The U.S. Education Department directed its federal student loan servicers to restart interest accrual on Aug. 1 for participants in the Biden-era SAVE plan. (Catherine Lane/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — Interest accrual on the debt of nearly 7.7 million student loan borrowers enrolled in the Saving on a Valuable Education plan will resume Aug. 1, the U.S. Education Department said Wednesday.
The Biden-era income-driven repayment plan better known as SAVE saw legal challenges from several GOP-led states beginning in 2024, creating uncertainty for borrowers who were placed in an interest-free forbearance amid that legal limbo.
The SAVE plan, created in 2023, aimed to provide lower monthly loan payments for borrowers and forgive remaining debt after a certain period of time.
In February, a federal appeals court upheld a lower court injunction that blocked the SAVE plan from going into effect. The department said Wednesday that it’s instructing its federal student loan servicers to start charging interest Aug. 1 to comply with court orders.
When the SAVE plan forbearance ends, “borrowers will be responsible for making monthly payments that include any accrued interest as well as their principal amounts,” the department said in a written announcement.
“For years, the Biden Administration used so-called ‘loan forgiveness’ promises to win votes, but federal courts repeatedly ruled that those actions were unlawful,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement alongside the announcement.
“Congress designed these programs to ensure that borrowers repay their loans, yet the Biden Administration tried to illegally force taxpayers to foot the bill instead,” she added.
McMahon said her department is urging borrowers under the SAVE plan to “quickly transition to a legally compliant repayment plan.”
“Borrowers in SAVE cannot access important loan benefits and cannot make progress toward loan discharge programs authorized by Congress,” she said.
‘Unnecessary interest charges’
Mike Pierce, executive director of the Student Borrower Protection Center, blasted the department’s decision in a statement Wednesday.
“Instead of fixing the broken student loan system, Secretary McMahon is choosing to drown millions of people in unnecessary interest charges and blaming unrelated court cases for her own mismanagement,” he said.
“Every day, we hear from borrowers waiting on hold with their servicer for hours, begging the government to let them out of this forbearance, and help them get back on track — instead, McMahon is choosing to jack up the cost of their student debt without giving them a way out.”
The agency has taken heat for its sweeping actions in the months since President Donald Trump took office as he and his administration look to dismantle the department.
The department is also mired in a legal challenge over some of its most significant efforts so far, including laying off more than 1,300 employees earlier this year as part of a reduction in force effort, an executive order calling on McMahon to facilitate the closure of her own agency and Trump’s proposal to transfer some services to other federal agencies. These actions have been temporarily halted in court.
Meanwhile, President Donald Trump signed a massive tax and spending cut bill into law last week, part of which forces any borrower under the SAVE plan to opt in to a different repayment plan by July 1, 2028, or be automatically placed in a new, income-based repayment plan.
Bill Berrien is the second Republican to officially launch his campaign for governor and criticized Gov. Tony Evers in his ad for wanting to raise taxes, his actions handling the Trump administration’s deportation efforts, vetoing a bill that would have banned transgender girls from participating on sports teams in an ad posted to YouTube and X. (Screenshot from campaign ad)
Bill Berrien, a Republican businessman and former Navy SEAL, officially launched his campaign for governor Wednesday, comparing himself to President Donald Trump and declaring his support for cutting taxes, deportation efforts and barring transgender girls from locker rooms.
Berrien is the second Republican to officially launch his campaign for governor. He joins Washington County Executive Josh Schoemann who announced in May and has already been on the road pitching himself to fellow Republicans. U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany has also been considering a run for the office.
“Just like President Trump, I’m a political outsider and a businessman. It’s time that we fire the bureaucrats and hire a businessman to fix the problems and take our state back,” Berrien said in a statement. It’s a shift for Berrien, who supported Nikki Haley in the 2024 Republican presidential primary and donated over $30,000 to her campaign — a track record that led to pushback against his candidacy from some Wisconsin conservatives.
In an ad, Berrien spoke over a clip of Trump pumping his fist after last year’s assassination attempt.
“A Navy SEAL is never out of the fight,” Berrien said as the clip played. “We’ve seen that fighting spirit from President Trump. It’s the same fight it takes to run a Wisconsin manufacturing business.”
“I’ll shake up Madison like he’s shaking up D.C.,” Berrien added.
For the last 13 years, Berrien has worked as the owner and chief executive officer of Pindel Global Precision Inc. and Liberty Precision New Berlin contract manufacturers that make machined parts for an array of industries including aerospace, agricultural products, medical and firearms.
A December 2024 report from WUWM details Berrien’s recent role as vice chair of the Wisconsin Defense Industry Council, a collaboration of the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, that seeks to push for more weapons production in Wisconsin. At the time, Berrien said he wanted to figure out how to encourage companies to supply directly to the Department of Defense and also connect businesses with “defense primes” — companies including Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon.
Prior to working in the private sector, Berrien served as a Navy SEAL for nine years. He currently lives in Whitefish Bay with his wife and is the father of three.
The Republican hopefuls have bashed incumbent Gov. Tony Evers, who hasn’t decided whether he’ll run for a third term. Evers said he would decide after the state budget process, which was completed last week, and this week said at a visit to Milwaukee to highlight the budget that he expects to announce a decision in a “couple weeks.”
Berrien criticized Evers in his ad for wanting to raise taxes, his actions handling the Trump administration’s deportation efforts, vetoing a bill that would have banned transgender girls from participating on sports teams and locker rooms that align with their gender identity and for using the term “inseminated person” in a section of his budget proposal on artificial insemination.
Berrien also criticized the movement of manufacturing jobs to China by “globalists” and took a swipe at “career politicians.”
“Enough,” Berrien said. “I will cut taxes, increase wages and make Wisconsin the manufacturing powerhouse to the world, again.” He also said he would use law enforcement to keep “criminal illegal” immigrants out of Wisconsin and “keep boys out of our daughters’ sports and locker rooms.”
“President Trump is taking back Washington for the American people,” Berrien said at the end of the ad — naming Trump for the fourth time during the 99 second spot. “Now it’s time to take back our state.”
Berrien launched his “Never Out of The Fight” PAC in April to help “further” conservative causes and push Republican candidates to “get back to winning.” It reported raising $1.2 million in its first three months, according to WisPolitics.
Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chair Devin Remiker criticized Berrien, saying he was “rich enough to buy himself some attention and clueless enough to think that’s going to work — just like Elon Musk did this past April only to see his political career end.”
The state party is “already building on our playbook that helped take down Brad Schimel, Tim Michels, and Eric Hovde,” Remiker said. “We have no doubt we’ll be in an even stronger position to defeat whoever Trump hand picks to do his bidding in the primary and emerges as the nominee.”
An absentee ballot drop box used by the city of Madison. (Wisconsin Examiner photo)
The Wisconsin Elections Commission found that the city of Madison failing to count nearly 200 absentee ballots cast in last year’s November election was the result of a “confluence of errors” and a “complete lack of leadership” in the city clerk’s office, according to a draft report of WEC’s investigation into the incident.
The Madison city clerk’s office told the elections commission in a memo Dec. 20 about the lost ballots from two Madison wards. A bag containing 68 unprocessed absentee ballots from two wards was found Nov. 12 in a tabulator bin, the memo stated. During reconciliation of ballots on Dec. 3, clerk employees found two sealed envelopes containing a total of 125 unprocessed absentee ballots from another ward. The discovery of the missing ballots was announced to the public Dec. 26.
The missing ballots were not enough to change the result of any local, state or federal elections.
WEC’s investigation into the matter was led by the commission’s chair, Ann Jacobs, a Democratic appointee, and Don Millis, the commission’s most recent Republican-appointed chair. The investigation took six months and involved 13 depositions and the review of more than 2,000 documents.
The report on the investigation, which goes to the full commission for approval in a meeting next week, found five counts in which the city’s clerk, Maribeth Witzel-Behl, acted “contrary to” state election law.
Witzel-Behl resigned from her position in April after nearly 20 years as city clerk.
The investigation found that the city exposed itself to mistakes by printing the pollbooks for polling places — the log in which election staff records when a voter’s ballot has been received and counted — three weeks before Election Day. That time frame meant that by the time polls opened on Nov. 5, the record in the book of which voters had already returned their absentee ballot was out of date.
Additionally, the city “failed to track absentee envelopes and bags” meaning that large manila envelopes and courier bags full of absentee ballots weren’t numbered and organized by ward.
“This meant that the polling places would not know how many Courier Bags or Carrier Envelopes to expect and with what seal numbers,” the report states. “Had they been given those numbers, they would have been able to immediately know if they were short a bag or an envelope and could have immediately looked for the missing item.”
According to the report, the most likely explanation for the ballots not being counted at the polling places on Election Day is that they were never delivered to the polls.
Much of the report is a blistering criticism of Witzel-Behl’s leadership and response to the missing ballots, particularly her decision to leave on vacation on Nov. 13 — while the city was still working through the ballot reconciliation process.
“The lack of action by the City Clerk with regard to the found ballots is astonishing,” the report states. “She demonstrated no urgency, let alone interest, in including those votes in the election tally. At the time the Ward 65 ballots were found, the county canvass was continuing, and those ballots could have easily been counted. That would have required the City Clerk to take the urgent action that the situation demanded.”
“Instead, she went on vacation and, per her testimony, never inquired about them again until mid-December,” the report continues. “There was nobody who took responsibility for these ballots. It was always someone else’s job. Rather than acknowledge these significant errors, the City Clerk and her staff either ignored the issue or willfully refused to inform the necessary parties and seek assistance. These actions resulted in nearly 200 lawful voters’ votes going uncounted – an unconscionable result. This profound failure undermines public confidence in elections.”
The report found that Witzel-Behl potentially violated state law by abusing her discretion to run Madison’s elections, printing the pollbooks too early, failing to maintain records on the handling of absentee ballots, failing to properly oversee the staff responsible for counting the absentee ballots and failing to inform the city’s board of canvassers about the missing ballots.
“It was the job of the City Clerk to immediately take action once notified about the found ballots, and she did nothing,” the report states. “It was the responsibility of the Deputy Clerk to take action in her absence, and he did nothing. These ballots were treated as unimportant and a reconciliation nuisance, rather than as the essential part of our democracy they represent.”
