The Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission is condemning what it calls a lack of communication between state agencies and tribal communities after nine wolves were trapped and euthanized in Price County. In a press release, the commission described the wolves as a pack consisting of four pups, three yearlings, and two adults. 

“This action damages existing relationships and fractures trust,” said GLIFWC Executive Administrator Jason Schlender in a statement. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources said late last week that the wolves posed a threat to humans following incidents reported in July 2025 and August 2026. Non-lethal measures were unsuccessful in deterring the wolves, a DNR spokesperson said, according to Wisconsin Public Radio.

“We remind the WDNR and USDA Wildlife Services to involve GLIFWC and its member tribes in the decision-making process,” Schlender said in his statement. Wolves represent powerful symbols, spirits and teachers for many tribal communities. “Simply handing us the remains of our relatives after killing them does not constitute meaningful consultation.”

In 2021, when the DNR held a controversial wolf hunt, tribal communities opted not to hunt wolves on their lands. A quota of 200 wolves had been set by the DNR, a certain portion of which was allocated to tribal communities. Hunters in the rest of the state exceeded the quota in less than three days. 

The killing of the nine wolves represents the first time wolves were killed by officials in Wisconsin since a 2022 court ruling returning the animals to the Endangered Species List.

Earlier this month, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to remove the gray wolf from the federal endangered species list. 

Wolves have come into conflict with rural and farming communities in Wisconsin, killing livestock and pets and triggering a campaign to restart Wisconsin’s wolf hunt. Wolf attacks on humans are rare, and only two fatal wolf attacks on humans have been documented in the last 20 years. 

Randy Johnson, the DNR’s large carnivore specialist, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that efforts to chase off the wolves using sound, lights and hazing were unsuccessful, and that “reports demonstrated a pattern of behavioral escalation, with the wolves showing less response to hazing and more acclimation to human presence.”

Investigative reports obtained by the Wisconsin Examiner describe three separate complaints made in August. The complaints describe wolves, sometimes collared, coming within close proximity of properties, such as in yards, driveways, or grassy areas. One of the reports mentioned chicken depredations. Another report stated that a wolf had come within 20 yards of a man mowing brush on his tractor in an effort to deter the wolves. The third report mentioned a person who saw a wolf near  five-gallon bait bucket for bears. The reports described the wolves as unafraid of people, and said efforts to deter them had been ineffective.

The Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission states that it was left out of the decision to euthanize the wolves, and that the Wisconsin DNR and federal government had met multiple times since 2025. “At no time during that period did WDNR or federal representatives contact GLIFWC staff to inform them of reported threats, share data, or provide decision-making criteria, bypassing consultation with GLIFWC and its member tribes,” the commission stated. 

It added that courts have ruled that the state of Wisconsin is required to co-manage resources within ceded Indigenous territories, such as those where the nine wolves were killed. This cooperation was reaffirmed in an executive order from Gov. Tony Evers in 2019, directing state agencies to consult with tribal governments on “matters that may directly or indirectly impact tribal nations.”

The commission says in its statement that the gray wolf is  known to the the Lake Superior Ojibwe as Ma’iingan, is considered a clan relative, and is a key cultural figure that has been mistreated and misunderstood. 

“People are often afraid of wolves, and wolves are too often mischaracterized,” said Conrad St. John, St. Croix tribal chairman and Voigt Intertribal Task Force chair. “Our elders relay that our communities have co-existed with Ma’iingan since the very beginning and we still don’t have any documented cases of attacks on humans in Wisconsin.”

Alex Bohman, GLIFWC biological services director, said that wolves strengthen deer populations by removing sick, weak, or old animals. “Tribes have coexisted with wolves for hundreds of years and can bring traditional ecological knowledge, as well as western science and data to these discussions.” Bohman said that state and federal agencies should engage with the commission and its member tribes on wolf management. “Ideally, this will lead to agreement on the most appropriate course of action,” she said.

Hosted by U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, the ministerial comes at a time when President Donald Trump's tariffs, a trade war with Canada and high fuel prices sparked by the war in Iran have left Americans uneasy about the economy.

