Organizers gather in Menomonie, Wisconsin in early December, 2025 to protest against a $1.6 billion data center proposal in their community. Residents’ concerns over data center development in rural Wisconsin revolve around lack of project transparency, water and energy usage, and financial impact on local tax bases. (Stop the Menomonie Data Center Facebook group)

This story was produced by the Daily Yonder

Blaine Halverson joked that his only exposure to data centers was from the Mission Impossible movies in the 1990s. That was, until one came to his town. Over the last seven months, Halverson’s community of Menomonie, Wisconsin, population 16,700, has become a flashpoint in a growing debate over data center development and local control in the state.

Halverson has lived in Menomonie, which is just over an hour east of Minneapolis, for most of his life. Like many others in his rural community, Halverson didn’t know much about the hyperscale data centers, built by the world’s largest technology companies, that are cropping up across the U.S. to power artificial intelligence. Then, in July 2025, Halverson was on vacation with his wife when he learned of a $1.6 billion data center proposal slated for around 320 acres of farmland on the outskirts of Menomonie.

Immediately, Halverson had questions.

“All of a sudden, I was activated,” said Halverson. “What really activated me was how far along this was, and that the public was just finding out.”

Over the next six months, Halverson and dozens of other concerned Menomonie residents coordinated a local opposition campaign that on January 5, 2026, resulted in Menomonie’s City Council revising a zoning ordinance to bar Balloonist, LLC, the developer representing an undisclosed ‘tech giant’, from moving ahead on construction. 

An attorney for Balloonist LLC did not respond to the Daily Yonder’s request for comment.

Halverson’s frustration about the project’s lack of transparency is one that has echoed throughout the state. In other rural counties and in villages sandwiched between larger cities like Milwaukee, Madison, and Green Bay, data center proposals in places like Beaver Dam, Port Washington, and Caledonia have been met with fierce opposition from residents. Developers eyeing land in Greenleaf, a village outside of Green Bay, and in Grant County, which borders the Mississippi River, have also faced community backlash. Commonly cited concerns revolve around project secrecy and the data centers’ projected energy usage, water needs, and financial impact on communities with small tax bases.

Beyond requiring vast amounts of power and water to keep operations running 24/7, large data center proposals in rural areas often represent a significant, if not dominant, share of the community’s tax levy. This leaves residents fearing what will happen if the planned data centers do not live up to their promises, should the stock market take a turn, the developers go bankrupt, or the technology inside the warehouse-like structures become obsolete. 

“They’re not seeing the long-term risks,” said Prescott Balch about the elected officials who push for data center development in Wisconsin’s rural communities. Balch is a retired software developer and former technology executive at U.S. Bank. He also lives in Caledonia, Wisconsin, a rural village south of Milwaukee whose residents ousted a 244-acre Microsoft data center that was slated for land zoned for agriculture in October of 2025. 

“No investment advisor, for example, would ever let you do [that] with your investment portfolio. They’d get fired for saying, ‘Put all your eggs in this one basket.’ It doesn’t matter how solid that one basket is. It’s still one basket with a lot of risk if it walks out the door,” Balch said. 

A hot spot

Over the last year, rural Wisconsin has become somewhat of a hotspot for data center developers. The allure for Big Tech companies racing to build infrastructure to train and run complex AI models comes in the form of tax incentives, low-cost land, and, in many rural communities, flexible zoning codes. 

But residents like Halverson and Balch are taking notice and starting to organize together. Opposition groups that have formed in communities faced with data center proposals are using digital tools like Facebook and Signal to connect with one another across the Badger State. Now, a growing coalition of rural residents and environmental organizations are urging state legislators to regulate data center development and, in some instances, taking legal action to improve transparency. 

The debate over Wisconsin’s data center boom is both rooted in local governance and relevant to the national conversation about rising electricity costs. In an election year, data center infrastructure has become a political issue, yet it’s one that rural coalition members insist is nonpartisan. What’s on the ballot, including a crowded gubernatorial race, could influence that. 

Why Wisconsin?

To grasp why data centers are coming to Wisconsin, you have to understand a particularly wonky part of the state’s tax code, according to Port Washington resident Michael Beaster. A resident of the rural city just north of Milwaukee, Beaster opposes the $15 billion campus being built by Vantage Data Centers to serve end-users Oracle and OpenAI as part of their $500 billion Stargate campaign to develop AI infrastructure across the U.S.

The wonky policy Beaster is talking about is a tax incremental district, or TID.

In Wisconsin, a TID lets developers pay their property taxes into a separate box from the rest of the community as a way to capture property value growth associated with new projects. During construction, a developer, like Vantage, contributes taxes to this special box to cover infrastructure costs associated with their project, like new roads and power lines. Depending on the terms of the TID, that tax money is then kept in the box until all infrastructure costs have been paid, often a period of 15-20 years.

Typically, this kind of tax policy helps small- or medium-scale developers, like new packing plants or housing developments, pay for their associated infrastructure costs over time. With hyperscale data centers, however, rural residents worry that the high costs of the developments’ power and water infrastructure will rack up for the community to pay while the developers’ taxes sit in a special box. 

“If the village decides to raise the tax levy, it comes off the backs of the current residents only, and that is completely and utterly invisible right now to most people,” said Balch, who worked to reject Microsoft’s proposed data center campus in Caledonia last fall.

In November of 2025, the city of Port Washington approved a TID that enables Vantage to pay upfront for the estimated $175 million in infrastructure costs, plus $91 million for an electrical substation and $187 million in interest, associated with their data center campus, including upgraded water and sewer mains and new power infrastructure. Port Washington will then be responsible for paying Vantage back for those infrastructure costs over time.

The TID is set up as a pool of money to remain open for up to 20 years for the city to draw from to reimburse Vantage. Some residents, including Beaster, have expressed concerns that the financing model could end up raising taxes for locals. On January 2, 2026, a Port Washington-based group of activists filed a lawsuit against the city to challenge the TID.

“People don’t want to see their communities handed over to large corporations,” Beaster said.

Port Washington Mayor Ted Neitzke did not respond to the Daily Yonder’s request for clarification on whether the city’s TID would result in higher taxes for residents.

Last summer, a bipartisan measure in Wisconsin’s legislature updated the state’s tax incremental financing policy to exempt data centers from caps on the amount of money that can be held in a TID. The act mentions both Port Washington and Beaver Dam by name and was signed into law by Democratic Governor Tony Evers on July 8, 2025. In addition to TIDs, Wisconsin also offers a sales and use tax exemption to incentivize data center development. The exemptions are offered on a ladder based on a developer’s intended investment and the host county’s population, with less populous counties requiring less investment. For rural counties, the minimum investment required to claim the exemption is $50 million. 

For Asad Ramzanali, former deputy director for strategy at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy under the Biden Administration, it is this kind of policy that goes against the idea that data centers should have to pay their “fair share”.

“When the largest companies, the most well-resourced companies, in the history of the world are behind these data centers, it feels particularly unfair to have states level tax breaks for construction,” Ramzanali told the Daily Yonder.