If the report is approved by WEC, it will require Madison to certify it has taken a number of actions to correct the problems from November. Those requirements include developing an internal plan delineating which employee is responsible for statutorily required tasks, printing poll books no earlier than the Thursday before elections, changing the absentee ballot processing system so bags and envelopes aren’t lost, updating instructional materials for poll workers and completing a full inspection of all materials before the scheduled board of canvassers meeting after an election.
WEC is scheduled to vote on the report’s findings at its July 17 meeting.
Susan Monarez, President Donald Trump’s nominee to be the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, testifies during her confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on June 25, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s candidate to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advanced out of a Senate committee Wednesday following a party-line vote, moving her one step closer to confirmation.
Susan Monarez’s nomination now goes to the floor, where she will likely secure the backing needed to officially take on the role of CDC director after garnering support from Republicans across the political spectrum during the committee’s 12-11 vote.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., will be in charge of scheduling that vote, though if it isn’t held during the next few weeks, Monarez will have to wait until after the chamber’s August recess.
Chairman Bill Cassidy, R-La., said during the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee’s markup he believes Monarez is a strong candidate for CDC director and that he hopes she will help get the nation’s ongoing measles outbreak under control.
“The United States needs a CDC director who makes decisions rooted in science, a leader who will reform the agency and work to restore public trust in health institutions,” Cassidy said. “With decades of proven experience as a public health official, Dr. Monarez is ready to take on this challenge.”
Sanders criticizes Monarez on vaccine safety
Every Republican senator on the committee, including Maine’s Susan Collins and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, voted to advance Monarez’s nomination.
Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, ranking member on the panel, opposed Monarez’s advancement along with the Democrats on the committee.
Sanders argued that during Monarez’s time as acting director of the CDC, she didn’t do enough to counter Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., especially on the safety of vaccines.
“Today, the United States is reporting the highest number of measles cases in 33 years,” Sanders said. “In my view, we need a CDC director who will defend science, protect public health and repudiate Secretary Kennedy’s dangerous conspiracy theories about safe and effective vaccines that have saved, over the years, millions of lives.”
Second CDC choice from Trump
Monarez testified before the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee in June, a standard part of the confirmation process.
Trump originally selected former Florida U.S. Rep. Dave Weldon to run the Atlanta-based CDC shortly after he secured election to the Oval Office in November. But the White House pulled Weldon’s nomination in March, after it appeared he couldn’t secure the votes needed for confirmation.
Later that month, Trump announced his plans to nominate Monarez in a social media post.
“Dr. Monarez brings decades of experience championing Innovation, Transparency, and strong Public Health Systems,” Trump wrote. “She has a Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin, and PostDoctoral training in Microbiology and Immunology at Stanford University School of Medicine.
“As an incredible mother and dedicated public servant, Dr. Monarez understands the importance of protecting our children, our communities, and our future. Americans have lost confidence in the CDC due to political bias and disastrous mismanagement. Dr. Monarez will work closely with our GREAT Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert Kennedy Jr. Together, they will prioritize Accountability, High Standards, and Disease Prevention to finally address the Chronic Disease Epidemic and, MAKE AMERICA HEALTHY AGAIN!”
People gather for a "Save the Civil Service" rally hosted by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) on Feb. 11, the day President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling on DOGE to cut federal jobs. The Supreme Court said Tuesday those cuts could proceed, for now. (Photo by Kent Nishimura/Getty Images)
The U.S. Supreme Court late Tuesday lifted lower court injunctions that had blocked attempts by President Donald Trump and his DOGE Service to restructure the federal government.
Labor unions, advocates and local governments that sued to block the cuts said the president exceeded his authority with the executive order by moving to dismantle the federal government without congressional approval.
A U.S. District Court judge in Northern California agreed and issued preliminary injunction to stall the executive order while the case was heard. A divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision.
But the White House pressed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that Trump’s executive order did not restructure the government but merely called for reductions in force, which it said is within the president’s power.
The Supreme Court agreed in a one-page order Tuesday, saying the government was likely to prevail on its claim and the injunction should be stayed while the case proceeded.
In a sharp, 15-page dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the district court judge had determined that the administration plan would not just cut jobs but would “fundamentally restructure” the federal government. He made a “reasoned determination” that the order should be stayed while the case was heard, she wrote.
“But that temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this Court’s demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President’s legally dubious actions in an emergency posture,” she wrote.
“At bottom, this case is about whether that action amounts to a structural overhaul that usurps Congress’s policymaking prerogatives — and it is hard to imagine deciding that question in any meaningful way after those changes have happened,” she wrote. “Yet, for some reason, this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President’s wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a brief concurrence, said she agreed with Jackson that the president does not have the authority to remake government without congressional approval. But she said the executive order and an implementing memo from the Office of Management and the Office of Personnel Management call for the changes to be “consistent with applicable law,” and it’s for lower courts to determine if they are.
A White House spokesperson called the decision a “another definitive victory” for the Trump administration.
“It clearly rebukes the continued assaults on the President’s constitutionally authorized executive powers by leftist judges who are trying to prevent the President from achieving government efficiency across the federal government,” the spokesperson, Harrison Fields, said in a written statement.
But labor unions, advocates and political leaders say that the decision undermines the value of federal employees, threatens the operation of federal services, and could even endanger American citizens.
In a statement Tuesday evening, the American Federation of Government Employees, along with the rest of the coalition of unions, nonprofits and municipalities bringing the suit against the administration, decried the Supreme Court’s decision as a “serious blow to our democracy.”
The coalition said the decision put “services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy.”
For some reason, this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President’s wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation.
– Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
“This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution,” the statement read. “While we are disappointed in this decision, we will continue to fight on behalf of the communities we represent and argue this case to protect critical public services that we rely on to stay safe and healthy.”
Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (D) said that as a state with a high concentration of federal workers, “any action against our federal employees is a direct strike against Maryland’s people and economy.”
“Today’s Supreme Court ruling on AFGE v. Trump will embolden President Trump in his mission to dismantle the federal government and threatens to upend the lives of countless public servants who wake up every day to deliver essential services and benefits that people rely on,” Moore said in a written statement. He noted that thousands of Maryland residents have already been laid off from federal agencies under the Trump administration.
In a post to X on Tuesday evening, U.S. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-5th) wrote that Trump and OMB Director Russell Vought are continuing to “vilify and traumatize the patriots serving our nation, unconstitutionally reorganizing the federal government.”
“The Supreme Court’s decision today demonstrates that federal employees, their families and livelihoods, and the vital services they provide to the American people are of no concern to the Trump Administration,” Hoyer wrote. “I stand with our federal employees against these attacks.”
U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-8th) said in an X post that the ruling “will give Trump’s wrecking crew more awful ideas about sacking critical federal workers,” referencing layoffs at the National Weather Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who help notify state and local agencies about impending dangerous weather.
U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) added that layoffs could also put Americans at risk by “decimating essential public services” like food inspections and Social Security.
“As Justice Jackson put it in her dissent, ‘this was the wrong decision at the wrong moment, given what little this Court knows about what is actually happening on the ground,’” Van Hollen said in a statment. “She is right. The Court’s decision to allow this damage to be done before ruling on the merits shows how detached they are from the reality of the moment.”
Van Hollen said the administration’s plan “isn’t about efficiency, it’s about rigging the government to only benefit the wealthy and powerful special interests.”
“We are not done fighting in Congress, in the courts, and in our communities to defend the dedicated public servants who go to work on behalf of the American people day in and day out,” he said.
The Feb. 11 executive order directed federal agencies to prepeare for “large-scale reductions in force” and to work with members of the Department of Government Efficiency — the DOGE Service that was run at the time by billionaire Elon Musk — to develop a plan to reduce the size of the workforce. Military personnel were exempted, but virtually every other federal agency was affected.
The order was quickly challenged in court by labor unions, taxpayer and good government groups and by a hafl-dozen local governments: Harris County, Texas, Martin Luther King Jr. County, Washington, and San Francisco City and County, California; and the cities of Chicago, Baltimore, and Santa Rosa, California.
They argued that the goals of the executive order far exceeded the president’s authority to reduce the size of agencies. Under the DOGE plan, they argued to the Supreme Court, “functions across the federal government will be abolished, agencies will be radically downsized from what Congress authorized, critical government services will be lost, and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will lose their jobs.”
“There will be no way to unscramble that egg: If the courts ultimately deem the President to have overstepped his authority and intruded upon that of Congress, as a practical matter there will be no way to go back in time to restore those agencies, functions, and services,” their court filing said.
That was echoed by Jackson, who said the district court judge was in the best position to determine if the president’s order consisted of “minor workforce reductions” or whether it was a massive reorganization that overstepped executive authority.
“With scant justification, the majority permits the immediate and potentially devastating aggrandizement of one branch (the Executive) at the expense of another (Congress), and once again leaves the People paying the price for its reckless emergency-docket determinations,” she wrote.
Maryland Matters is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Maryland Matters maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Steve Crane for questions: editor@marylandmatters.org.
A farmer on a tractor sprays soybean crops. (Photo by Westend61/Getty Images)
President Donald Trump’s administration will pursue a ban on Chinese ownership of U.S. farmland as part of an effort to strengthen farm security, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said Tuesday.
Appearing alongside other Cabinet officials, Republican governors and members of Congress at an event outside the U.S. Department of Agriculture headquarters in Washington, D.C., Rollins announced a department initiative to block “foreign countries of concern” from owning U.S. agriculture lands.
Rollins said officials will even try to revoke lands already owned by China-backed entities.
The administration will “take swift legislative and executive action to ban the purchase of American farmland by Chinese nationals and other foreign adversaries,” she said.
The executive branch will also work with state and local officials “to do everything within our ability, including presidential authorities, to claw back what has already been purchased by China and other foreign adversaries.”
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the nation’s food supply was a national security issue on par with energy and water supplies.
Plan details
The seven-part initiative, titled the National Farm Security Action Plan, is based on the idea that “farm security is national security,” according to a preamble to USDA’s written plan.
