their immigration status. A total of 14 states plus the district provide state-funded coverage to noncitizen children whether they are here legally or not. And three states — Colorado, New Jersey and Vermont — cover pregnant women regardless of their immigration status.

In addition, 40 states have taken up options in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, known as CHIP, to provide coverage to lawfully present children and/or pregnant women who are not citizens.

But the sweeping tax and spending bill President Donald Trump signed into law last summer cuts federal spending on Medicaid, the joint federal-state health insurance program for low-income people. It also places new eligibility restrictions on lawfully present immigrants, including refugees and asylees, who are enrolled in a variety of government-subsidized health programs, including Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare and plans available on the insurance marketplaces created under the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare.

And Congress at the end of last year failed to renew federal subsidies that helped people buy Obamacare plans.

With less federal money to provide health benefits, at least five states (California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and Washington) plus the District of Columbia have already scaled back or announced plans to scale back state-funded health benefits for immigrants. Other states also may have to pull back as budget pressures continue.

“The federal government shifted much more of the financial burden of providing those services to states. And so states are taking a holistic view at their healthcare budgets and trying to figure out where they can cut,” said Medha Makhlouf, a law professor and the founding director of the Medical-Legal Partnership Clinic at Penn State Dickinson Law, who studies immigrants’ access to healthcare.

“Historically and currently, as we’re seeing, immigrants are going to be the first to be cut, for a variety of reasons. They don’t have political power in the same way citizens do.”

Drishti Pillai, director of immigrant health policy at KFF, a health policy research group, warned that the state cuts, combined with the federal changes, “will likely increase uninsured rates and reduce access to care among immigrants and their children, most of whom are U.S. citizens.

“Over the long-term, these changes could lead to worse health outcomes that could be more complex and expensive to treat,” Pillai said.

But Cooper Smith, director of homeland security and immigration at the America First Policy Institute, a conservative think tank that has worked on policy development with the current Trump administration, said that when budgets tighten, policymakers should prioritize U.S. citizens.

“Taxpayers pay into a system,” Smith said. “I think it’s reasonable to expect that those who have paid into the system should be the primary beneficiaries of public benefit.”

California has traditionally provided some of the most generous benefits. But last June, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a state budget that barred immigrants who are here illegally from newly enrolling in the state’s Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal. In addition, current enrollees between the ages of 19 and 59 will have to pay a new $30 monthly premium beginning in July 2027. And this July, the state will eliminate dental care for noncitizens.

Newsom’s budget plan for next year proposes scaling back Medi-Cal coverage for some immigrants living in the country lawfully, including an estimated 200,000 asylees, refugees, and others with certain immigration statuses.

California Democratic state Sen. María Elena Durazo is pushing legislation this session that would undo the enrollment freeze and restore access to full-scope Medi-Cal coverage for adults living in the U.S. illegally.

“California immigrants are not going to go away,” Durazo said. “We need them. They’re agricultural workers, they’re food workers, they’re construction workers.

“Are we going to not provide the minimal basic healthcare coverage and think that somehow it’s not going to come back to haunt us through emergency rooms and other counties and public hospitals?”

Hannah Orbach-Mandel, a policy analyst at the nonprofit California Budget and Policy Center, said the state should find alternatives to the cuts, such as raising corporate taxes. She said scaling back coverage puts immigrants “in a really vulnerable position that ultimately can result in people dying.”

Colorado made a similar choice.

Using state money, Colorado’s SilverEnhanced Savings program allows immigrants who are here illegally to buy Obamacare plans with zero premiums. But budget constraints prompted the state to lower the enrollment cap for the program to 6,700 from 12,000.

Now the state is poised to downsize another program. Last year, the state launched Cover All Coloradans to provide state-funded health coverage for low-income children and pregnant women who would be eligible for CHIP or Medicaid if not for their immigration status. But a bill the legislature sent last month to Democratic Gov. Jared Polis would scale back some of the benefits available under the program and cap enrollment to help close a roughly $1 billion state budget gap driven in part by ballooning Medicaid costs.

When the law creating the program was enacted in 2022, financial analysts estimated it would cost $14.7 million this fiscal year and cover almost 3,700 children and pregnant women. Instead, the program ended up serving almost 28,000 people at an estimated cost of $104.5 million.