“People should not have to pay increased utility bills. People should not have to pay for transmission lines going up, [and] people shouldn’t have to deal with dirty water sources because of a data center.”

Nonpartisan, but political

With local pushback to data centers picking up steam, state legislators are taking note. Beaster said that’s a change from the attitude that some legislators had a few months ago, when his rural community members were mobilizing against the data center in Port Washington last summer and fall. 

“When we started really getting involved in trying to mobilize, we tried to write letters and emails and stuff to state legislators, and they just weren’t very responsive,” Beaster said. “It felt to us like they were more interested in bringing these things here than regulating them.” 

In early December, 2025, Democrats introduced a bill to regulate data centers and entice them to take climate-friendly steps. Under the proposed legislation, residents would be protected from footing the utility costs associated with data centers. If passed, the bill would also subject data centers to an annual fee, ranging from $2-3 million, to fund clean energy and low-income heating assistance programs. The legislation also includes a measure to hinge state tax incentives, like the sales and use tax exemption, upon data centers using at least 70% renewable energy. 

In January, 2025, Republicans introduced a data center bill of their own, with similarities including mandated reporting on water usage and restrictions on passing development-related utility costs onto families and small businesses. The Republican legislation would also mandate that data centers wanting to use renewable energy would need to build those energy sources, like solar, on the same property. 

The utility provisions in both the Democrat and Republican-backed bills come as the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC) prepares to hear a case in February of 2026, from We Energies, the state’s largest utility, that will determine how much data centers will have to pay for their infrastructure, and how much gets passed onto other ratepayers. 

We Energies has requested a pay structure that holds data centers accountable for 75% of their capital costs. That request has been challenged by the Wisconsin chapter of the Sierra Club, which argues large customers like data centers should be held responsible for 100% of their associated costs.

“This is the decision for how much the largest utility is making large customers pay, and right now the proposal is really bad for an average residential customer,” said Cassie Steiner, a senior campaign coordinator at Sierra Club. The PSC is expected to hand down a decision on the 2026 rate structure in the spring. 

Even as data center regulation captures lawmakers’ attention at the state capitol in Madison, organizers in Menomonie, Port Washington, and Caledonia maintain that local opposition isn’t tied to party. 

“One of the things that has been really amazing to me about this process is that I know the people I’m standing shoulder-to-shoulder with in this group, a lot of them never vote the same way I would when we go into the into the voting booth in November,” Halverson said of his work in Menomonie. 

“If it’s your farmland and your community, you’re an extreme environmentalist, and if it’s your power bill going up, then you’re a fiscal conservative.”

People travel through Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport on Nov. 7, 2025 in Atlanta, Georgia. (Photo by Megan Varner/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials placed an asylum seeker who is eight months pregnant on a deportation flight Wednesday afternoon, even though she was in medical distress, her attorneys told States Newsroom.

ICE officials and the Department of Homeland Security responded to States Newsroom’s requests for comment, but did not answer questions about the specific case. 

Zharick Daniela Buitrago Ortiz, a 21-year-old national of Colombia, has a pending asylum case, said one of her attorneys, Nora Ahmed, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana. Buitrago Ortiz was also represented by the Robert & Ethel Kennedy Human Rights Center. 

As an asylum seeker, she was going through the credible fear process, a key step to establish an immigrant’s claim for asylum if they can show a fear of persecution or torture in their home country. Asylum seekers are typically allowed to live in the United States while their case proceeds.

Buitrago Ortiz is between 32 and 33 weeks pregnant and was deported from Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. Airport officials did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment. 

Ahmed said flying late in pregnancy can have serious risks. 

Buitrago Ortiz earlier had been detained in a center in Louisiana. She was placed by ICE on a flight from there to Atlanta prior to her removal to Colombia, her attorneys said.

As she waited for the flight to Colombia, Buitrago Ortiz experienced intense, shooting pain in her back and abdomen, according to her attorneys. They said they were also concerned about the risk to her health and that of her unborn child if she was placed on the flight, which is roughly five hours nonstop. 

ICE generally has a policy to not detain immigrants who are pregnant unless there are exceptional circumstances. Democrats in Congress have raised concerns about reports of ICE detainment of pregnant immigrants, and urged ICE acting Director Todd Lyons to order the release of any immigrants who were pregnant from ICE detention facilities. 

Travel during pregnancy can be risky past 28 weeks and can increase the chances of going into labor, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 

Ahmed said as recently as Jan. 18, there had been no indication that Buitrago Ortiz would be removed from the United States. 

Ahmed said Buitrago Ortiz came to the U.S. with her family. Her mother received a favorable credible fear interview, meaning an immigration official believed there was a possibility of harm if she returned to her home country. 

The family arrived in El Paso, Texas, in early November, according to Buitrago Ortiz’s mother, who asked not to be named for fear of harming her own asylum case.

Additionally, Ahmed said the father of Buitrago Ortiz’s child was murdered earlier this month in Colombia. 

“It’s important that we understand that there is a woman in medical distress,” Ahmed said. “The clock is ticking.” 

Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrive to attend the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Shawn Thew-Pool/Getty Images)

The U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee advanced resolutions Wednesday to recommend former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton be held in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with a subpoena the panel issued related to the investigation of late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The votes on both resolutions were bipartisan, though Democrats argued over several points during the nearly day-long meeting. The next step would be consideration by the full House. If approved on the House floor, the matter would be referred to the federal prosecutor’s office in Washington, D.C., and could potentially lead to a fine of up to $100,000 or even prison time of up to one year.

The resolution on Bill Clinton passed 34-8, with all Republicans and nine Democrats voting in favor. 

The Democrats who voted to approve the resolution were Maxwell Frost of Florida, Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois, Summer Lee of Pennsylvania, Stephen Lynch and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, Emily Randall of Washington, Lateefah Simon of California, Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan. 

Yassamin Ansari of Arizona and Dave Min of California voted present. Greg Casar and Jasmine Crockett of Texas did not vote.

The resolution covering Hillary Clinton was narrower, 28-15, with only three Democrats, Lee, Stansbury and Tlaib, voting in favor.

Subpoenas defied by Clintons, others

Republicans on the committee, including Chairman James Comer of Kentucky, said the Clintons defied subpoenas to provide depositions about Epstein’s long-running record of sexual abuse of young girls. 

“No witness, not a former president or a private citizen, may willfully defy a duly issued congressional subpoena without consequence,” Comer said. “But that is what the Clintons did.”

Democrats said they, too, wanted to hear testimony from the Clintons, whose depositions were ordered by bipartisan subpoenas last year, but that the committee Republicans were singling out the couple because of their partisan affiliation. 

Various other officials, of both parties, who’d received subpoenas also did not comply. Neither did Epstein’s co-conspirator, Ghislane Maxwell. 

In addition, the U.S. Department of Justice under President Donald Trump has not turned over documents related to the investigation, despite a November law requiring their full release, Democrats on the panel said. 

Yet only the Clintons, influential Democrats, were being prosecuted for defying the committee, Democrats said.