U.S. farmers dominate the global industry, the preamble said.
“Because that dominance is earned and not assured, it is critical we continuously adapt our approach to American agriculture security and elevate it to the top echelon of national security priorities,” the document read.
To protect U.S. farmland, the USDA, with help from the Justice Department, Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security and cooperative state and local governments, will seek to block investment by foreign adversaries and launch an online tool to help farmers report on potential unknown foreign ownership.
The administration will look for vulnerabilities in the agricultural supply chain and attempt to ensure crop and nutrition programs are not being used to fund terrorist or criminal activity, while cutting down on fraud and abuse. The plan instructs the administration to strengthen biosecurity measures.
The initiative also calls for making sure foreign governments cannot access USDA research grants or other department funding programs.
The USDA will continue to work with the national security establishment and law enforcement to protect the agriculture sector’s critical infrastructure, according to the plan.
After Republican Sens. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama and Roger Marshall of Kansas at the event criticized the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an executive branch agency, for not having a spot for the Agriculture secretary, Rollins said she would be joining the panel as of Tuesday afternoon.
Farmland security
At the Tuesday event, speakers offered few specifics about the initiative but praised the administration for elevating the issue of foreign investment in farmland.
“A country has to be able to feed itself, fuel itself, and fight for itself to truly be free,” Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders said. “We now have a president who understands it and is willing to do everything within his power to make sure the United States continues to be the greatest country on the face of the planet.”
“Our farmland is not just dirt, it is our national security, it is our economic future, it is our children’s heritage,” Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee said. “And it is under threat, and the leaders here recognize that.”
Speakers emphasized what they called the threat of Chinese ownership of U.S. farmland.
“Today, we tell China to get the hell out of American agriculture,” Marshall said.
Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen said his state had moved to ban Chinese equipment from telecommunications infrastructure and has worked to deny Chinese companies from owning farmland. He related a story of stonewalling Chinese-owned Syngenta, which sought a meeting with the governor.
“I said, ‘I have no interest in having a meeting,’” he said. “‘Have no interest in you being in Nebraska. My suggestion would be to leave. My suggestion would be to get a different job.’”
The company later sold their assets in Nebraska, Pillen said.
Alabama and China
Tuberville, who is running in the state’s gubernatorial race next year, appeared to say China owned 2.2 million acres of farmland in his state alone – a number that actually describes the acres of land owned by all foreign entities in the state. Chinese entities own no acres in Alabama, according to USDA data.
“China is a threat,” he said. “They’re not a threat. They are dominating us in almost everything that they do because we’ve sat back and the politicians have been counting their money instead of doing what’s right and helping this country stay in the front. We’ve got to be number one. We can’t be number two. We’ve got to fight back.
“They are coming into our country and buying our farmland. In my state of Alabama alone, they own 2.2 million acres of farmland. That’s right in Alabama. Foreign adversaries.”
Asked about the comment, Tuberville spokesperson Mallory Jaspers said he was referring not only to Chinese ownership but all foreign adversaries and indicated that he opposed any foreign ownership of U.S. farmland.
“Sen. Tuberville believes American farmland should be owned by Americans,” she wrote in an email.
The most recent year-end USDA report on foreign investment, in 2023, showed Chinese-linked investors held about 276,000 acres of U.S. farmland nationwide.
An analysis from the American Farm Bureau, an advocacy group, estimated Chinese investors accounted for only about .02% of all foreign owned U.S. agricultural land.
GOP governors back plan
In addition to Lee, Huckabee Sanders and Pillen, who spoke outside of USDA, the Republican governors of Indiana, Idaho, Iowa, South Dakota and Oklahoma signed a Tuesday letter to Rollins in support of the plan.
“As America First Governors, we firmly stand together in our unwavering support of President Donald J. Trump and his administration’s National Farm Security Action Plan,” they wrote. “This plan is a critical and decisive response to the invasion of our land, food system, and sovereignty by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).”
Advocates for LGBTQ people and for the environment praised a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling Tuesday that bars the Legislature's Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules from blocking a rule that bans therapists from trying to "convert" a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. (Getty Images)
Gov. Tony Evers along with advocates for the environment and for LGBTQ people as well as Democratic Party lawmakers hailed Tuesday’s state Supreme Court ruling that strips a Wisconsin legislative committee’s power to block state regulations.
Republican leaders in the Legislature — who’ve deployed that power successfully against the Evers administration for the last six years — condemned the Court’s action as consolidating power in the executive branch.
Tuesday’s ruling, written by Chief Justice Jill Karofsky for the Court’s four-member liberal majority, found that state laws giving the Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR) the power to block state regulations were unconstitutional.
The ruling said that in doing so, the committee was rewriting state laws that affected the rights and duties authorized for executive branch officials.
JCRAR has repeatedly thwarted Evers administration rules since the governor first took office in 2019. Tuesday’s ruling was the result of a lawsuit Evers filed in 2023 challenging the committee’s actions in suspending a rule that bans conversion therapy and indefinitely blocking an update to the state building code.
“The people of Wisconsin expect state government to work — and work better — for them,” Evers said in a statement Tuesday applauding the ruling.
“For years, a small group of Republican lawmakers overstepped their power, holding rules hostage without explanation or action and causing gridlock across state government,” Evers said.
“Today’s Wisconsin Supreme Court decision ensures that no small group of lawmakers has the sole power to stymie the work of state government and go unchecked,” the governor said. “This is an incredibly important decision that will ensure state government can do our important work efficiently and effectively to serve Wisconsinites across our state.”
Conversion therapy ban maintained
The ruling ensured that a rule will continue barring therapists treating LGBTQ people from using conversion therapy to try to change sexual orientation or gender identity.
JCRAR suspended the rule in early 2023 after it was last promulgated. The professional board that had enacted the rule reinstated it in April 2024 after the Legislature concluded its 2023-24 session. Tuesday’s ruling will prevent JCRAR from blocking the rule again.
“The continuous suspensions of the rule represented legislative overreach in the rule-making process and threatened the ability of professions in Wisconsin to create their standards,” said the National Association of Social Workers Wisconsin Chapter (NASW-Wisconsin) in a statement welcoming the Court’s ruling.
The association has sought the conversion therapy ban since 2018.
“After seven and a half years of trying to ban the harmful, discredited and unethical practice of conversion therapy and having the rule repeatedly blocked by the Joint Committee on the Review of Administrative Rules, I am thrilled by this ruling,” said Marc Herstand, the social worker association’s executive director. “Professions have the right to establish their own conduct code, and no social worker should ever engage in the practice of conversion therapy.”
Republicans attack ruling
Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater), chair of the committee, criticized the Court’s ruling.
“Today the liberal majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court ended nearly 7 decades of shared governance between the legislature and executive branch agencies aimed at protecting the rights of individuals, families and businesses from the excessive actions of bureaucrats,” Nass said in a statement.
“The liberal junta on the state supreme court has in essence given Evers the powers of a King,” he said.
Nass also attacked Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, charging that in the budget that lawmakers passed on the evening of July 2 and Evers signed shortly after midnight, Vos “gave away the power-of-the-purse-string for the next two years, so our options of defunding bureaucrats are now off the table.”
Vos also released a statement attacking the ruling.
“For decades, case law has upheld the constitutionality of the legislative rules committee to serve as a legitimate check on the powers of the Governor and the overreach of the bureaucracy,” Vos said. “The absence of oversight from elected representatives grows government and allows unelected bureaucrats to increase red-tape behind closed doors.”
Praise for the decision
Democrats, LGBTQ allies and environmental advocates said it was JCRAR’s practices, often shrouded in secrecy — not the rule-making process — that interfered with democracy.
“Today’s court decision is a victory for Wisconsinites, who deserve the freedom to have a government responsive to everyday people, not special interests and right-wing extremists,” said Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison). “This decision sends a clear message: We are working toward making Wisconsin a place where everyone can build a better life.”
Abigail Swetz, executive director of the LGBTQ+ advocacy group Fair Wisconsin, called the outcome “a powerful step in the right direction towards ending the harmful practice of conversion therapy,” and credited the advocacy of NASW-Wisconsin and other community members and partner groups.
Swetz also urged lawmakers and the governor to take “an even more powerful step” by passing SB 324, legislation banning conversion therapy in all licensed professions.
In a joint statement the Legislature’s LGBTQ+ caucus called the ruling “a victory against the abusive and discredited practice of ‘conversion therapy’ and a victory for LGBTQ+ people who want to live as their authentic selves.”
Environmental impact
Environmental rules were not at the heart of the Court’s ruling Tuesday, but environmental groups said the outcome would strengthen efforts to enact stronger environmental protections.
“The bottom line is that good environmental rules now face a much easier path to getting to the finish line and becoming law—which is good for the environment and public health,” said Evan Feinauer, an attorney for Clean Wisconsin, in a statement the organization issued.
Clean Wisconsin said JCRAR has blocked regulations on PFAS contamination, nitrates, surface water pollution and remediating contaminated lands.
“Far too often in recent years JCRAR’s ability to object to any proposed rule, for almost any reason, or no stated reason at all, prevented agencies like DNR from doing their jobs,” Feinauer said. “That political gridlock prevented our government from being responsive to environmental and public health challenges.”
In a statement from Midwest Environmental Advocates, executive director Tony Wilkins Gibart said that through JCRAR’s control of the rulemaking process, “small groups of legislators have been able to block the implementation of popular environmental protections passed by the full legislature and signed by the governor.”
MEA filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Wisconsin Conservation Voters and Save Our Water, a group of residents affected by PFAS contamination in and around Marinette and Peshtigo.
When JCRAR blocked a rule in December 2020 that regulated firefighting foam containing PFAS, it perpetuated the discharge of PFAS-contaminated wastewater in the Marinette wastewater treatment plant, MEA said Tuesday.
“Committee vetoes were anti-democratic because they allowed a handful of legislators to make decisions that affect the entire state,” said Jennifer Giegerich, government affairs director of Wisconsin Conservation Voters, said in the MEA statement. “We’re pleased this ruling restores constitutional balance and strengthens accountability for environmental decisions that impact all Wisconsinites.”