Colorado Republican state Rep. Rick Taggart, a member of the Joint Budget Committee, called the changes to the program “a painful compromise.”

“It’s impossible to separate the human side from the financial side in this area,” Taggart said in a phone interview. “We are talking about children, and we’re talking about pregnant women, and they have very real needs … the children, in most cases, didn’t have anything to do with the decision about immigrating to the U.S. and to Colorado.”

But other Colorado lawmakers said providing services to children who are here illegally ends up depriving the children of legal residents.

“When we come up here compassionately talking about kids, let’s talk about all the kids in our state,” Republican state Rep. Brandi Bradley said during debate on the House floor last month. “There’s plenty of kids whose parents are working a ton of jobs to just keep up with inflation and the price of groceries in the state, while we continue to grow programs like this.”

According to a 2001 court ruling, the New York Constitution bars the state from distinguishing between citizens and legal immigrants in providing Medicaid. Legal immigrants include people who have temporary and humanitarian status or might be here under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, and would be income-eligible for Medicaid.

But even New York has had to make changes. Because of federal funding cuts, the state says, it is narrowing the income eligibility rules for its state-run Essential Plan, which provides zero-premium coverage for people who are here legally but do not qualify for Medicaid.

Beginning in July, the program will no longer cover households making between 200% and 250% of the federal poverty level. The change will end coverage for an estimated 450,000 New Yorkers.

“Our priority continues to be protecting coverage for as many New Yorkers as possible and ensuring people have information and assistance during this transition,” said Danielle De Souza, a spokesperson for the New York State Department of Health.

Stateline reporter Shalina Chatlani can be reached at schatlani@stateline.org

The federal government’s probe into the 2020 election has reached Wisconsin, with several current and former election officials, including multiple people in Milwaukee, confirming they have been interviewed or approached by the FBI.

The exact nature of the investigation remains unclear, though it appears to be at least somewhat centered around the 2020 election. The agency’s election investigations elsewhere in the country have featured subpoenas for ballots and other election records, but legal experts still say it won’t be easy for the federal government to convince a court to give it access to ballots.

Milwaukee County officials are nonetheless preparing for that possibility, in part because they still retain ballots from the 2020 election, though they declined to discuss those preparations or comment on the record. Those ballots contain identifying information that could, in some cases, allow otherwise unidentifiable absentee ballots to be matched to the voters who cast them. Milwaukee is one of the few jurisdictions in Wisconsin that still has ballots from that election, and the city has long been a target of voter fraud accusations and related attacks from the political right.

Elsewhere in Wisconsin — in communities whose elections have faced less scrutiny and in the vast majority of municipalities where 2020 ballots were destroyed according to the standard retention schedules in state law — election officials are less alarmed and are instead focused on preparing for the midterm elections.

Still, news of the FBI interest has created confusion and some fear on the part of voters and election officials.

What happened?

So far, the FBI has contacted multiple current and former election officials in Wisconsin.

The FBI interviewed Wisconsin Elections Commission deputy administrator Robert Kehoe within the last few weeks. The news of the interview was first reported by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The interview focused on the 2020 election, with agents asking Kehoe to explain how Wisconsin elections operate.

The agency has also attempted to contact Milwaukee County Election Director Michelle Hawley. An agent left a business card at Hawley’s home when she was not there. Milwaukee County Clerk George Christensen criticized the agency for approaching Hawley at her home rather than through the county.

“While we cooperate with all legitimate law enforcement actions, we will defend against any attack on our democracy and will defend the rights of voters of Milwaukee County,” Christensen said in a statement.

Agents also left a card for, called and texted a former Milwaukee election official, who confirmed the contact to Votebeat but requested anonymity because of personal safety concerns. That official declined to say whether they responded to the FBI.

Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson confirmed the FBI has reached out to city employees about the probe.

“The president for whatever reason cannot seem to let it go that he lost an election,” Johnson told a WISN 12 reporter.

Wisconsin Elections Commission spokeswoman Emilee Miklas declined to comment for this story. Other officials declined to speak on the record, and an FBI spokesperson didn’t answer Votebeat questions about the probe.

David Becker, the executive director of the nonpartisan nonprofit Center for Election Innovation and Research and a former Justice Department voting section attorney, said the federal government’s actions appeared more to be aimed at intimidating election officials than producing actionable criminal cases.