“It’s interesting that it’s this subpoena only that Republicans and the chairman have been obsessed about putting all their energy behind,” ranking Democrat Robert Garcia, of California, said. 

Comer responded that the other examples were different. Other officials had less personal knowledge of Epstein than the Clintons; Maxwell had said she would invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, obviating the need for testimony; and the Justice Department was working, however slowly, on releasing the millions of documents required under the law, he said.

“As I’ve stated many times publicly, we wish this process was going quicker,” he said. “There’s a lot of documents, a lot of redactions. A lot of eyes have to be put on this. The Department of Justice is complying.”

In an open letter to Comer last week, the Clintons said they were working to assist in the investigation, but complained they were being treated more harshly than other witnesses, while also criticizing Comer’s handling of the case.

“Despite everything that needs to be done to help our country, you are on the cusp of bringing Congress to a halt to pursue a rarely used process literally designed to result in our imprisonment,” they wrote. “This is not the way out of America’s ills, and we will forcefully defend ourselves.”

Negotiations or stalling?

Members of each party argued over various issues the panel members had been negotiating with the Clintons, such as the location of the interview, whether notes or a transcript would be allowed and whether the Clintons could provide written testimony only, as other witnesses had.

Democrats on the panel said the Clintons and their lawyers had been working with the committee in good faith to iron out those issues. But Comer said they were stalling the panel in the hopes that Democrats would retake the House in November.

“We have been negotiating for five months,” Comer said. “This is clearly a stall tactic, hoping that the time clock runs out and the House flips and you all let them off the hook.”

Contrary to Democrats’ argument, not every witness was allowed to offer written testimony, Comer added, including Republican former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr. 

Hillary Clinton inclusion questioned

Bill Clinton had a well-documented personal relationship with Epstein, including travel on the billionaire’s private plane. Photos of the two were among the documents released in the initial tranche the Justice Department provided under the November law.

But Garcia objected to the inclusion of Hillary Clinton in the committee’s resolution Wednesday, saying the available evidence appeared to confirm her public account that she had no knowledge of Epstein’s activities.

“No one who is serious about justice for Epstein’s survivors believes that Hillary Clinton has somehow been involved in Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes,” Garcia said. 

He added that Trump pledged to prosecute Hillary Clinton after he won the 2016 presidential campaign against her. Garcia said it appeared Trump was weaponizing the federal government against a political opponent. 

Other Democrats said the committee was enforcing Trump’s political prosecution.

Comer said Hillary Clinton had a personal relationship with Maxwell and a financial one with Epstein.

Trump also had a personal relationship with Epstein for years. Democrats on the panel repeated Wednesday the widely made assertion that Trump’s Justice Department was shielding the president by resisting the production of documents.

Wisconsin DNR Secretary Karen Hyun testifies to an Assembly committee about legislation to address PFAS contamination. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

A Wisconsin Assembly committee held a hearing Wednesday on a pair of bills to help mitigate and clean up water contamination caused by PFAS — a class of compounds also known as “forever chemicals” that has been tied to cancer and developmental diseases in children. 

For two and a half years, $125 million set aside in the state’s 2023-25 biennial budget to fund the cleanup of PFAS contamination has sat untouched as the Republican-controlled Legislature, Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and a collection of interest groups were unable to reach agreement on how to structure the program and who should be held responsible for the pollution. 

After initial optimism, the first legislative effort died after Democrats and environmental groups complained that the proposal let polluters off the hook. 

While the debate in Madison has dragged on, communities including French Island near La Crosse, the town of Stella near Rhinelander, Wausau and Marinette have continued to face the harms of PFAS-contaminated water. 

When the legislation was introduced again at the beginning of this legislative session, legislators again expressed hope that a compromise could be reached. Earlier this week, the bill’s authors, Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto) and Rep. Jeff Mursau (R-Crivitz), released a proposed amendment to the legislation. One of the bills directs how the money in the trust fund will be directed and the other creates the programs through which the money will flow.

At the hearing Wednesday, the duo emphasized how important it was for them to get the money out the door into affected communities and the need for compromise on the issue. 

“The 2023-2025 budget included $125 million to address PFAS contamination and support cleanup efforts across the state,” Mursau said. “Unfortunately, those funds are sitting idle because we have failed to pass the legislation necessary to put them to work. Progress will require compromise. There are stakeholders on both sides of the aisle who may not like these amendments, but that is the reality of divided government, and it is not an excuse for inaction.” 

The pair said the latest version of the legislation is the result of months of negotiations with the Department of Natural Resources and the Evers administration. 

While the legislation still includes the “innocent landowner” provisions that have been at the heart of the dispute, the amended version tightens the definition of who qualifies. Wimberger said the new definition would still allow the DNR to bring enforcement actions against industries including paper companies and airports, but that the current version represents a lot of movement from the DNR and Evers.

“There was quite a bit of coming off the ledge on the governor’s side regarding innocent landowners,” Wimberger said. 

Additionally, the bill creates a number of programs to test for PFAS and fund mitigation efforts by helping individual landowners dig new wells, helping communities upgrade water treatment systems and funding more comprehensive testing efforts. 

But the language of the proposed amendments shows how difficult it has been for legislators to adjust the dial on Wisconsin’s PFAS policy. The bills now have the support of Evers, the DNR and some of the state’s leading environmental organizations, but industry groups including the state’s largest business lobby, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, and the Wisconsin Paper Council argued at the hearing that the bill would single out certain types of industry for enforcement actions. 

“Substitute Amendment One takes a huge step backwards in terms of protecting truly innocent landowners and passive receivers,” Adam Jordahl, WMC’s director of environmental and energy policy, said, referring to a particular provision of the bill.

WMC in recent years brought and lost a lawsuit that would have prevented the state’s spills law from being applied to entities responsible for PFAS pollution. 

Several industry representatives also threatened that if the amended bills are signed into law, they could invite legal challenges because of “constitutional concerns.” Jordahl said that one of the bills treats municipal facilities such as landfills and water treatment plants differently than private businesses conducting similar activities, which could make the law vulnerable to a lawsuit. 

“This discrimination raises a significant constitutional concern under the concept of equal protection,” he said. “A successful lawsuit raising an equal protection claim could result in the invalidation of those unfairly applied exemptions. Second, as a policy matter, we feel this simply makes no sense. What is the policy justification for treating commercial and industrial or manufacturing facilities differently when they’re conducting the same activities and operating under the same laws and regulations?” 

Paper industry representatives said at the hearing it’s unfair for the bill to single them out because the industry will be subjected to increased scrutiny despite their claims that the business does not cause most PFAS pollution.

Last year, the DNR named a paper mill as the responsible party for the PFAS contamination in Stella, which has seen some of the highest concentrations of the chemicals in the state.

Despite the skepticism from the business community about the latest version of the legislation, lawmakers throughout the Capitol appeared confident that it could finally get across the finish line. 