A Planned Parenthood clinic in Salt Lake City, Utah, is pictured on Wednesday, July 31, 2024. (Photo by McKenzie Romero/Utah News Dispatch)
WASHINGTON — The federal government cannot withhold Medicaid funding from Planned Parenthood for at least the next two weeks, after a district court judge issued a temporary restraining order the same day the organization filed a lawsuit.
Republicans included language in their “big, beautiful bill” that would block Medicaid payments from going to Planned Parenthood for the next year, a move that would effectively prevent enrollees in the state-federal health program for lower income people from visiting any of its clinics for routine health care.
The ban began when President Donald Trump signed the bill into law on Friday.
Congress already bars federal funding from going to abortion services with limited exceptions.
The suit alleges Planned Parenthood was singled out “in order to punish them for lawful activity, namely advocating for and providing legal abortion access wholly outside the Medicaid program and without using any federal funds.”
The filing also says more than 1 million Medicaid enrollees go to Planned Parenthood in a given year and that the organization received more than one-third of its total aggregate revenue from Medicaid reimbursement during fiscal year 2023.
District Court Judge Indira Talwani’s brief two-page temporary restraining order called on the Trump administration to file a status update later this week. And she set an in-person hearing later this month to hear from Planned Parenthood and the Trump administration.
Talwani was nominated to the bench by former President Barack Obama.
The Trump administration has yet to file any documents in the case and the Department of Health and Human Services did not immediately respond to a request for comment from States Newsroom about the judge’s temporary restraining order.
Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated during a Cabinet meeting Tuesday afternoon that the Department of Justice plans to challenge the temporary restraining order.
“Absolutely, yes. We’re on it,” Bondi said.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts and Planned Parenthood Association of Utah — the three groups that filed the lawsuit — wrote in a statement they were “grateful that the court acted swiftly to block this unconstitutional law attacking Planned Parenthood providers and patients.
“Already, in states across the country, providers and health center staff have been forced to turn away patients who use Medicaid to get basic sexual and reproductive health care because President Trump and his backers in Congress passed a law to block them from going to Planned Parenthood. There are no other providers who can fill the gap if the ‘defunding’ of Planned Parenthood is allowed to stand. The fight is just beginning, and we look forward to our day in court.”
Universities of Wisconsin President Jay Rothman said in a statement that the state’s universities have become dependent on tuition due to lagging state funding over many years, but the “turnaround” from proposed cuts to the state investing in the budget will help “preserve access and affordability” for students and families. Rothman and UW-Madison Jennifer Mnookin testify in front of the Legislative Audit Committee in April 2025. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)
The announcement comes just days after the state Legislature passed and Gov. Tony Evers signed a state budget that includes increased investments in the system by over $200 million for operational costs and over $800 million for capital projects. While the increases took a different direction from Republican’s proposed cuts, they are nowhere near the $855 million operational budget increase initially requested by the system last year when Rothman warned that tuition increases would be on the table if there wasn’t significant investment.
Rothman said in a statement that the state’s universities have become dependent on tuition due to lagging state funding over many years, but the “turnaround” from proposed cuts to the state investing in the budget will help “preserve access and affordability” for students and families.
“Preserving quality while maintaining our ability to be a leader on tuition affordability in the Midwest is a top priority,” Rothman said. “After a decade of a tuition freeze and lagging state aid, we believe we have struck a balance for students and families with this proposal and the recent state investments in the UWs as part of the 2025-27 biennial budget.”
Rothman will ask the UW Board of Regents to approve a 4% increase at all campuses for the 2025-26 year.
Individual campuses would also have the option under his proposal of implementing an additional 1% increase. All universities except UW-Green Bay plan to adopt that. UW-River Falls is also seeking to increase its tuition even further by 5.8% to support “ student success initiatives.”
Under the proposal, nonresident undergraduate tuition at each campus would increase by the same percentage or dollar amount.
The system noted that most of the increases approved in the state budget are for specific purposes, including virtual mental health services, wage increases and addressing staff recruitment and retention.
State funding today makes up about a fifth of the UW’s total revenue. The UW system’s 2023-25 biennial budget was $13.7 billion with 58% of that coming from program revenue, 24% from the federal government and 18% from general purpose revenue.
According to the UW system, the average increase when segregated fees and room and board costs are included would be 3.8%.
If approved, the increase will be the third consecutive year of tuition increases for UW since the end of a 10-year tuition freeze in 2023. The system said its tuition increased just 7.7% from 2015 to 2025, below the tuition increases for its peers in other states that had increases ranging from 21.7% to 28.8% over the 10 years.
The UW Board of Regents will consider the plan on July 10.
Here are the proposed resident undergraduate tuition costs for 2025-26 at each campus:
Protesters gather outside of the Milwaukee FBI office to speak out against the arrest of Milwaukee Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)
A federal magistrate judge recommended on Monday that the criminal case against Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan proceed. Dugan has been indicted on charges that she helped an immigrant without legal status who came to her courtroom for a hearing on a misdemeanor charge evade federal immigration authorities.
Dugan was arrested in April and indicted in May. She’s pleaded not guilty to charges of concealing an individual to prevent arrest and obstruction.
The case has become an example of the Trump administration’s effort to punish judicial interference with its escalation of immigration enforcement. In April, 31-year-old Eduardo Flores-Ruiz was in Dugan’s courtroom when federal agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Drug Enforcement Agency and FBI arrived at the Milwaukee County Courthouse to arrest him.
Prosecutors say Dugan helped Flores-Ruiz out a side doorway to avoid arrest but the doorway Dugan led Flores-Ruiz and his attorney use led to the same hallway in which the agents were waiting and one took the elevator down with them. Flores-Ruiz was arrested on the street outside.
In May, Dugan had filed a motion to dismiss the charges against her, arguing she is immune from prosecution because she was acting in her official capacity as a judge and that the arrest violated Wisconsin’s sovereignty as a state by disrupting a state court hearing and prosecuting a state judge.
On Monday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph recommended that the motion to dismiss be denied. The final decision on dismissal is up to U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, who does not need to follow Joseph’s recommendation.
“We are disappointed in the magistrate judge’s non-binding recommendation, and we will appeal it,” Dugan attorney Steven Biskupic, a former federal prosecutor, said in a statement. “This is only one step in what we expect will be a long journey to preserve the independence and integrity of our courts.”
In her recommendation, Joseph wrote that judicial immunity applies when a judge is being sued for civil damages, not criminal charges.
“A judge’s actions, even when done in her official capacity, does not bar criminal prosecution if the actions were done in violation of the criminal law,” she wrote.
Chief Justice Jill Karofsky, shown here during oral arguments in January, wrote for four justices that laws empowering the Legislature's Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative rules violate the Wisconsin Constitution. (Screenshot/WisEye)
State laws that let a 10-member committee of the Legislature override regulations are unconstitutional, a majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
The ruling hands the administration of Democratic Gov. Tony Evers a victory in an ongoing battle with the Legislature’s Republican leaders.
It also affirms that the state Legislature cannot renew its attempt to block regulations against conversion therapy for LGBTQ people, and appears to clear the way for an update of Wisconsin’s building code that was suspended nearly two years ago.
The ruling finds five statutes, granting power to the Legislature’s committee that reviews and periodically suspends administrative rules, violate the Wisconsin Constitution.
Taken together, wrote Chief Justice Jill Karofsky for the four justices making up the Court’s liberal wing, the statutes give the Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules the power to effectively change state laws without going through the full legislative process.
“The ability of a ten-person committee to halt or interrupt the passage of a rule, which would ordinarily be required to be presented to the governor as a bill [to block the rule], is simply incompatible with Articles IV and V of the Wisconsin Constitution,” Karofsky wrote.
The Court’s three conservative justices took issue with the majority opinion, asserting that rulemaking itself involves legislative power and that Tuesday’s ruling improperly constrains the Legislature as the elected representatives of the people.
‘Legislative veto’ lawsuit
The decision is the second to come from alawsuit Evers filed in the fall of 2023, Evers v. Marklein, accusing the Republican leaders of the Legislature of exercising an unconstitutional “legislative veto” hampering the lawful powers of the executive branch to make administrative rules.
The Evers administration argued that five statutes granting JCRAR the power to review, object to and block rules before or after they are promulgated violate the state Constitution. Those include a law enacted in December 2018, after Evers was elected governor but before he took office, that allows the committee to lodge “indefinite” objections blocking a rule.
The Court majority agreed with the administration’s argument.
The Wisconsin Constitution requires that for a law to be enacted, it must pass both the Assembly and the Senate and then be presented to the governor to be signed or vetoed.
“By permitting JCRAR to exercise discretion over which approved rules may be promulgated and which may not, the statute empowers JCRAR to take action that alters the legal rights and duties of persons outside of the legislative branch” without going through the lawmaking process, Karofsky wrote.
The indefinite objection “prevents the agency from promulgating a rule unless the Legislature passes a bill enacting the rule,” she wrote. “Said another way, legislative inertia after an indefinite objection could permanently stop the promulgation of a rule.”
The law allowing the committee to pause a rule for 30 days before it is promulgated “essentially allows JCRAR to capture control of agency rulemaking authority from the executive branch during the 30-day pause period,” Karofksy wrote.
The pause, which can be extended to 30 days “operates as a ‘pocket veto,’” she wrote. “Even if such an interruption is relatively brief, the constitution does not contemplate temporary violations of its provisions.”
Similarly, after the rule has been promulgated, JCRAR’s power to suspend it multiple times “means that even after promulgation, JCRAR could suspend a rule repeatedly in perpetuity with no other checks in place,” the chief justice wrote.
Clearing way for conversion therapy ban, new building code
In overturning the five statutes, the Court majority also revoked two earlier rulings that had affirmed some of JCRAR’s powers — one from 1992, upholding the committee’s temporary suspension of a rule, and the other from 2020, endorsing the power to suspend a rule multiple times.
Evers’ suit focused on two rules that JCRAR blocked, both produced under the umbrella of the state Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS).