The post Trade ministers gather in Milwaukee ahead of G20 summit appeared first on WPR.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration must spend the $810 million that it said last week it planned to cancel, according to a report released Tuesday by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office. 

The congressional watchdog’s decision contends the White House budget office doesn’t hold the ability to claw back that funding without approval from Congress. 

“Any withholding of appropriated funds beyond their date of expiration, regardless of size, subverts both the constitutional process for enacting federal law and Congress’s constitutional power of the purse,” wrote GAO General Counsel Edda Emmanuelli Perez.

Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought disagreed with the decision, though he wrote in a social media post it was not “a surprise.”

“GAO has become hyper partisan and Congress recently attempted to cut their spending because of it,” Vought wrote. “GAO changed its long-time opinion on this very issue from the 1970s when they specifically noted the tool was available to the president. They make their legal assessments based on whether Democrats are in the White House.”

‘Pocket rescission’

A federal law known as the Impoundment Control Act allows the White House to ask Congress to cancel funding that lawmakers previously approved and the president signed into law.  

Lawmakers have 45 days after the rescission request is sent to decide whether they want to approve it in full or modify the proposal. Congress declining to take any action means lawmakers have rejected the plans and the administration must spend the money. 

A request sent during the last 45 days of the federal fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30, is known as a pocket rescission. 

The Trump administration believes that sending a rescissions request during that timeframe allows it to cancel the funding regardless of whether lawmakers sign off on the plan. 

The GAO has disagreed with that opinion before and reiterated it Tuesday in its five-page decision.

“The Constitution vests in Congress the power of the purse, and Congress did not cede this important power through the ICA,” Perez wrote.  

“Instead, the terms of the ICA are strictly limited,” she added. “The ICA permits only the temporary withholding of budget authority and provides that unless Congress rescinds the amounts at issue, they must be made available for obligation. The President cannot rely on the authority in the ICA to withhold amounts from obligation, while simultaneously disregarding the ICA’s limitations.”

Refugee aid programs

The rescissions request the Trump administration sent Congress on Friday proposed lawmakers cancel funding for several line items, including refugee assistance programs at the Department of Health and Human Services, a Treasury Department program that provided “debt forgiveness to foreign countries that make climate change-related investments for coral reefs and tropical forests” and a grant program at the Minority Business Development Agency.

The administration submitted its first pocket rescissions request in August 2025 and cancelled $4.9 billion without congressional action. 

That came a few months after the White House budget office successfully worked with Republican lawmakers to rescind $9 billion in funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and certain foreign aid accounts. 

In its latest effort to overhaul federal homelessness funding, the Trump administration is proposing to provide more money to localities that prioritize treatment-first policies such as sober living, more cooperation with law enforcement and more temporary and transitional housing. 

It’s a reversal from a decade-long federal approach known as Housing First that sought to permanently house people experiencing homelessness without requiring sobriety or participation in treatment programs as a condition.

The Trump administration has been attempting to overhaul federal funding for homelessness programs in this direction over the past two years but had suffered defeats in court that stalled its efforts to do so in 2025 and 2026.

In a notice posted in the Federal Register on Sept. 11, the Department of Housing and Urban Development argued that current policies aren’t working and said some states and localities have already shifted toward a treatment-based approach to homelessness. The agency will take public comments through Oct. 13.

Under the proposal, the department would change the bonuses it gives to state and local areas that participate in the Continuum of Care program, a federal grant initiative to fight homelessness. The department would incentivize efforts to provide transitional housing with services “concentrating on improving employment income and meeting behavioral healthcare needs.” It would also incentivize addiction treatment and recovery services, sober housing and partnerships with law enforcement.

HUD pointed to policies in Anchorage, Alaska; Houston; Portland, Oregon; and San Francisco as evidence that states and cities are already shifting their homelessness responses toward public camping restrictions with emphasis on treatment and recovery as a condition to housing support.