He pointed to FBI Director Kash Patel’s public statements in April suggesting arrests related to the 2020 election were coming, as well as federal officials discussing potential cases on social media before they’re brought before courts.

“If you think you’re going to bring charges and prosecute individuals, you don’t do anything that the federal government has done over the last few months,” he said.

Becker also noted that any potential federal crimes connected to the 2020 election are “well beyond the statute of limitations for any potential federal jurisdiction or crimes,” adding, “This is a problem for any investigation relating to 2020.”

Even so, Becker said election officials’ worries were justified. He said the Election Official Legal Defense Network, which he leads, has received more requests for legal assistance from election officials than ever before “even though all of these efforts indicate that the federal government knows it’s got nothing.”

How do the events in Wisconsin relate to probes elsewhere?

It’s unclear how the FBI interviews in Wisconsin relate to the agency’s scrutiny of the 2020 election in other states.

In January the FBI raided a Fulton County, Georgia, election office seeking records tied to the 2020 election. About a month later, the agency subpoenaed records related to the audit of the 2020 election in Maricopa County, Arizona, which includes Phoenix.

Separately, the U.S. Justice Department has sought access to 2024 ballots in Wayne County, Michigan, home to Detroit.

Those jurisdictions share several characteristics with Milwaukee County.  All are located in highly competitive swing states won by former President Joe Biden in 2020, and all became central targets of President Donald Trump, who repeatedly challenged the election results despite court rulings, audits and reviews repeatedly reaffirming his loss.

Fulton, Wayne, Maricopa, and Milwaukee County are the largest and most heavily scrutinized election jurisdictions in their respective states. Each has been the subject of persistent conspiracy theories about the 2020 election, many of which remain prevalent on social media, even after extensive investigations found no evidence of widespread fraud.

“What’s really disconcerting,” said former longtime Wisconsin election chief Kevin Kennedy, “is the fact that there is a clear pattern here to try and continue to stir up issues that were resolved in every single opportunity there was to review them, whether it was a court case, an independent audit or the actual certification and review process that exists.”

What comes next?

The short answer is that nobody really knows.

Officials have been considering the possibility that the federal government may seize the city’s 2020 ballots, which contain personally identifiable information.

Kennedy said recent actions by the Trump administration offer “no reason to think that information that should be protected is going to be protected.”

Kennedy said Wisconsin’s decentralized election system was intentionally designed to distribute authority among local jurisdictions — both to keep election administration accountable at the community level and to limit the amount of sensitive voter information concentrated in any one place.

“You put that at the national level,” he said, “and it only takes one bad actor — and we’ve got evidence there’s more than one of those already in the federal government — to totally disrupt the process when you consolidate that kind of information that’s protected through the various state and local laws and practices.”

Becker said it will be an uphill battle for the federal government to successfully obtain Milwaukee’s ballots. But he said the mere possibility that federal officials could theoretically identify how individual people voted is deeply troubling.

“That is not the way a democratic society works,” he said. “Now, I don’t think they’re likely going to be able to do that. I think that’s going to be incredibly difficult. It’s not impossible, but the fact that they seem to engender this fear is troubling enough.”

Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Shur at ashur@votebeat.org.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat’s free national newsletter here.

This article first appeared on Wisconsin Watch and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. To republish, go to the original and consult the Wisconsin Watch republishing guidelines.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The U.S. Forest Service’s plan to close scores of research stations could threaten the nation’s wildfire readiness, many foresters fear, and erode decades of work to understand timber production, soil health, pests and diseases, watersheds and wildlife.

Late last month, the Forest Service announced plans to close 57 of its 77 research stations, located across 31 states, merging them into a single organization in Fort Collins, Colorado.

The agency described the move as a way to consolidate, not cut, the agency’s scientific work, and “unify research priorities.”

It’s unclear how many scientists will be affected by the transition, but it comes as part of a larger agency reorganization that is expected to move roughly 5,000 employees to new outposts. Forest Service leaders have framed the closures as a way to reduce the agency’s real estate footprint, citing a facilities budget Congress has shrunk, as opposed to curtailing its scientific work.

But many longtime foresters fear the closures will threaten vital research that has been the backbone of forest management for state agencies, timber companies and tribes. Many of the research stations slated for closure study fire behavior, forecast smoke dispersal and help inform evacuation decisions.