One ruleprohibited therapists from using discredited conversion therapy to try to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of LGBTQ people. It was adopted by the Wisconsin Marriage and Family Therapy, Professional Counseling, and Social Work Examining Board.
“When the Board created new professional conduct rules banning conversion therapy, it exercised its statutory authority,” Karofksy wrote. “But when JCRAR objected to the rule it effectively blocked the Board’s authority” under Wisconsin law “to govern the professional conduct of its licensees.”
The conversion therapy rule was suspended in January 2023, but reinstated after the Legislature concluded its work for the 2023-24 session.
With “the multiple suspension provision,” however, Karofsky wrote, “JCRAR has the authority to suspend this rule again, in perpetuity.”
“The goal of these chapters is to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public,” Karofsky wrote. JCRAR’s indefinite suspension of the code in 2023 “prevented DSPS from completing its statutory rulemaking duties,” she wrote.
Conservative justices object
Justice Brian Hagedorn, one of three members of the Court’s conservative wing, wrote an opinion that concurred with the majority on narrow grounds but dissented on finding the five laws at issue unconstitutional.
The JCRAR indefinite objection to the building code rule is unconstitutional under a 1992 Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling, Hagedorn wrote.
He argued that the conversion therapy rule is now outside the Court’s purview, however.
“This ethical rule is already in effect; it is no longer suspended,” Hagedorn wrote. “Since a ruling on JCRAR’s actions with respect to this rule would have no legal effect, this claim is moot, and we have nothing further to decide.”
Hagedorn criticized the decision’s far-reaching findings that whole statutes were unconstitutional, however. He said it also failed to grapple with arguments about the constitutional status of regulation by executive branch agencies.
“The effect of the majority’s decision is to greenlight executive alteration of legal rights and duties outside the lawmaking process while prohibiting legislative alteration of legal rights and duties outside the lawmaking process,” Hagedorn wrote.
Former Chief Justice Annette Ziegler and Justice Rebecca Bradley published separate sharply worded dissents.
Ziegler wrote that the majority ruling was the outcome of “this court’s misguided quest to restructure and unbalance our state government, culminating in even more power and control being allocated to the executive branch.”
“The legislature has delegated executive branch agencies broad rulemaking authority with the understanding that it will be able to oversee administrative rulemaking through JCRAR,” Ziegler wrote. “The majority now pulls the rug out from under the legislature…”
Bradley, invoking lyrics from Bruce Springsteen’s song “Badlands” in which the singer says “a king ain’t satisfied ‘til he rules everything,” charged that the majority “lets the executive branch exercise lawmaking power unfettered and unchecked.”
Her dissent offered a full-throated attack on the administrative state and executive branch regulatory authority.
“The majority invokes the Wisconsin Constitution to take power from the People’s elected representatives in the legislature and bestow it on the executive branch, empowering unelected bureaucrats to rule over the People,” Bradley wrote.
Jacobson launched her campaign outside an elementary school in Ridgeway that was closed after the Dodgeville school district combined two elementary schools into one. (Photo courtesy Wisconsin State Senate Democratic Committee)
With the Wisconsin state budget completed just last week, Senate Democrats are gearing up for 2026 elections and their shot at a majority. Rep. Jenna Jacobson (D-Oregon), surrounded by a group of current Democratic senators, launched her campaign Monday for Senate District 17, currently represented by one of the Senate Republicans central to shaping Wisconsin’s budget.
There are about 16 months until November 2026 when half of the state Senate, the entire state Assembly and the governor’s seat will all be up for election. This will be the first time the new legislative maps adopted in 2024 will be in place for the 17 odd-numbered Senate seats.
Democrats gained four seats in the Senate in 2024 — breaking the GOP supermajority and leaving Senate Republicans with a margin of 18-15 majority. They will need to win at least two seats if they are to win the majority for the first time in more than 15 years.
Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green), the co-chair of the powerful budget committee, is the incumbent, having first been elected to the seat in 2014 after serving two terms in the Assembly.
Lisa White, a Democrat who runs an interior painting business, is also running for the seat.
Jacobson, who is serving her second term in the Assembly, told the Wisconsin Examiner that she is challenging Marklein in part because he hasn’t been listening.
Marklein won the district with 60% of the vote in 2022, but Senate District 17 changed considerably under the new maps. According to an analysis by John Johnson, a research fellow at Marquette University, the district leaned Democratic by 1 percentage point in the 2024 presidential election and by over 4 percentage points in the 2024 U.S. Senate race.
“The biggest thing that I see about this district is that people really want somebody who’s going to represent what they’re fighting for, what they need and listen to them, and even listen to them when they don’t necessarily agree,” Jacobson said. “They’ve been not receiving that in their current state senator.”
Jacobson cited a report in the Monroe Times of a Marklein listening session in Belleville in January — coincidentally on the same day that Jacobson was holding one there.
“There was a list of rules of what would and will not be happening in that listening session,” Jacobson said. “That, to me, is the starkest example of what it means to listen to your community, because I was inviting anybody… there are no rules. I’m open to having a conversation with anybody at any time.”
Marklein’s notice told residents that it was “designed for the senator to receive input and ideas about issues facing residents in the 17th Senate District” and he didn’t “plan to answer questions, debate ideas, challenge the ideas, or otherwise comment because he is seeking to hear every point-of-view equally.” The notice said that “the goal is for every attendee to feel comfortable sharing their input.” It also advised those attending that their comments might be subject to a time limit.
Jacobson launched her campaign outside an elementary school in Ridgeway that was closed after the Dodgeville school district combined two elementary schools into one. She called Marklein a “classic politician” who she said has “failed” the Senate district.
“Our district has time and again been forced into referenda to fund our schools because Howard Marklein has chosen power over people,” Jacobson said. “He has chosen ideology over voting for the needs of the district. That is irresponsible governing.”
Jacobson first ran for the state Assembly for an open seat in 2021 and said her service on the Oregon village board showed her how local government intersects with state government and why it’s important to shape the latter.
Her announcement came less than a week after lawmakers and Gov. Tony Evers completed the state budget. The Republicans’ narrower Senate majority led to a new dynamic during the budget process. With Democratic votes necessary to pass the bill, Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) became involved in budget negotiations.
Hesselbein joined Jacobson at her campaign announcement Monday, along with Sens. Kelda Roys (D-Madison), Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit), Dora Drake (D-Milwaukee) and Brad Pfaff (D-Onalaska).
Jacobson has been fighting for public school funding, Hesselbein said. “In the Senate, she will dedicate herself to lowering costs for your families, to creating a bright future for your children, and making our state stronger every day,” Hesselbein said. “We are excited and proud to be standing behind her in this campaign and we look forward to her joining us and helping us win a Democratic majority.”
Jacobson voted against the budget, joining 37 other Assembly Democrats.
Democrats credited the new maps and the Senate’s closer margins for the budget agreement, which included an increase in funding for special education, the University of Wisconsin system and child care. The bill passed thanks to five Senate Democratic votes, although a recurring theme among Democrats whether they voted for or against the budget, including Jacobson, was that it wasn’t perfect.
Jacobson said that was part of the reason she launched her campaign.
“I was hoping under these new maps — with even more voices talking so loudly about the fact that they need state assistance when it comes to affording child care, they need more funding for our schools, they need real help on the everyday costs that are facing Wisconsinites — that under this new more competitive district that would be represented in the state budget,” she said. “What we’re seeing is that the cycle of referendums is not going to end under this budget… and that was a missed opportunity in this budget.”
During the final discussions over the budget, Marklein emphasized that the document was a “compromise” between Republicans and Democrats while highlighting items affecting his district, such as funding for the UW system that would help the Platteville campus. Marklein did not respond to an email from the Wisconsin Examiner on Monday asking about his 2026 plans and his response to Democrats targeting SD 17.
Jacobson said she doesn’t view Marklein’s long tenure as a state lawmaker as a challenge. She said she is more concerned with the size of the Southwest Wisconsin Senate district, which encompasses Iowa, Lafayette, Green, Crawford and Grant counties as well as parts of Dane County.
“It’s a big district, but the benefit of that is that it’s filled with these amazing rural communities that when people think about Wisconsin that’s what they think of…,” Jacobson said. “Sure [Sen. Marklein has] been an incumbent for a while, but has he been out? How much is he doing outside of walking a parade to really listen to the district?”
Jacobson, a mother of three children, said public education funding will be one of her top issues, though she is also more concerned about hearing from others. She said she has been traveling the district over the last few weeks and hearing an array of concerns from residents.
“They’re concerned that they’re going to have to have more referenda because of the lack of school funding to increase their property taxes even more,” Jacobson said. “They’re concerned that without meaningful work or support from the state — our health care system in that area… seven hospitals… multiple clinics — those are going to potentially be in jeopardy.”
Correction: This story has been updated to correct the number of seats Democrats need to gain in 2026 to win a Senate majority.
Planned Parenthood has about 600 clinics in 48 states, and according to their calculations, more than 1.1 million patients could lose access to care because of a provision in the massive budget bill signed by President Donald Trump last week. (Photo by McKenzie Romero/Utah News Dispatch)
Days after President Donald Trump signed a massive budget bill, attorneys for Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its state members in Massachusetts and Utah filed a lawsuit Monday challenging a provision they say will affect more than 1 million patients who use their clinics across the U.S.
Planned Parenthood says if the defund provision stands, those targeted will be patients who use Medicaid as their insurance at its centers for services including birth control and cancer screenings. The organization says it only uses federal Medicaid funding for abortion in the very narrow cases allowed, including rape, incest, and to save a pregnant person’s life.
The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court of Massachusetts against U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Medicaid and Medicare administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz, challenges a provision on page 597 of the reconciliation bill. It prohibits Medicaid funding from going to any sexual and reproductive health clinics that provide abortions and received more than $800,000 in federal and state Medicaid funding in fiscal year 2023. That prohibition will last one year from the date the bill was signed.
While there may be a few independent clinics with operating budgets that high, it effectively singles out Planned Parenthood clinics. The entire organization has about 600 clinics in 48 states, and according to their calculations, more than 1.1 million patients could lose access to care because of the change in the law.