That shift was made possible by the U.S. Supreme Court’s City of Grants Pass v. Johnson decision in 2024, which allowed local governments to enforce public camping bans. Since then, more than 350 cities and 14 states have adopted laws or measures to crack down on street homelessness. 

HUD had tried twice previously to change the application process for grants along similar lines, but a federal court ruled against the attempts, saying they violated required procedures. 

One lawsuit against HUD’s efforts was brought by a coalition of 22 states and the District of Columbia, while another was filed by local governments and homelessness organizations, including the National Alliance to End Homelessness and the National Low Income Housing Coalition. 

State officials joining the lawsuit were from Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin, plus the District of Columbia. 

The Obama administration made Housing First initiatives the predominant federal homelessness policy. The Trump administration argues that it hasn’t worked and that chronic homelessness has increased since 2013. 

But housing advocacy groups say that Housing First initiatives are a proven, bipartisan strategy that can lead to better outcomes and reduce taxpayer spending on emergency services and the criminal legal system.

The National Low Income Housing Coalition pointed to a 2020 review of 26 studies that found Housing First programs decreased homelessness by 88% and improved housing stability by 41% compared with Treatment First programs. 

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org. 

WASHINGTON — The cost of U.S. military operations in Iran has exceeded $40 billion and the war will continue to cost taxpayers between $2 billion and $3 billion per month, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. 

The ongoing bombing campaign, which President Donald Trump launched alongside the Israeli government in February, has also significantly reduced American military weapons stockpiles, according to the analysis.

CBO Director Phillip L. Swagel wrote in a letter accompanying the report that “the main opportunity cost of the conflict thus far has been the large expenditure of missile defense interceptors, which will leave the United States with a reduced inventory of interceptors for several years. 

“The shortfall would become especially problematic if a conflict arose with an opponent whose arsenal included large numbers of ballistic and cruise missiles.”

Swagel noted in the letter that because the Defense Department “did not respond to CBO’s requests for information” the report “relied on government databases and public reports.”

“As a result, CBO’s estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty,” he wrote.

In addition to the direct costs, CBO expects the war to increase inflation in the first quarter of 2027 by 0.5 percentage points due to the rise in energy prices, predominantly caused by increased danger and difficulty navigating the Strait of Hormuz.

“CBO’s analysis does not assign financial costs to U.S. military personnel killed or injured in the conflict, nor does it include longer-term costs associated with future increases in outlays for veterans’ health care and disability compensation,” Swagel wrote. “It also does not include costs that could emerge in the future if ships, aircraft, and other equipment need repairs or additional maintenance as a result of their use in the conflict.”

Boyle request for numbers

The analysis stems from a request House Budget Committee ranking member Brendan Boyle submitted to CBO in March. 

The Pennsylvania Democrat wrote in a statement released Tuesday that the “disastrous war in Iran has already taken the lives of brave American servicemembers and left others wounded.”

“Beyond that human toll, this nonpartisan CBO report makes clear that the war has also cost American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars and counting, while continuing to drive up costs,” Boyle added. “Donald Trump and Republicans have spent years telling Americans that we cannot afford to help families here at home, but apparently they can find tens of billions of dollars, and potentially much more, for a reckless war that is leaving Americans to pay the price.”

Inspectors general report

The CBO report differs somewhat from a report released earlier this week by inspectors general from the departments of Defense and State as well as the U.S. Agency for International Development. 

That report estimated the war cost at $33.4 billion through June 29, though it didn’t include any costs since then. 

Neither report includes the cost of damaged military infrastructure, with Swagel writing it was “unable to estimate the cost of damage to U.S. bases and facilities in the Middle East for two reasons. 

“First, DoD has not provided CBO with information about the value of damaged or destroyed equipment and property. Second, the extent of repairs or rebuilding that DoD plans to undertake is unclear. And even if the bases were fully repaired or rebuilt, a portion of the costs of doing so could be paid by host nations.”

The inspectors general wrote their report “did not include the cost of military construction for damaged infrastructure in its estimate because the DoW has not determined what its future posture will be in the region, how it will construct its bases, and what percentage of the construction costs Allies and partners will contribute.”