“I met with Republican lawmakers and the DNR last week about critical PFAS bill changes that will be necessary to garner my support, and I’m really optimistic we’re finally going to be able to get something good done here after months of successful and productive negotiations,” Evers said in a statement. “I’m grateful Republican lawmakers have formally introduced an amendment that reflects the changes we’ve agreed to so far as a sign of good faith. We still have some important details to iron out to make sure DNR has the resources they need, but we’ve made a lot of progress. So, I’m really hopeful.”

Both Evers and Wimberger noted that the only remaining sticking point in the negotiations is how many staff members the DNR will be authorized to hire to support the responsibilities required under the bill. The current version of the amendment authorizes 10 positions while Evers is requesting 13. 

Republican leaders in the Legislature have also signaled that the bill is likely to move forward. 

“I think it’s a move in the right direction,” Senate Majority Leader Devin Lemahieu (R-Oostburg) said. “I think it’s a bill that hopefully our caucus can get behind and maybe finally get that money out the door.”

Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook leaves the U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 21, 2026 in Washington, D.C, after the court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Cook. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Supreme Court justices across the political spectrum appeared skeptical of President Donald Trump’s swift, informal dismissal of Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook, and his effort to influence the independent central bank that governs monetary policy in the United States.

The oral arguments Wednesday drew a high-profile appearance in the courtroom of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell — now a target of a Department of Justice investigation. For months prior to the federal probe, Trump has threatened to fire Powell if the chair did not quickly lower interest rates.

For two hours, the justices heard arguments over whether Cook could remain on the board, as a lower court ruled, while litigation continues examining if Trump violated a “for cause” removal statute when he fired her over social media in late August. 

Trump alleged in an Aug. 25 letter posted to his Truth Social platform that Cook committed financial fraud by lying on mortgage loan documents. Trump declared he had “sufficient cause” to remove Cook based on alleged “deceitful and potentially criminal conduct in a financial matter.”

Under the Federal Reserve Act, the president can only remove board governors “for cause” — as designed by Congress in an effort to preserve the central bank’s independence. 

Trump claims his removals of members of independent government agencies are not reviewable by the courts.

Cook has denied any wrongdoing and challenged the president, the board and Powell, essentially arguing in court that an “unsubstantiated allegation about private mortgage applications,” submitted prior to her Senate confirmation, does not amount to cause for removal. Cook also argued that Trump denied her due process in not giving her notice or a chance to respond to his allegations.

Cook, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, has continued to perform her board duties, without interference from Powell.

Alito questions ‘hurried manner’ of firing

During lengthy questioning of U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer, Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson asked what the risk would be in allowing Cook to remain in her job while the administration made its case to the lower courts.

“The question is: What is the harm of allowing that injunction to remain, because she’s in office now and would just continue?” Brown asked.

Sauer, Trump’s former personal defense lawyer, said the administration asserts “grievous, irreparable injury to the public perception, to the Federal Reserve, of allowing her to stay in office.”

“Do you have evidence related to the public perception, or is this just the president’s view?” Jackson, a Biden appointee, pressed back.

Sauer said the evidence regarding Cook’s two separate mortgage applications was contained in Trump’s “dismissal order,” referring to the letter posted on social media. 

Moments later, Brown asked if Cook was “given the opportunity in some sort of formal proceeding to contest that evidence or explain it?”

“Not a formal proceeding. She was given an opportunity in public,” Sauer said.

“In the world? Like she was supposed to post about it, and that was the opportunity to be heard that you’re saying was afforded to her?” Brown asked.

“Yes,” Sauer replied.

Justice Samuel Alito, one of the high court’s most conservative members, asked Sauer why the removal had to be handled “in such a hurried manner.”

“You began by laying out what you claim to be the factual basis for the for-cause removal, but no court has ever explored those facts. Are the mortgage applications even in the record in this case?” asked Alito, who was appointed to the court under President George W. Bush.

“I know that the text of the social media post that screenshots the mortgage applications is in the record. I don’t recall if the paperwork itself was in the record,” Sauer said.

Federal Reserve independence

Over several minutes of back-and-forth, Justice Brett Kavanaugh pressed Sauer on the importance of the Federal Reserve’s independence.

“Let’s talk about the real world downstream effects of this. Because if this were set as a precedent, it seems to me — just thinking big picture, what goes around, comes around — all the current president’s appointees would likely be removed for cause on Jan. 20, 2029, if there’s a Democratic president, or Jan. 20, 2033,” argued Kavanaugh, who was appointed during Trump’s first term.

“We’re really at, at will removal. So what are we doing here?” he asked.

“I can’t predict what future presidents may or may not do,” Sauer replied.

“Well, history is a pretty good guide. Once these tools are unleashed, they are used by both sides, and usually more the second time around,” Kavanaugh said.

Kavanaugh later challenged Cook’s lawyer, Paul Clement, over whether his argument was “tilting the balance too far the other direction from where the solicitor general is.”

Clement responded, “This is a situation where Congress, political animals, one and all, knew better than anyone that the short-term temptations to lower interest rates and have easy money was a disaster in the long term, but was going to be irresistible. 

“And so they tied their own hands by taking the Fed out of the appropriations process, and they tied the president’s hands,” the Alexandria, Virginia-based attorney said. 

In a statement following arguments, Cook said the case is “about whether the Federal Reserve will set key interest rates guided by evidence and independent judgment or will succumb to political pressure.”

“Research and experience show that Federal Reserve independence is essential to fulfilling the congressional mandate of price stability and maximum employment. That is why Congress chose to insulate the Federal Reserve from political threats, while holding it accountable for delivering on that mandate. For as long as I serve at the Federal Reserve, I will uphold the principle of political independence in service to the American people,” Cook continued in the statement.

Regulating interest rates — to cool inflation or stimulate the economy — is one tool the central bank uses to accomplish its dual mandate on employment and price stability.

Subpoena issued

The arguments occurred just a dozen days after Powell received a federal grand jury subpoena as part of a Department of Justice probe into allegations that he lied to Congress about multi-year renovation costs to the central bank’s District of Columbia headquarters.

The revelation of a federal investigation of Powell ignited sharp criticism, even from some Republicans. 

Powell alleged in a rare video statement that the administration’s “unprecedented action should be seen in the broader context of the administration’s threats and ongoing pressure.”

He continued, “The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the president.”

Trump first nominated Powell in 2017 to head the Federal Reserve, for a four-year term that began in February 2018. Biden reappointed him in 2021, and Powell received overwhelming support in an 80-19 Senate confirmation vote.

Wednesday’s arguments also came less than two months after the Supreme Court heard arguments in Trump’s firing of another member of an independent federal agency, Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter.

the Senate Committee on Organization approved a livestream that will be facilitated by the Legislative Technology Services Bureau. The Wisconsin Senate votes on the state budget in July. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

With WisconsinEye, the state government video streaming service, still offline, the state Senate is planning to livestream its floor session Wednesday when it votes on constitutional amendment proposals as well as bills related to income tax breaks and education. 

According to a Friday memo from the office of Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg), the Senate Committee on Organization approved a livestream that will be facilitated by the Legislative Technology Services Bureau.