“This case is about making sure that patients who use Medicaid as their insurance to get birth control, cancer screenings, and STI testing and treatment can continue to do so at their local Planned Parenthood health center, and we will make that clear in court,” said Planned Parenthood Federation of America president and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson in a public statement.
The organization identified 200 of its clinics in 24 states that are at risk of closure with the cuts, and said nearly all of those clinics — 90% — are in states where abortion is legal. In 12 states, approximately 75% of abortion-providing Planned Parenthood health centers could close. Because of that, some reproductive health advocates have called it a backdoor nationwide abortion ban.
The nonprofit also warned that eliminating Planned Parenthood centers from the Medicaid program would likely also impact patients who use other forms of insurance, if centers are forced to cut their services or close.
Planned Parenthood argued this section of the bill is unconstitutional because it specifies and punishes them, saying it violates equal protection laws and qualifies as retaliation against free speech rights.
“The Defund Provision is a naked attempt to leverage the government’s spending power to attack and penalize Planned Parenthood and impermissibly single it out for unfavorable treatment,” the complaint says. “It does so not only because of Planned Parenthood members’ long history of providing legal abortions to patients across the country, but also because of Planned Parenthood’s unique role in advocating for policies to protect and expand access to sexual and reproductive health care, including abortion.”
The complaint also details numerous instances when Trump said he was committed to defunding Planned Parenthood in 2016 and 2017, during his first presidential term, and it highlighted the provisions of Project 2025 that called for the defunding of Planned Parenthood. Project 2025 is the blueprint document drafted by the conservative Heritage Foundation, and the administration has followed many of its directives so far.
According to the lawsuit, Planned Parenthood members have “structural independence,” meaning no member “has control over the operations or decision-making processes of another.” It’s argued in the complaint that 10 members, including plaintiff Planned Parenthood Association of Utah, don’t meet the definition of prohibited entity under the new law, because they do not provide abortion services or did not receive over $800,000 in Medicaid funds during fiscal year 2023. They say these members are not “affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, or clinics” of any prohibited entity because they are separately incorporated and independently governed.
“But these Non-Qualifying Members can take no comfort in the plain text of the statute,” reads the lawsuit. “Defendants will willfully misinterpret the statute to disqualify them from receiving federal Medicaid funding, based solely on their association with PPFA and other Planned Parenthood Members.”
“As the Trump administration guts our public health care system, we know millions will suffer and struggle to get care. We will not tolerate these attacks,” said Shireen Ghorbani, interim president of Planned Parenthood Association of Utah, in a statement. “For over 55 years, we have proudly cared for generations of Utahns, and we will always find ways to meet the health care needs of our communities. Here in Utah, we are used to politicians trying to strip away our rights for political gain. We haven’t backed down before, and we won’t now.”
Defunding will harm general wellness, not abortion care, Arizona clinic owner says
Planned Parenthood also noted in its complaint that the harms could be especially devastating because “even where alternative providers are theoretically available, those providers, who are already stretched to capacity, often do not offer the same comprehensive sexual and reproductive health service options, have long wait times for patients, and cannot accommodate the huge influx of patients who would need to find a new provider of care.”
Some clinics that operate independently of Planned Parenthood will be affected by the law as well. George Hill, president and CEO of Maine Family Planning, said they receive nearly $2 million from Medicaid funds (MaineCare) on a yearly basis, and about half of their patients are enrolled in some form of Medicaid. Hill said they plan to sue as well, but the timing is uncertain at this point. Abortion care makes up about 15% of their overall services, while the rest is routine gynecological and preventative health care, he said.
In the meantime, Hill plans to solicit as much support as possible from individual donors to keep the doors to their 19 clinics open and serving Medicaid patients.
“Whether or how long we’ll be able to do that is another question,” Hill said.
In Arizona, Dr. DeShawn Taylor operates the independent clinic Desert Star Institute for Family Planning. About 75% of the services at Desert Star are abortion related, and while Medicaid (AHCCCS in Arizona) dollars can’t be used for the procedure, Taylor said they could often at least get the initial consultation appointment covered by Medicaid.
The cuts that are coming, Taylor said, will not stop people from obtaining an abortion somehow. But there will be other downstream effects.
“People are already economically depressed,” she said. “What we’re going to see is people are still going to do what’s necessary to get (abortion) care, but what’s going to fall off is their ability to get their preventative care, their contraception, their wellness exams, those types of things.”
Smith and Wesson handguns are displayed during the 2015 NRA Annual Meeting and Exhibits in Nashville, Tenn. Nashville had the fifth-highest reported gun theft rate in 2022, with 210 incidents per 100,000 residents. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
A growing number of firearms are being stolen from parked cars, especially in urban areas, according to a new report that highlights a frequently overlooked source of illegally circulating guns.
The nonpartisan think tank Council on Criminal Justice released an analysis examining five years of gun theft data reported to law enforcement in 16 cities — both urban and rural — with populations over 250,000. The analysis found that while the overall rate of reported gun thefts remained steady between 2018 and 2022, gun thefts from motor vehicles rose sharply.
The number of guns reported stolen from vehicles increased by 31% over the five-year period, while gun thefts during burglaries of homes and businesses fell by 40%. In large urban areas, the overall gun theft rate jumped by 42% between 2018 and 2022, while rural areas saw a 22% decline.
The findings are based on data from more than 2,000 law enforcement agencies across the country that consistently submitted detailed crime reports to the FBI’s National Incident-Based Reporting System between 2018 and 2022. Together, those agencies represent about 25% of the U.S. population and 12% of all law enforcement agencies nationwide.
As gun violence continues to grip communities across the country, a growing body of research suggests that firearm theft — particularly from vehicles — is a key, but often overlooked, source of weapons used in crimes. While research remains limited, some studies show stolen guns are disproportionately recovered at crime scenes, and gun violence tends to rise in areas where thefts have occurred.
Yet national data on gun theft remains sparse and there is no nationwide system for tracking stolen guns. Even basic details — such as how many guns are taken in each reported incident — are often missing from official police reports.
With crime and firearm policy high on the Trump administration’s agenda, experts say more research is urgently needed to understand how stolen guns fuel broader cycles of violence.
“We really don’t have a full national picture of stolen guns,” said Susan Parker, one of the report’s authors and a research assistant professor in the Department of Emergency Medicine at Northwestern University. “It’s really difficult to think about prevention when you don’t know much.”
The report’s findings suggest that parked cars have become a major weak point in firearm security — one that could be addressed through policy, public education and better data collection.
Some states, including Colorado and Delaware, have recently passed laws requiring firearms stored in vehicles to be locked in secure containers. In recent years, several other states have considered similar measures, including legislation mandating safe storage and stricter reporting requirements for lost or stolen guns.
Where you store your gun really matters. We see that so many of the guns that are stolen are increasingly from vehicles.
– Susan Parker, research assistant professor at Northwestern University
Currently, just 16 states and the District of Columbia require gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms to law enforcement, according to the Giffords Law Center, a nonpartisan gun safety group.
“Where you store your gun really matters. We see that so many of the guns that are stolen are increasingly from vehicles,” Parker said. “That kind of shift in how we’re carrying guns should also maybe be accompanied by shifts in how we’re thinking about keeping them safe and out of the risk of being misused.”
Among the 16 cities included in the report, Memphis, Tennessee, had the highest rate of gun thefts in 2022 — 546 reported incidents per 100,000 residents. That’s nearly double the rate in Detroit, which ranked second at 297 per 100,000, and more than 10 times higher than in Seattle, which had the lowest rate at 44 per 100,000.
Kansas City, Missouri, had the third-highest rate at 234 per 100,000, followed by Milwaukee, at 219 per 100,000, and Nashville, Tennessee, at 210 per 100,000.
While residences remained the most common place guns were stolen from overall, the share of gun thefts occurring in parking lots, garages and on roads rose significantly. By 2022, 40% of all reported gun thefts involved a vehicle, up from 31% in 2018.
Vehicle break-ins resulting in stolen firearms nearly doubled in urban areas — from 37 per 100,000 people in 2018 to 65 per 100,000 people in 2022.
As parked vehicles have become a more frequent target for thieves, the locations of those thefts have shifted. In 2018, about half of all reported gun thefts from vehicles occurred at residences. By 2022, that share had dropped to roughly 40%, while thefts from vehicles in parking lots and garages rose by 76%. The report also found significant increases in gun thefts from vehicles on roads, highways and alleys — up 59% over the five-year period.
In the most rural areas, where gun ownership is often more common, the share of vehicle break-ins that resulted in gun theft rose from 18% to 24%. In urban areas, that figure increased from 6% to 10.5%.
Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.
A protester holds a photo of Kilmar Abrego Garcia as demonstrators gather to protest against the deportation of immigrants to El Salvador outside the Permanent Mission of El Salvador to the United Nations on April 24, 2025 in New York City. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)
GREENBELT, Maryland — A federal judge at a hearing Monday sought more information on the Trump administration’s plans for wrongly deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose attorneys are pressing to have him transferred to Maryland from a Tennessee jail.
Abrego Garcia lived in Maryland with his wife and family before he was mistakenly deported to the notorious CECOT prison in El Salvador in March. While there, he said he was tortured, physically and psychologically, by Salvadoran officials, according to court records.
Now he is in custody in Tennessee, where he faces federal criminal charges related to human smuggling. He could be released as soon as July 16, and Maryland District Judge Paula Xinis questioned Department of Justice lawyers about their intentions for him upon his release.
Abrego Garcia’s attorneys expressed concern that once he is released, immigration officials would immediately detain the Maryland man and either quickly remove him to a third country or send him back to El Salvador by attempting to remove his earlier deportation protections.
“We do need protection from the government waking up tomorrow and upon Mr. Abrego Garcia’s release from criminal custody, (removing him) to somewhere they haven’t identified,” said Andrew J. Rossman, of Quinn Emmanuel, the firm representing Abrego Garcia in his immigration case in Maryland.
DOJ attorney Jonathan Guynn said removing Abrego Garcia to a third country is likely the path forward, but could not confirm or detail which country.
‘Jello to a wall’
Xinis set a Thursday afternoon hearing to obtain testimony from a witness who will be involved in making the decision about what will happen to Abrego Garcia.