Administration pleads for more war funding

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee in July that without extra money from Congress, the department would “face critical shortfalls that threaten” its ability to “pay our service members, rapidly replenish equipment and munitions, and sustain vital operations without disruption.”

The Trump administration asked Congress in June to provide $87.6 billion in emergency funding for the war as well as other expenses not covered in annual government spending bills. 

That supplemental request proposed $67.15 billion for the Defense Department, $3.36 billion for the State Department, $2.03 billion for the U.S. Coast Guard, $40.26 million for the FBI, $36.18 million for the Treasury Department’s office of terrorism and financial intelligence and $13.1 million for the Homeland Security Department’s operations and support account that was part of a “classified request.”

Congress has not yet approved the additional spending and isn’t likely to this month before both chambers return to the campaign trail ahead of November’s midterm elections. 

The inspectors general wrote in their report that because lawmakers have not provided dedicated funding for the Iran war that the Defense Department has “used base budget funds that otherwise would be used for standard operational activities, such as planned training and maintenance activities.”

ROSLYN, Wash. — Francisco Martinez hefts a canister filled with a mixture of diesel fuel and gasoline. A tongue of flame dances above the nozzle. He tips the drip torch forward — whoosh — and a stream of blazing liquid races across the forest floor.

In less than a minute, a long wall of fire is spreading across the slope as Martinez and a small team of igniters fan out along the hillside. They walk in parallel, lighting grasses and shrubs, moving forward as flames spread into a dancing orange curtain behind them. 

Dense columns of dark smoke billow uphill. Ashes swirl, and radiant heat warms the skin of the crew members on the line. A vortex of flame coils up a tree. Thousands of pine needles combust in an explosive shower like a fireworks show.

Radios crackle with updates as other crews race to put out spot fires caused by embers falling outside the prescribed burn area. Somewhere up the hill in the thick of the smoke, a dozen or more people are furiously working to make sure this blaze stays under control.

The scene is intense but not chaotic. The crews, assembled from local fire districts and conservation groups, move with practiced urgency instead of panic. They eat a quick lunch on the ground just a few dozen feet from the downslope edge of the fire. Some grab a fresh pouch of nicotine, and they all get back to work.

This team is conducting a prescribed burn on a forested ridge in central Washington, above a small town, Roslyn, that was nearly wiped out by a wildfire just a few years ago. The specter of wildfire is one that increasingly haunts hundreds of communities throughout the West, and the work here could point them toward a new model of living with fire. 

But it won’t be easy. 

FIRE belongs on this landscape.

Before white settlers arrived in the late 1800s, the forests in this part of Washington burned roughly every decade — fires sparked by lightning or set by local tribes to manage the land. These ponderosa pine forests thrive on fire, which mostly spares mature trees but opens the understory for lush regrowth that feeds many animals.

For more than a century, though, state and federal land managers kept fire away. Smokey Bear taught generations of Americans that wildfire was a scourge to be prevented. Officials throughout the country invested heavily in firefighting resources to suppress such blazes quickly.

Without fire, forests grew denser. Trees competed for water even as climate change dried the landscape further. The parched trees grew vulnerable to pests and diseases. Brush, pine needles and dead branches piled up. The forests that had been spared from fire for 100 years became primed for infernoes.

Over those same decades, more and more Americans moved into communities bordering these areas. Nothing from the recent past gave them warning that their spot on the map was supposed to burn every few years.

In recent years, wildfires have swept through communities in the West, devastating small towns and urban areas alike. The Camp Fire in 2018 destroyed much of Paradise, California, and killed 85 people. Wildfires in Los Angeles destroyed thousands of homes in January 2025 and killed at least 31. And earlier this summer, hundreds of homes went up in flames when fires ripped through neighborhoods of Spokane, Washington.

Roslyn’s wake-up call came in 2017. The Jolly Mountain Fire, sparked by lightning strikes in the nearby Wenatchee National Forest, advanced toward the town on Labor Day weekend. The fire’s incident commander gave local leaders a grim assessment.