The memo states the goal of the stream is to enhance transparency and public availability, and that any use or distribution of the livestream is prohibited. Wednesday will be the first time since WisconsinEye went offline that the full Senate will meet to vote on legislation.

The absence of WisconsinEye, which halted coverage in December due to financial difficulties, means that for the first time since 2007 no organization is livestreaming and archiving meetings in the Legislature. Since Tuesday morning, WisconsinEye has raised more than $40,000 towards the $250,000 goal of  its GoFundMe campaign to cover three months of operating expenses. 

After WisconsinEye ceased coverage, Republicans began enforcing rules banning members of the public from recording committee proceedings. Democrats have criticized that move, saying the Legislature needs to be more transparent. One Republican committee chair told the Examiner that the enforcement of recording rules was in part due to concerns over the use of recordings for political purposes.

The state Assembly has met three times this year, including Tuesday, without sessions being livestreamed. It also has another floor session scheduled for Thursday. 

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) said during a press conference that the presence of journalists at the floor session is why the Assembly is not doing something similar to the Senate in the absence of WisconsinEye. He said he didn’t see the need to try to recreate the service.

“People are reporting on [the floor session]. We are still trying to figure out if there’s a way for us to get WisconsinEye — we’ve had good meetings,” Vos said, adding that he has met with Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) and Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine) on the issue. “I think, in the end, we’ll find some kind of an answer.”

U.S. President Donald Trump gives a speech at the World Economic Forum on Jan. 21, 2026 in Davos, Switzerland. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump announced in a social media post Wednesday that he and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte brokered a possible agreement on Greenland, though Trump provided few details or a timeline. 

Trump’s comments came just hours after he took his case for acquiring the Arctic island to the World Economic Forum in Switzerland, urging European leaders to begin negotiations while appearing to rule out a military takeover. 

A few hours later, Trump wrote after meeting one-on-one with Rutte that the two “have formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region.” 

“This solution, if consummated, will be a great one for the United States of America, and all NATO Nations,” Trump wrote. “Based upon this understanding, I will not be imposing the Tariffs that were scheduled to go into effect on February 1st.”

Trump threatened over the weekend to place a 10% tariff on goods coming into the United States from Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom if they continued to oppose his attempts to acquire Greenland. Trump wrote he would increase the tariffs to 25% in June if a deal hadn’t been brokered before then.

Trump wrote in his most recent social media post that further negotiations about Greenland will be handled by Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and several other officials. 

“Additional discussions are being held concerning The Golden Dome as it pertains to Greenland,” Trump wrote, referring to a possible missile defense system. “Further information will be made available as discussions progress.”

Asked by reporters if the framework includes U.S. ownership of Greenland, Trump declined to say directly.

“It’s a long-term deal. It’s the ultimate long-term deal. And I think it puts everybody in a really good position, especially as it pertains to security and minerals and everything else,” Trump said, later adding it would last “forever.” 

White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly wrote in a statement that if the “deal goes through, and President Trump is very hopeful it will, the United States will be achieving all of its strategic goals with respect to Greenland, at very little cost, forever.”

“President Trump is proving once again he’s the Dealmaker in Chief,” Kelly added. “As details are finalized by all parties involved, they will be released accordingly.”

‘I don’t have to use force’

Trump insisted during the 75-minute, wide-ranging speech he gave a few hours before his announcement that Greenland represents “a core national security interest” that “would greatly enhance the security of the entire” NATO alliance if it were fully controlled by the United States. 

“I’m seeking immediate negotiations to once again discuss the acquisition of Greenland by the United States,” Trump said. “Just as we have acquired many other territories throughout our history, as many of the European nations have … there’s nothing wrong with it.”

Trump signaled he will likely not use the U.S. military to take over Greenland, saying, “I don’t have to use force. I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force.”

But he indicated any European country that objects to the U.S. making Greenland part of the country will face repercussions.

“You can say ‘yes,’ and we will be very appreciative, or you can say ‘no’ and we will remember,” Trump said. 

Greenland would become the site of a missile defense system that Trump refers to as the Golden Dome, which he said could “keep our very energetic and dangerous potential enemies at bay” if the island becomes part of the United States. 

Trump bashes NATO

Trump repeatedly criticized the other NATO countries during his speech, falsely claiming more than once the United States has never benefited from the military alliance formed following World War II. 

“What we have gotten out of NATO is nothing, except to protect Europe from the Soviet Union and now Russia,” Trump said. “I mean, we’ve helped them for so many years.”

The United States is the only country in the history of the alliance to invoke Article 5, which says that an attack against one is an attack against all.

That led NATO countries to send their military members to fight alongside U.S. troops in Afghanistan following the 2001 terrorist attacks. More than 1,000 of those NATO troops died, according to the 9/11 Memorial and Museum. 

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte sought to reassure Trump of NATO’s security commitment to all of its member countries later in the day, when the two met one-on-one during the forum. 

“Let me tell you, they will. And they did in Afghanistan, as you know,” Rutte said, according to audio of the exchange shared by the White House pool.

Rutte noted that for “every two Americans who paid the ultimate price, there was one soldier from another NATO country” or Australia. 

“So you can be assured, absolutely, if ever the U.S. will be under attack, your allies will be with you. Absolutely. There’s an absolute guarantee,” Rutte said. “I really want to tell you this, because this is important. It pains me if you think it is not.”

Trump told reporters ahead of his meeting with Rutte that he “could see” paying a price for Greenland, though he did not elaborate. He said he had “no idea” when he might speak directly with leaders of Denmark about trying to acquire Greenland. He said he believes Rutte is “frankly more important.”

Investors and single-family homes

Trump focused some of his speech in Davos on domestic issues, talking briefly about an executive order he signed this week focused on the availability of housing within the United States. 

“I have signed an executive order banning large institutional investors from buying single-family homes. It’s just not fair to the public. They’re not able to buy a house,” Trump said. “And I’m calling on Congress to pass that ban into permanent law, and I think they will.”

Trump said he wanted to take steps to help Americans afford homes, but that he didn’t want those actions to reduce the value of homes people already own. He didn’t elaborate on how that would work. 

“I am very protective of people that already own a house, of which we have millions and millions and millions. And because we have had such a good run, the house values have gone up tremendously, and these people have become wealthy. They weren’t wealthy. They become wealthy because of their house,” he said. “And every time you make it more and more and more affordable for somebody to buy a house cheaply, you’re actually hurting the value of those houses, obviously, because the one thing works in tandem with the other.”

Trump said if he wanted to, he could “really crush the housing market” and decrease housing prices, though he didn’t say how exactly he would go about doing that if he wanted to. 

Trump said he’s ordered “government-backed institutions to purchase up to $200 billion in mortgage bonds,” and that he expects to announce a new Federal Reserve chairman “in the not-too-distant future,” who he believes will decrease interest rates. Trump has been feuding over interest rates with Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, whose term as chair ends in May although Powell can remain as a governor. 

Trump also called on Congress to approve legislation that would prevent credit card companies from hiking their interest rates above 10% for one year, saying that would help people save some money that they could use for buying a house. 