“The research arm of the Forest Service is one of the unsung heroes in forest management around the world,” said Mike Dombeck, who served as chief of the Forest Service under President Bill Clinton and remains a vocal conservation advocate. “It is the premier forest research entity in the world, on everything from invasive species to wildland fire risk, watershed protection, basic silviculture and harvest methods.”

The Forest Service’s revamp also will relocate the agency’s headquarters from Washington, D.C., to Salt Lake City and restructure its regional management system.

The Forest Service did not grant a Stateline interview request. The agency has not said how much money it expects to save by closing the research stations.

Many Western leaders are skeptical that the consolidated operation will be able to replicate the work of the existing research stations. State officials said they’ve been given few details about how the transition will play out and whether existing research will continue.

In Washington state, the Forest Service plans to close research stations in Seattle and Wenatchee, while maintaining a facility in Olympia.

“The station in Seattle does some of the most practical-based research that we use for fire and forest management,” said Washington State Forester George Geissler. “We don’t want to lose that work. They’ve said they’ll keep Olympia open, but we don’t know what that looks like. Are they making sure we don’t lose the ongoing research?”

Forestry veterans say it’s important for the agency to continue its scientific work across a wide variety of forests and climates.

“This is research that’s been going on for decades or even a century or more,” said Kevin Hood, executive director of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, a nonprofit that advocates for agency workers. “They’re able to see how climate change impacts are playing out in a dry ponderosa forest or a humid hardwood forest. There are research plots and experimental forests that have been diligently studied for decades. This could be a loss of a lot of knowledge.”

The Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Laboratory, for instance, plays a crucial role in issuing wildfire smoke forecasts that are relied on throughout the Northwest. After a hot, dry winter, that work could be critical as a dangerous wildfire season approaches.

In Vermont, the Burlington research station slated for closure studied maple syrup production and the effects of acid rain on different tree species, according to VTDigger.

And in Mississippi, the Southern Institute of Forest Genetics, also on the chopping block, has guided tree improvement programs that improved growth and pest resistance in Southern timber forests.

Some conservation advocates are concerned that the research station closures are aimed at suppressing studies that might show the environmental harms of logging or mining. President Donald Trump has pledged to increase timber production on federal lands. He has moved to limit environmental reviews and protections for endangered species to speed up logging projects.

In an interview with the Deseret News, Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz said that the move was designed to ensure that the Forest Service’s research “will better align with the priorities of the administration” — minerals, recreation, fire management and “active management” of forests, which can include timber harvests and thinning projects. He said the research would support not just forests but also private landowners.

“It’s not streamlining, it’s dismantling,” 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 going to really impact how the Forest Service makes decisions on the ground. The way the Trump administration is trying to make a lot of decisions is gut feelings.”

In a webpage set up to respond to news coverage of the move, the Forest Service said it is a “myth” that the station closures will eliminate scientific positions or cancel research programs. But many forestry veterans said that attrition is inevitable, as researchers are asked to move their families across the country to work under a new model with few details.

“There’s concern that we’re going to see a lot of really good individuals who cannot uproot their families that we’ll lose,” said Geissler, the Washington state forester. “It’s taken a long time to develop that kind of expertise. It’s scary.”

Foresters in both conservative and liberal states said they rely heavily on the research the Forest Service provides. Most were unwilling to comment extensively about the closures without seeing more details.

“That work is absolutely important, and I sure hope it continues,” said Wyoming State Forester Kelly Norris. “I don’t think research should stop. It may need to look a little different.”

Some leaders said there may be opportunities for states, through forestry agencies and universities, to pick up the slack and ensure research continues, even if the Forest Service is no longer playing a lead role.

“This is still a little bit of an unknown area, but we’ll have to make sure that if there’s a gap there, that we’re working with our universities and (state) research centers to make sure that is still being provided,” said Utah State Forester Jamie Barnes.

Nick Smith, public affairs director with the American Forest Resource Council, a timber industry group, expressed support for the agency’s effort to consolidate its work, saying he’d had “limited interaction” with the research stations.

While some of the Forest Service’s work is controversial, agency veterans say its research program is valued by loggers and tree-huggers alike.

“Nobody was asking for this,” said Robert Bonnie, who served as undersecretary of agriculture for natural resources and environment during the Obama administration. “There was no call to do anything like this.”

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