“(He said), ‘I hate to tell you, but if fire gets into these woods, we’re going to have to write off large portions of your town as indefensible,’” recalls Chris Martin, emergency management coordinator with the Roslyn Fire Department. “That was the change-of-underwear moment for Roslyn.” 

Thankfully, the fire changed course, but Roslyn now knew it was sitting on a tinderbox. The idyllic mountain community of 950 with a rich coal mining history is now a thriving tourist town that plays host to campers, mountain bikers, artists and foodies. It also ranks in the 99th percentile for wildfire risk nationwide.

Just a few months after Roslyn’s near-miss, Martin offered to host a prescribed burn on forestland he owns above the town. The burn doubled as a training exercise for state, local and federal agencies — many of which were just beginning to rethink fire’s role on the landscape. Residents, still shaken by the recent wildfire, were alarmed to see smoke rising nearby. But Martin and others built an outreach program to convince their neighbors that it was time to fight fire with fire.

Roslyn has been burning ever since.

Martin keeps a map showing an ever-growing patchwork of black and yellow blobs surrounding the town. The black spots mark the 500-plus acres that local leaders have burned since 2017. The yellow represents areas where they’ve brought in logging equipment to thin trees and brush. Together, they form a rough semicircle around Roslyn that’s meant to act as a shield. If a wildfire hits this area, it will quickly be deprived of fuel — giving firefighters a chance to make a stand.

PLENTY of other towns face a predicament like Roslyn’s. 

More than 1,800 communities in the Western United States are threatened by wildfire, federal research warns. Nationwide, nearly 72 million homes sit in areas with some wildfire risk, the climate research company First Street has found. As climate change dries the landscape in the coming decades, the risk will only expand.

“A lot of people have the perception that this is a problem with large federal and state land ownership and that private citizens don’t have a role to play,” said Greg Dillon, director of the U.S. Forest Service’s Fire Modeling Institute. “But in many places, there’s a stretch of private lands between (public forests) and homes that can catch on fire. It’s a really important and less understood piece of the fire risk picture.”

Mike Norris, an assistant division manager in the prescribed fire program with the Washington Department of Natural Resources, said the state averages about 20,000 acres of prescribed burns across all lands each year. But Washington’s forests need three to five times that amount to stay healthy. 

Many states face a similar fire deficit. And private lands are a big part of what’s missing. 

But burning on private lands is hard. One section of forest may include dozens of landowners, many of whom are skeptical of fire. And even with community buy-in, burns require an incredible collaboration of resources. 

“Historically, it would have been easier to burn those areas when there weren’t property lines and structures in the way,” said Kyle Lapham, who runs Washington’s Certified Prescribed Burn Manager program. “These places should be burning multiple times in our lifetime, and we’re not even scratching the surface with that first burn on tens of thousands of acres.”

The burn in Roslyn brought together 30 people from multiple fire districts and Upper Kittitas County Fuels, an interagency network that works on prescribed burns and forest thinning projects. They worked alongside staff from The Nature Conservancy, a nonprofit that manages the parcel that was burned and is perhaps the foremost practitioner of prescribed fire on private lands. 

To burn just 55 acres, half a dozen organizations had to coordinate for two full days of burning and an extended monitoring period after the fire. Long before, crews dug boundary lines to hold the fire, filled portable tanks with water, laid out hoses and positioned fire engines and water tenders. Burn leaders conducted extensive briefings on safety, contingency plans and objectives. 

 After all that, had atmospheric conditions changed slightly, the whole thing could have been canceled. The painstaking efforts can fizzle in an instant because of strict clean air rules designed to protect communities from smoke. Fire advocates say their “burn windows” can be severely limited by well-intentioned regulations.   

While catastrophic fires are far worse for smoke, prescribed burners do need to account for its very real effects on communities. They conduct extensive outreach before each burn and prepare for scenarios such as an asthmatic neighbor who needs hotel accommodations or visibility concerns on a nearby highway.  