President Donald Trump waved and pointed to the crowd as he exited the stage following his remarks at the Iowa State Fairgrounds July 3, 2025 at an event kicking off a yearlong celebration leading up to America’s 250th anniversary. (Photo by Robin Opsahl/Iowa Capital Dispatch)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump is scheduled to travel to Iowa on Jan. 27 to deliver a speech focused on the economy and energy, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles told reporters Wednesday. 

The president is expected to begin weekly travel ahead of the midterm elections — in which the GOP is aiming to improve its razor-thin majority in the U.S. House and maintain its lead in the U.S. Senate. 

The anticipated travel will also come as Trump seeks to boost his affordability policy blitz and as the cost of living marks a focal point of the midterm elections. On Tuesday, stocks plunged after Trump doubled down on threats to acquire Greenland and pledged tariffs on eight European countries that opposed his plans. 

While traveling to Davos, Switzerland, with Trump for the World Economic Forum, Wiles told the traveling press that officials in Trump’s Cabinet would also be increasing their domestic travel. 

The timing and location of the Iowa event have yet to be announced. Trump last visited the Hawkeye State in July 2025, which marked the beginning of a yearlong celebration heading into the 250th anniversary of the country. 

Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance is slated to be in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on Thursday for a roundtable with local leaders and community members, according to his office Wednesday. 

The vice president will also give remarks centered on “restoring law and order in Minnesota.”

 Thousands of Minnesotans have been protesting the Immigration and Customs Enforcement presence there following the Jan. 7 fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renee Good by a federal agent.

Vance is also set to make a visit to an industrial shipping facility, in Toledo, Ohio, on Thursday, according to his office. 

Vance is set to deliver remarks there focused on the administration’s “commitment to lower prices, bigger paychecks, and creating more good-paying jobs in Ohio and across the Midwest,” per his office. 

“This bill is not coming from left field… This is something we've been talking about," Rep. Shannon Zimmerman said about his data center regulation bill. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

The Assembly passed a Republican bill Tuesday to implement state regulations on data centers being built in Wisconsin. Democratic lawmakers said the measure wouldn’t effectively hold companies accountable, hold down electric rates for Wisconsinites or protect the environment.

Data center development is booming in Wisconsin. Microsoft this week proposed adding 15 data centers to a project in Mount Pleasant. Some projects in development has triggered pushback from area residents. According to datacentermap.com, there are at least 40 data centers currently in the state and more in development. Local governments, including in Madison, where the city council became the first in the state to pass a one-year moratorium on approvals for data center projects, are considering their roles in regulating or pushing forward projects. 

AB 840, coauthored by Rep. Shannon Zimmerman (R-River Falls) and Sen. Romaine Quinn (R-Birchwood), establishing regulations of data centers, passed 53-44. Rep. Joy Goeben (R-Hobart) joined Democrats voting against the bill, while Rep. Steve Doyle and Jodi Emerson (D-Eau Claire) voted with Republicans in favor of the bill.

“This bill balances the strategic and economic benefits of AI and data centers to the state while balancing concerns that ratepayers may have over energy, and that some may have over environmental implications,” Zimmerman said at a press conference ahead of the floor session.

Democratic lawmakers were critical of the bill, saying it doesn’t go far enough to protect Wisconsinites. 

“We need to take action to regulate data centers, but we need to get it right. Unfortunately, the GOP bill that we’re voting on today will not do what it promises,” Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine) told reporters ahead of the floor session, adding that the bill process was “rushed.” The GOP bill was introduced on Jan. 9, and received a public hearing on Jan. 14. 

“It will not hold corporations accountable in the way that we should, and it doesn’t protect our communities entirely from the higher energy costs that are being discussed,” Neubauer said.  She asserted that Republican lawmakers “don’t actually want to regulate data centers or large corporations.” 

Zimmerman said the bill is responsive to concerns from constituents.

“Hands down the concerns are concern over ratepayer protection, concern over water, concern over land, and protection of those sort of things,” Zimmerman said. “This bill is not coming from left field… This is something we’ve been talking about.”  

Whether the bill becomes law is up in the air. It must pass the Senate and be signed by Gov. Tony Evers, who has expressed some skepticism about it.

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Evers’ spokesperson Britt Cudaback said on Jan. 14 that “the one thing environmentalists, labor, utilities, and data center companies can all agree on right now is how bad Republican lawmakers’ data center bill is.” 

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) said he didn’t know why Evers “would ever consider vetoing this bill, especially considering the fact that it is really based on what the citizens have said.” 

“I don’t think being on the side of not wanting data center regulation is anywhere near the middle, so we have been very thoughtful in what we put forward,” Vos said. 

The Republican bill includes a number of requirements including having the Public Service Commission (PSC) ensure that no costs related to construction of electric infrastructure for data centers are allocated to other customers and requiring that any renewable energy facilities that are primarily serving a data center must be located within the data center site. Democratic lawmakers said the requirement would stifle the development of renewable energy in Wisconsin and expansion of the state’s energy portfolio. 

“Their limits on renewable energy would come at a significant cost to consumers and are clearly a continuation of the GOP’s ongoing allegiance with the fossil fuel industry,” Neubauer said. 

Zimmerman said, however, that requiring renewable sources on site would ensure that a local community is benefiting from jobs that are created. 

Under the bill, water used for cooling purposes in a data center is required to be contained in a “closed-loop cooling system,” or “or any other system that uses an amount of water equal to or less than the amount that a closed-loop cooling system would use.” A closed-loop cooling system uses a fixed amount of water to keep data centers cool.

An amendment to the bill states that the requirements will only apply to large data centers that begin operating or undergo construction after the bill takes effect.

Data center operators also will be required to submit annual reports to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) on the total amount of water used in a year. An amendment to the bill also says that data center developers should as much as possible encourage hiring of Wisconsin residents. 

“This bill is not a reaction to any of those data centers acting in various ways. This is just smart legislation to make sure we have the rules of the road going forward,” Zimmerman said. 

The bill also says no one can  operate a large data center unless they file a bond in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of fulfilling any required reclamation with the DNR.

An amendment to the bill also clarifies that if the permit granted for the construction of a large data center expires before the center is finished, then the owner must notify the DNR and local government. It requires that if it isn’t finished by the date then the owner must work to restore the land as much as possible. 

Zimmerman said the provision gives flexibility to local governments for recourse in the case  a project is abandoned. 

According to the Wisconsin Lobbying website, the Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation and the Associated Builders and Contractors of Wisconsin Inc. registered in favor of the bill. There are several more groups registered against the bill, including Wisconsin Conservation Voters and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Construction Electrician Local Unions. 

Democratic lawmakers, led by Rep. Angela Stroud (D-Ashland) and Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay), have proposed their own legislation to regulate data centers. That bill, AB 722, would place data centers in their own class of “very large customers” to ensure that everyday ratepayers don’t bear the costs of data centers’ energy demands. It would also take steps to regulate data centers and encourage renewable energy use. Lawmakers introduced the bill as an amendment during the floor session, but Republican lawmakers voted it down.