“It’s like trying to nail jello to a wall to figure out what happens next week,” she said of Abrego Garcia’s potential release on July 16 ahead of his trial.
Xinis said until she’s clear about what steps the Trump administration will take next, she’ll hold off on issuing an order bringing Abrego Garcia back to Maryland.
During the Monday hearing, Xinis also denied the Trump administration’s two requests to dismiss the case.
DOJ lawyers argued that because Abrego Garcia was returned to the United States, the case is now moot. Xinis said the case is not moot because the “status quo” has not been fulfilled — although Abrego Garcia was returned to the U.S., he is not back in Maryland, but instead is in the custody of U.S. marshals in Tennessee.
Attorneys for Abrego Garcia made the same request last month, on an emergency basis to try to bring him back to Maryland while his criminal case continues, but Xinis denied that request as well.
At that time she referred to an answer from DOJ attorney Guynn, who said Abrego Garcia’s removal to a third country was not immediate, as part of her reasoning.
“He will be taken into (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) custody and removal proceedings will be initiated,” Guynn said June 26 of Abrego Garcia’s release. “There are no imminent plans to remove him to a third country.”
Rossman during Monday’s hearing also raised concerns that Abrego Garcia, yet again, would not receive proper due process if he is to be removed to a third country. He said Abrego Garcia must be notified where he will be sent and have time to appeal if he fears he will face harm in that country.
Xinis said while that will likely fall under an immigration judge, she does have the authority to have access to the information detailing how the Trump administration is going to remove Abrego Garcia.
Tennessee case
Abrego Garcia was returned to the U.S. from El Salvador last month to face federal criminal charges lodged in Tennessee that accuse him “of conspiracy to unlawfully transport illegal aliens for financial gain” and “unlawful transportation of illegal aliens for financial gain.”
The indictment by the Trump administration occurred while Abrego Garcia was in prison custody in El Salvador. Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
During Monday’s hearing, Xinis pressed Department of Justice attorney Bridget O’Hickey on whether the federal charges played a role in the return of Abrego Garcia to the U.S.
“He was not indicted with the purpose of bringing him back,” O’Hickey said. “He was indicted because he was under investigation.”
Xinis questioned the timing of the investigation, which began on April 21, when Abrego Garcia was in a Salvadoran prison and shortly after the Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to facilitate his return.
O’Hickey could not give an answer on when the investigation into Abrego Garcia began, but she said that he was “under investigation prior.”
Xinis also questioned O’Hickey on the DOJ’s motion to dismiss the case entirely in May.
On May 27, the Department of Justice told Xinis that nothing could be done to return Abrego Garcia from El Salvador and therefore the case should be dismissed because of a lack of jurisdiction. But federal charges were filed on May 21.
“Why else would you file an indictment against someone you couldn’t produce?” Xinis asked O’Hickey.
O’Hickey said that negotiations with El Salvador were ongoing and that it was not clear that the indictment would mean Abrego Garcia would be released from El Salvador.
“I am aware that the proceedings were moving in tandem,” she said.
President Donald Trump is displayed on a television screen as traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on April 7, 2025 in New York City. Markets around the world fell dramatically as global leaders, businesses and economies tried to understand and come to terms with Trump's tariff policy. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
President Donald Trump on Monday threatened tariffs from 25% to 40% on all goods from seven countries, including major U.S. trade partners Japan and South Korea.
The tariffs would go into effect Aug. 1, rather than Wednesday, which was the deadline Trump already extended once from an initial April date, Trump wrote in a series of letters to the countries’ leaders that he posted on his social media platform.
Countries that will see 25% tariffs are Japan, South Korea, Malaysia and Kazakhstan, with South Africa subject to a 30% rate and Laos and Myanmar seeing a 40% tariff rate.
The letters are nearly identical and begin by acknowledging the United States faces a trade deficit with the other country.
“Nevertheless, we have decided to move forward with you, but only with more balanced, and fair, TRADE,” Trump wrote in the letters. “We have had years to discuss our Trading Relationship with (your country), and have concluded that we must move away from these longterm, and very persistent, Trade Deficits.”
The economy-wide tariffs would apply above any sector-specific levies, Trump wrote.
The administration would respond to any effort by the other country to place a reciprocal tariff on the U.S. by setting a new tariff rate on that country that equaled whatever rate it set, plus 25%, Trump said.
Letters on the way
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Monday about 14 countries would receive similar letters.
“These new rates that will be provided in this correspondence to these foreign leaders will be going out the door within the next month, or deals will be made,” Leavitt said. “Those countries continue to negotiate with the United States. We’ve seen a lot of positive developments in the right direction, but the administration, the president and his trade team want to cut the best deals for the American people and the American worker.”
The administration has used tariffs aggressively to reset trade relationships with every partner. The new threats are part of a push to reach trade deals with individual countries.
Trump set a goal of reaching 90 deals within 90 days of his April 2 announcement, but only two — Vietnam and the U.K. — had materialized by that deadline.
Trump will also sign an executive order further extending to Aug. 1 the deadline for tariffs on every country without a one-to-one trade agreement with the U.S., Leavitt said.
Trump shook the global economy when he imposed wide-reaching levies on nearly every country on April 2. The president walked them back just seven days later, announcing a 90-day pause on staggering tariffs that reached nearly 50% on some major U.S. trading partners and, briefly, 125% on Chinese imports.
The U.S. Court of International Trade struck down Trump’s emergency tariffs May 28. The following day, an appeals court temporarily restored the tariffs and as of Monday they remain in place while the court case is being heard.
U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem delivers remarks to staff at the Department of Homeland Security headquarters on Jan. 28, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Manuel Balce Ceneta-Pool/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem ended temporary protections Monday for nationals from Nicaragua and Honduras, opening up roughly 76,000 people to deportations by early September.
The move is the latest effort by President Donald Trump’s administration to wind down legal statuses, such as Temporary Protected Status, amid an immigration crackdown and pledge to carry out mass deportations.
So far, the Trump administration has moved to end legal statuses, including work authorizations and deportation protections, for more than half a million immigrants.
TPS has been used since the 1990s and is granted to nationals from countries deemed too dangerous to return to due to violence, natural disasters or other unstable conditions.
Roughly 72,000 Hondurans and 4,000 Nicaraguans had temporary protections since 1999 following Hurricane Mitch, a Category 5 storm that destroyed parts of Central America and killed more than 10,000 people.
“Temporary Protected Status was never meant to last a quarter of a century,” the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement.
Noem determined that conditions in Nicaragua and Honduras had improved and TPS for the two countries is no longer needed, DHS said.
“It is clear that the Government of Honduras has taken all of the necessary steps to overcome the impacts of Hurricane Mitch, almost 27 years ago,” Noem said Monday. “Honduran citizens can safely return home, and DHS is here to help facilitate their voluntary return.”
Noem has also ended TPS for nationals of Afghanistan, Cameroon, Haiti, Nepal and Venezuela.
Pelican River area in Wisconsin (Jay Brittain | Courtesy of the photographer)
When Gov. Tony Evers made his 2025-27 budget proposal in February, it included an annual $100 million appropriation to fund the broadly popular Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant program for another 10 years. The budget he signed after 1 a.m. Thursday included zero money for the program, which is set to lapse next summer.
While a separate piece of legislation to re-authorize the program has been introduced by Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc) and Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point), the failure to provide added money in the budget has raised concerns that the program — which allows the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to provide grant funding to acquire, conserve and maintain public lands — could fail to survive the political tumult of divided government and die.
Even though the conservation of public lands is widely popular among both Democratic and Republican voters in the state, a handful of Republican legislators have grown increasingly hostile to the program, particularly since the state Supreme Court ruled last year that the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Finance doesn’t have the authority to hold up grants issued by the DNR through the program. Republicans complain that the acquisition of public land takes parcels off the property tax roles and prevents development projects.
The Kurtz and Testin proposal aims to reach a compromise by re-authorizing the program while adding more legislative oversight by requiring that any land purchases over $1 million be approved through legislation.
“While I recognize all that has gone into reaching this compromise budget, I must share that I am deeply disappointed that Republican leaders would not agree to reauthorize the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program — even for just one more year through 2027,” Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay) said in a statement. “Here’s the situation now: Knowles-Nelson reauthorization expires on June 20, 2026, giving the Legislature one year to take action before the deadline, and Republicans have indicated they will bring this back to the agenda this fall. Trust that I will keep up the pressure on Republicans and hold them to their word. I will continue to be a strong advocate for this long-standing bipartisan promise.”
The lack of stewardship program funds in the final state budget led Evers to use his partial veto authority to prevent spending money on five individual public lands projects that legislators had earmarked in the bill.
“I object to providing an earmark for a natural resources project when the Legislature has abandoned its responsibility to reauthorize and ensure the continuation of the immensely popular Warren Knowles-Gaylord Nelson Stewardship program,” Evers stated in his veto message. “Instead of renewing the program and helping the many, the Legislature has opted to benefit the politically connected few. The Legislature must do its job and renew the Warren Knowles-Gaylord Nelson Stewardship program.”
Timber strategic plan
The DNR budget also includes funds for a $1 million grant to the Great Lakes Timber Professionals Association (GLTPA) and the Wisconsin Paper Council to craft a Forestry Industrywide Strategic Plan.
This provision was included by the Joint Committee on Finance in its late night session last Friday and has raised concerns from some environmental groups that it is a giveaway to industry groups to push for increased extraction of resources from the state’s forest lands.
“Taxpayers should not be made to underwrite private industry studies with no public benefit or input. Would they decide how to manage local, state, and federal forests in this study? Would it be published?” Andy Olsen, senior policy advocate at the Environmental Law and Policy Center, said. “One million dollars is very generous with taxpayer dollars for a sketchy study with no public benefit.”
The GLTPA has been involved in efforts in Wisconsin’s Northwoods to oppose conservation projects and move local land use policies to be more pro-extraction by encouraging increased logging and the expansion of the state’s mining industry.