Pulling off a burn, given all those hurdles, is no easy feat. 

BUT ROSLYN shows that it can be worth the effort. 

On a bright June morning, Martin led a tour of a nearby forested hillside that was burned in 2021. Along the trails, a lush carpet of green grass and wildflowers grew up beneath the trees, sporting charred bark but still growing strong. A deer grazed peacefully in the distance. 

Norris, the prescribed fire official with the state DNR, helped lead the prescribed burn that drastically reduced the dead material, brush and “ladder fuels” that can spread flames into tree canopies.

“It’s safe to say Roslyn’s in a much better place,” Norris said. “They’ve really pushed the needle in the right direction for their community.” 

The burns have even become a tourist attraction. Roslyn recently designated a Forest Resilience Trail that has made the scorched forest a feature of the town’s outdoor recreation appeal.

“Now that the burns have been done, people can see the abundant wildlife, they see more flow in the streams because there’s fewer shrubs soaking water out of the landscape,” Martin said. 

State leaders hope Roslyn can be a model to help other communities learn to live with fire. They’re seeing growing interest from towns that have faced close calls of their own. The work will be arduous, a few dozen acres at a time. Burn bosses will have to deal with skeptical neighbors, wary regulators and real-world risks. Volunteers will need to put in immense hours and deal with frequent setbacks.

Perhaps the only thing more daunting is the cost of doing nothing.

Editor’s note: This story has been corrected to reflect that The Nature Conservancy manages, but does not own, the parcel burned in Roslyn. Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org.

Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce Fact Briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

Yes.

Wisconsin’s voter list from the state elections commission is available to the public — and to foreign countries — for a $12,500 fee. 

In a primetime speech on July 16, 2026, President Donald Trump said voter data had been “bought, stolen or hacked by China” in 18 states following the 2020 election. 

Wisconsin’s voter list is not known to have been hacked, and state election officials say election systems are secure. 

The voter list available from the Wisconsin Elections Commission includes names, addresses and whether a person voted in recent elections, but excludes other personal information such as date of birth, driver’s license number and Social Security number.

State laws don’t apply limits to how that data can be used once it is purchased, according to Wisconsin Legislative Council guidance. Buyers can use it “to contact individuals for any purpose.”

This Fact Brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

• CNN: Trump’s speech claiming US election vulnerabilities, annotated
• Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Trump questioned election security. What to know about Wisconsin laws
• Wisconsin Legislative Council: Voter information as public record
• Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: In reversal, feds proclaim Russians did not seek to hack Wisconsin's election system
• Wisconsin Elections Commission: Contingency Planning and Election System Security

Can anyone buy Wisconsin voter roll data? 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.

Madison police arrested at least seven people early Tuesday morning as officials moved to clear out the encampment at the site of a July 22 police shooting. An additional 10 people have been cited, according to a Madison police spokesperson.

The post Madison police clear encampment at shooting site, arrest 16 appeared first on WPR.

Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce Fact Briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

Yes.

Incarcerating someone in Wisconsin correctional institutions costs far more than tuition at a state technical college. 

According to data in a 2025 report to the Legislature, it costs on average $144.88 per day to house someone in an adult corrections facility, or $52,881 a year. Those numbers come from a 2023-24 study, the most recent data available. 

The report notes that some facilities are more expensive than others. The maximum-security Columbia Correctional Institution costs $256.66 per day. The medium-security Stanley Correctional Institution costs $111.94. 

The annual cost of tuition at a Wisconsin technical college for an in-state student is about $4,585, not including books, materials or other related fees, according to the Wisconsin Technical College System website. By comparison, in-state tuition at the University of Wisconsin-Madison is $12,166 for the 2025-26 school year, according to the Universities of Wisconsin website.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

• Legislative Fiscal Bureau: Adult Corrections Program
• Wisconsin Technical College System: Annual cost of tuition and fees
• Universities of Wisconsin: Tuition and fees

Does incarcerating someone in a Wisconsin prison for a year cost more than annual state technical school tuition? 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.