Stroud said the GOP bill is a “concept of an idea.” 

“There’s nothing in the bill that the PSC could actually implement to do the job it says it’s going to do,” Stroud said. 

Stroud said her proposal, while “not perfect,” would “get us as close as possible to the central goal of protecting the public by controlling costs, creating transparency and making sure that we’re keeping as much value in our communities as possible.”

Under the Democratic bill, data center companies would be required to pay an annual fee to the Department of Administration (DOA); revenue which would go towards renewable energy programs. It would also have companies submit quarterly reports to the PSC on the amount of energy being used by data centers as well as information on the source of the energy. Water utilities would also need to publicly report when a single customer will account for more than 25% of the total water usage in the district. 

The bill would require that companies pay workers at construction sites the prevailing wage rate or if the employee is a union member, then the rate in the worker’s collective bargaining agreement — whichever rate is higher. It also says that to qualify for sales tax exemptions available to data centers under current law, companies would need to meet labor requirements and source 70% of their energy from renewable sources.

Vos said that the Democratic bill will “have very little impact on the average person unless you’re a union activist or someone who wants renewable energy everywhere.”

A bill to regulate Wisconsin's cottage food industry has drawn opposition from home bakers. (Photo courtesy of Becca Barth)

A Wisconsin Senate committee held a public hearing Tuesday on legislation that would create a regulatory system for the cottage food industry in Wisconsin. 

In the hearing of the Committee on Transportation and Local Government, representatives of restaurants, commercial bakeries and grocery stores supported the proposal arguing that the bill would treat all food sellers equally, while the home bakers who would be affected by the bill complained that it would institute harsh income restrictions while subjecting them to requirements that aren’t relevant to the specifics of selling food out of a home kitchen. 

Authored by Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto), the bill has largely Republican support but Milwaukee-area Democratic Reps. Russell Goodwin and Sylvia Ortiz-Velez have signed on as co-sponsors. 

Under the bill, cottage food producers would be required to register with the state Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. As part of that registration, people would need to provide a list of all the foods they sell and an ingredient list for each item. Any producer that earns between $10,000 and $40,000 in revenue from their home business would be subject to inspections by DATCP. 

Anyone who makes more than $40,000 in revenue would no longer be considered a cottage food producer and would be required to obtain work space in a commercial kitchen. 

The cottage food industry in Wisconsin was allowed to grow after a 2017 lawsuit struck down a state law banning the sale of home baked goods. Since then, the state has operated with just the court precedent guiding the industry. 

Throughout the hearing, commercial industry representatives pushed for the passage of the bill as it’s written. Lobbying records show that the Wisconsin Bakers Association, Wisconsin Restaurants Association and Wisconsin Grocers Association have supported the bill. 

“You have created these rules for me, and I get to be surprise inspected and tested on them to ensure consumer food safety,” Chrissy Meisner, owner of a bakery in Bloomer and member of the Wisconsin Bakers Association, said. “It is clear, even in my small town, that your honor system of them following the rules doesn’t work. There seems to be a need for the same oversight you require of me to sell bread and cookies applied to everyone.”

While much of the testimony in favor of the bill focused on food safety issues, some of those in favor also said they were concerned about competition from home producers. 

“There’s only so much food that can be sold into a community,” Susan Quam, executive vice president of the Wisconsin Restaurant Association, said. “And everyone needs to fight for their share of those sales, whether it’s the grocery store, the local bakery, the restaurant or the cottage food baker. However, the first three are regulated, licensed, and have a lot of different and additional requirements that are put upon them to get that same very low profit margin.”

Home producers at the hearing said they would welcome regulation to tame their industry’s current wild west landscape, just not the regulations under the bill as currently written. The Wisconsin Farmers Union and the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty have both lobbied against the bill. 

The 2017 lawsuit that helped the industry bloom was litigated by the Institute for Justice, a national non-profit law firm focused on civil liberties. Ellen Hamlett, the organization’s activism manager, said she believes there’s “been a lot of industry pressure” to draft the current version of the bill. 

“Wisconsin’s cottage food laws are overdue for reform,” Hamlett said. “It is very important to note that the way that this bill is structured will jeopardize the living of many cottage food producers.”

Jobea Murray, president of the Wisconsin Cottage Food Association, said that the bill represents a huge administrative burden for both the home producers and for DATCP, which will not receive any additional funding for implementing the registration and inspection requirements under the bill. She also said the food safety certifications required under the bill are specific to restaurant-like settings, which won’t help make home produced products safer. 

“So we want to work with you to get this right,” Murray said. “[The bill] is a great starting point, but it needs significant changes to truly support Wisconsin’s cottage food economy.”

A lot of the opposition to the bill was centered around the $40,000 revenue cap. Several speakers noted that most states that allow the sale of cottage foods have no cap or else set their caps much higher. Iowa and Illinois do not set a cap on their cottage food sales while Minnesota’s revenue cap is $78,000.

The sun sets over a playground across the street from a group of apartments where many Somali people live in the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood of Minneapolis (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

Our church stands one short block from where an ICE agent took the life of Renee Good. A few days later, the violence ICE is perpetrating in our city arrived, literally, on our doorstep: Armed masked men raided our neighbors’ homes, remaining at our corner for two long hours. As we prayed and cared for those around us, several of our pastors and staff were among those who were pepper-bombed.

Our city is under siege, and when we asked the children in our congregation how they are feeling, they told us, unsurprisingly, that they feel scared. One youth, the child of an immigrant, texted his grandmother in the middle of the night: “I’m scared every day i live in fear and I don’t know what to do if your awake please call me.”

How can we comfort our children? We feel scared too.

And so, in this climate of fear, we turn to that life-affirming work. Immigrant families are afraid to venture outside. We’ve had to cancel our children’s choir practice until we can confidently gather the children safely.

Yet a few children and their moms still rallied to go grocery shopping for immigrant families, delivering boxes to a local McDonald’s where many immigrants work. In distributing Happy Meals to the appreciative children, the assistant manager offered a lesson in how mutual care strengthens the bonds of community. “When you share,” he explained in his accented English, “we share.”

We wish that feeding one another during these terrible times would be enough. But our young people tell us it is not. As one of our youth said, “I want to make sure my friends are not stolen from their families.” Another child asked, “Could you make ICE disappear? They hurt people.”

Jesus understood what it meant to live under an occupying force — in his case, the Roman Empire. He understood the helplessness. He understood the stakes, and yet he persisted in showing us, before ultimately dying from the violence, that another way — a way of love — is possible.

So we will continue to deliver groceries. We will make arrangements so that, if the unfathomable happens, the children can stay with other families. And from the epicenter of this occupation, we send out the children’s plea: Please. Make the people who are hurting people disappear.

State Rep. Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee), shown here at a September 2025 press conference, said on the Assembly floor Tuesday that the UI bill would "take away benefits from the people who need them the most." (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

On a party-line vote, a bill changing Wisconsin’s unemployment insurance laws, which Gov. Tony Evers’ office said he will veto, passed the Assembly  Tuesday.