The association’s director, Henry Schienebeck, has been influential in Oneida County’s effort to rewrite its comprehensive plan to be friendlier to industry and worked with American Stewards of Liberty, a Texas-based right-wing anti-conservation group, to oppose land conservation such as the Pelican River Forest.
DNR spokesperson Andrea Sedlacek said the department is “monitoring this and all other relevant DNR budget motions as the process plays out” but did not yet have information on what the development of the strategic plan would look like or if other people or groups would be involved in its development.
But despite the grant being given only to industry groups, some environmental advocates say it’s a win.
Fred Clark, former executive director of Wisconsin Green Fire, said the development of such a plan is something the organization has been advocating for over the past several years. Clark pointed to a study of the health of the state’s forests Green Fire published last year and said that because the state’s paper mills have largely been shuttered, there are fewer places for the state’s foresters to bring their timber, destabilizing the industry.
Without a plan to find new uses for the state’s timber, the economics of Wisconsin’s working forest lands could change, resulting in land sales and development that results in forests being cut down to use the land for other purposes — ultimately harming the health of Wisconsin’s forests.
“The focus that we would like to see there is not necessarily on producing more timber, because we already grow a lot more timber than we harvest,” Clark said. “What we really think the state needs is a strategic focus on developing new forest products and helping expand and refine forest products markets so that we’ve got places for our wood to go.”
Clark said he foresees the development of the plan working through the state’s Council on Forestry, which includes members representing industry, environmental groups, state and federal agencies, legislators and landowners. He added that for the project to succeed it needs input from all those groups, including those with records such as the GLTPA.
“We need everybody at the table for this, and there’s a wide range of points of view in the forestry community,” Clark said. “Great Lakes Timber Professionals have been an active member of the Council on Forestry almost since day one. We won’t succeed if we don’t have a pretty strong consensus all the way from the environmental groups to groups like Great Lakes Timber Professionals. So I think there’s a lot of common ground there. The most important next step for us is to see that there’s a really broad based committee within the Council on forestry that’s helping guide this work.”
Alternatives to incarceration could drastically cut lock-up rate in Wisconsin. This week the Department of Corrections will finally take up a 2014 law that aimed to do just that. | Getty Images
The Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC) will hold a public hearing this week on Act 196, legislation that received bipartisan support and was signed into law in April 2014 by then-Gov. Scott Walker. The law aimed to create sanctions for people who violate the conditions of their parole, probation and extended supervision as an alternative to revocation, which sends people back to prison sometimes for small infractions that violate the terms of their release. The hearing on implementing a new rule, 11 years after the law was signed, will finally take place on Tuesday, July 8 at 10 a.m.
The Wisconsin Examiner’s Criminal Justice Reporting Project shines a light on incarceration, law enforcement and criminal justice issues with support from the Public Welfare Foundation.
The public can join the virtual hearing by going to a DOC link and selecting the “hearing information” section. The text of the rule is also available online at the same hearing link.
Act 196 states the intent to “Develop a system of short-term sanctions for violations of conditions of parole, probation, extended supervision, and deferred prosecution agreement (an agreement not to prosecute pending the accused meeting requirements such as drug treatment).”
A sentence for a criminal violation, besides fines and fees, typically includes a period of incarceration and supervision outside incarceration via parole, probation, or extended supervision.
If a condition of supervision, such as the requirement to remain sober or stay away from minors, is not meant, the probation officer has the option of requesting a revocation hearing before an administrative judge that could result in the person serving a portion or the remainder of the “supervised” sentence behind bars.
Act 196 states “short-term sanctions” should include “examples of high, medium and low level sanctions and what factors to consider when determining which level of sanction to apply.”
The law is not just punitive. Act 196 also says the DOC is to determine “how to reward offenders for compliance with conditions of parole, of probation, of extended supervision or of the agreement (such as deferred prosecution).”
The 2014 law also states the DOC should “minimize the impact on the offender’s employment” and also minimize “the impact on an offender’s family.”
The 2014 law would appear to meet the stated goals of the DOC and Gov. Tony Evers to lower the revocation rate for Wisconsin that has resulted in thousands returning each year to prison.
WISDOM, a statewide network working on reform of the prison and criminal legal systems and other social justice issues, is pleased the DOC is finally taking steps to implement the 2014 law into a rule.
“Adding more short-term community-based alternatives to revocation has the potential to significantly reduce the number of people sent to prison each year,” said Mark Rice, Transformational Justice Campaign Coordinator for WISDOM, a statewide network working to overhaul the criminal legal system and other unjust systems.
“Sending people back to prison for convictionless rule violations is fueling the overcrowding of Wisconsin’s prisons,” said Rice.
Tom Gilbert, a father whose son has been incarcerated and had supervision revoked and returned to prison, has led WISDOM’s efforts to get the DOC to implement Act 196.
“It is way past time for Wisconsin to transform its supervision program of people who have been released from their original sentence,” said Gilbert. “Revoking people back to prison for rule violations is counter-productive. Other states have moved to better methods of supervision and are closing prisons.”
But WISDOM officials also have concerns that DOC will use current practices of sanctions, such as 90-day jail confinements, that WISDOM say don’t meet the intent of ACT 196 to “minimize” the impact on employment and the family.
Wisdom officials are also concerned the DOC has not fleshed out how to implement ACT 196 by describing the actual “system of short-term sanctions.” The proposed rule to be considered at the July 8 hearing merely replicates language stated in Act 196 without specifying the actual short-term sanctions or the rewards for meeting the conditions of supervision.
“If the Department of Corrections truly implements both the letter and spirit of Act 196, we see the potential transformation of its community corrections programs to one that focuses on healing individuals and communities affected by crime,” said Gilbert.
Joining the public hearing
Members of the public who are not able to join the hearing online can use a call-in number for the meeting: (608) 571-2209, with conference code 930 614 929.
Persons making oral presentations at the meeting are also required to submit their comments in writing.
Written comments are also taken until August 8. Written comments can be mailed to DOC Administrative Rule Committee, Caitlin Washburn, Administrative Rules Coordinator, PO Box 7925, Madison, WI 53707-7925.
A student draws with chalk on an outdoor court at a New York City public school in 2022. If states don’t receive billions in congressionally approved funding for K-12 education that the Trump administration is withholding, officials say programs for migrants, English-language learners and kids in need of after-school care will be at risk. (Photo by Michael Loccisano/Getty Images)
The U.S. Department of Education’s decision last week to hold back $6.8 billion in federal K-12 funds next year has triggered alarm among state education officials, school leaders and advocacy groups nationwide over how the lack of funds will affect their after-school, enrichment and language-learning services.
The Trump administration’s decision to freeze the funding has put states in “triage mode” as they scramble to decide what programs may be cut without that funding, said Mary Kusler, senior director for the Center for Advocacy at the National Education Association. The money was approved by Congress to support education for English language learners, migrants, low-income children and adults learning to read, among others.
As of July 1, school systems are unable to draw down funding, jeopardizing summer programs, hiring and early-year planning for the 2025–26 school year.
The funding freeze affects several core programs: Title II-A (educator training and recruitment), Title III-A (English learner support), Title IV-A (student enrichment and after-school), as well as migrant education and adult education and literacy grants. Trump has proposed eliminating all those programs in his proposed budget for next fiscal year, but that proposal hasn’t gone through Congress.
State superintendents sent out missives to school districts early this week and now are scrambling to make choices.
“This is not about political philosophy, this is about reliability and consistency,” Alabama state Superintendent Eric Mackey said to Politico. “None of us were worrying about this.”
The administration says it is reviewing the programs.
“The Department remains committed to ensuring taxpayer resources are spent in accordance with the President’s priorities and the Department’s statutory responsibilities,” the U.S. Department of Education wrote to states in its announcement June 30.
Historically, the department releases allocations by July 1 to ensure schools can budget and plan effectively for the coming school year. Withholding the money could result in canceled programs, hiring freezes and the loss of essential support for English learners, migrant children and other high-need populations, education and state officials told Stateline.
“America’s public school leaders run district budgets that are dependent on a complex partnership between federal, state, and local funding,” said David R. Schuler, executive director of the School Superintendents Association in a statement. “For decades, school districts have relied on timely confirmation of their federal allocations ahead of the July 1 start of the fiscal year — ensuring stability, allowing for responsible planning, and supporting uninterrupted educational services for students.”
The states facing the largest withheld amounts include California ($810.7 million), Texas ($660.9 million), and New York ($411.7 million), according to data from the NEA and the Learning Policy Institute, an education think tank.
For 17 states and territories, the freeze affects over 15% of their total federal K-12 allocations, according to the Learning Policy Institute. For smaller jurisdictions such as the District of Columbia and Vermont, the disruption hits even harder: More than 20% of their federal K-12 budgets remain inaccessible.
Colorado Education Commissioner Susan Córdova urged school districts to begin contingency planning in case funds are not released before the federal fiscal year ends on Sept. 30. California State Superintendent Tony Thurmond hinted at possible legal action, which has become a trend as states fight the second Trump administration’s funding revocations or delays.
“California will continue to pursue all available legal remedies to the Trump Administration’s unlawful withholding of federal funds appropriated by Congress,” Thurmond said in a statement.
The NEA and the NAACP have filed for a preliminary injunction, calling the administration’s delay an illegal “impoundment” — a violation of the federal Impoundment Control Act, which bars the executive branch from withholding appropriated funds without congressional approval.
Education advocates warn the recent decision by the Trump administration to withhold funding reflects a broader pattern of federal disengagement from public education.
Community nonprofits said the withholding could devastate their programming too. The Boys and Girls Clubs of America could have to close more than 900 centers — bringing the loss of 5,900 jobs and affecting more than 220,000 children, said President and CEO Jim Clark in a statement.
The 1974 Impoundment Control Act lets the president propose canceling funds approved by Congress. Lawmakers have 45 days to approve the request; if they don’t, it’s denied. Meanwhile, agencies can be directed not to spend the funds during that time.
A White House statement shared with States Newsroom this week said “initial findings have shown that many of these grant programs have been grossly misused to subsidize a radical leftwing agenda.”
“Kids, educators, and working families are the ones losing,” said Kusler, of the NEA. “We need governors and communities to step up — now.”
Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.
Login