The bill would allow people collecting federal disability payments to remain eligible for unemployment insurance if they lose a job. But it would cut their jobless pay by half the value of their disability pay.

The bill was sent to the Legislature from the joint labor-management Unemployment Insurance Advisory Council, which negotiates on a proposed “agreed-upon bill” every two years.

Historically the council’s bills have enjoyed broad support and easy passage, but the current measure, AB 652, includes changes that prompted opposition from Democrats. Evers’ spokesperson told the Wisconsin Examiner on Jan. 7 that the governor will veto the bill if it reaches his desk.

The bill is the first jobless pay measure in more than a decade to raise the maximum benefit, increasing it by $25 a week to $395. Critics argue that is inadequate.

The critics also object to reducing jobless pay for people who receive Social Security Disability Income, and to the measure’s proposed new strictures on the unemployment insurance system that Evers has previously vetoed.

A federal judge in July 2025 ordered the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development to stop enforcing a ban on unemployment compensation for SSDI recipients that was enacted in 2013. The judge ruled a year earlier that the ban violated federal laws protecting people with disabilities.

Before voting on the advisory council’s unemployment insurance bill Tuesday, Assembly Republicans voted 53-44 to block Democrats from passing a substitute amendment removing provisions they opposed and increasing the value of jobless pay. They went on to pass the unamended bill by the same 53-44 margin.

The Democratic amendment would have repealed the state’s ban on unemployment compensation for SSDI recipients, but without the financial penalty. The amendment also included a $127 increase in the maximum benefit through Jan. 2, 2027, followed by annual increases in line with the consumer price index. In addition, it increased the cap on how much income a laid-off person could make in a week while continuing to qualify for jobless pay.

“Wisconsinites deserve adequate unemployment benefits. This amendment is a step towards being able to do just that,” said Rep. Maureen McCarville (D-DeForest).

At a state Senate hearing Jan. 7, Scott Manley, a lobbyist for Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce and chair of the advisory council’s management caucus, defended the council bill’s jobless pay penalty for SSDI recipients, arguing that it would treat disability pay like other sources of income people get while they collect unemployment insurance.

“If you have additional income … that income is going to offset your unemployment benefits,” Manley said. “Unemployment is supposed to provide a temporary safety net of additional income for people who lose their job through no fault of their own.”

On the Assembly floor Tuesday, Rep. Chris Sinicki (D-Milwaukee) — who in the past has supported advisory council bills but came out against the council’s legislation in this session — reiterated her opposition. She said a constituent on the autism spectrum qualifies for SSDI and works part-time at a local library, allowing her to live independently.

“Without that part-time job, she could not afford to be independent,” Sinicki said. “I sure as heck do not want to be one to vote to take away benefits from the people who need them the most.”

A voter casts a paper ballot in Virginia. Despite two recent legal setbacks, the Trump administration has sued the Virginia elections commissioner in its quest to obtain sensitive voter data. (Photo by Markus Schmidt/Virginia Mercury)

The Trump administration has sued another state — Virginia — in its quest to obtain sensitive voter data, despite two recent legal setbacks in suits against other states.

The Justice Department on Friday sued Susan Beals, the elections commissioner in Virginia, after months of seeking a copy of the state’s voter registration lists, including individual names, addresses, dates of birth and Social Security numbers.

“Virginia becomes the next state sued for ignoring federal law!” U.S. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon wrote on the social media platform X.

The Trump administration has sued more than 20 states, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, in what the administration frames as a quest to ensure that states are properly maintaining voter rolls, that ineligible people are kept off rolls and that only citizens are voting.

The U.S. Department of Justice is sharing state voter roll information with the Department of Homeland Security in a search for noncitizens, the Trump administration confirmed in September.

While election officials stress that well-maintained voter rolls are important, President Donald Trump and some of his Republican allies have long promoted baseless claims of widespread voter fraud.

In the Virginia case, the Justice Department claims it was reassured by the administration of former Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin that it would hand over voter rolls. But that did not occur and Youngkin was term-limited. On Saturday, Democrat Abigail Spanberger was sworn in as Virginia’s 75th governor.

Beals, the elections commissioner, was appointed by Youngkin in 2022. The state election department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Last week, similar federal lawsuits hit roadblocks in California and Oregon.

U.S. District Court Judge David Carter dismissed a lawsuit by the Department of Justice against California seeking voter information, calling the request “unprecedented and illegal.” Just a day earlier, a separate federal judge said from the bench he planned to dismiss a similar lawsuit against Oregon.

Democratic secretaries of state have criticized the federal government’s data requests, calling them an unwarranted attempt by the Trump administration to exercise federal power over elections. Under the U.S. Constitution, states administer elections, though Congress can regulate them.

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org. 

Minneapolis mayor Jacob Frey speaks at a press conference addressing reports that the Trump administration is sending around 100 federal immigration agents to Minnesota, specifically targeting the Somali community Tuesday, Dec. 2, 2025. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

Days after news leaked of a criminal investigation of Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey over their handling of immigration enforcement in Minnesota, the U.S. Department of Justice has delivered subpoenas to the offices of Walz and Frey, as well as St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty.

The New York Times first reported the delivery of the subpoenas, and other national outlets also confirmed that reporting.

The subpoenas are an extraordinary escalation of the ongoing conflict between the Trump administration and Minnesota, where heavily-armed, masked federal agents now outnumber all the metro police departments combined, frequently using tactics a federal judge has called unconstitutional.

When the investigation became public last week, Walz replied in a statement: “Two days ago it was Elissa Slotkin. Last week it was Jerome Powell. Before that, Mark Kelly,” he said, referring to the U.S. senators who made a video telling U.S. servicemembers that they can and must refuse illegal orders, as well as the chairman of the Federal Reserve, who has refused to lower interest rates as quickly as Trump desires. “Weaponizing the justice system and threatening political opponents is a dangerous, authoritarian tactic,” Walz said.

Ellison, who’s sued the Trump administration more than 30 times in the past year, said the investigation is being used to distract: “Instead of seriously investigating the killing of Renee Good, Trump is weaponizing the justice system against any leader who dares stand up to him,” referring to the Minneapolis woman shot by federal officer Jonathan Ross earlier this month. “Donald Trump is coming after the people of Minnesota and I’m standing in his way. I will not be intimidated and I will not stop working to protect Minnesotans from Trump’s campaign of retaliation and revenge,” Ellison said.

Frey called the investigation “an obvious attempt to intimidate me for standing up for Minneapolis, our local law enforcement and our residents against the chaos and danger this administration has brought to our streets.”

He added: “I will not be intimidated.”

Her, whose tenure as St. Paul mayor began earlier this month, said in a statement that Trump “promised retribution, and consistent with that promise, we received a subpoena today from the U.S. Attorney’s Office. I am unfazed by these tactics, and I stand firm in my commitment to protect our residents, neighbors and community.”

The Washington Post reported that “the subpoenas suggest that the Justice Department is examining whether Walz’s and Frey’s public statements disparaging the surge of officers and federal actions have amounted to criminal interference in law enforcement work.”

Walz, who announced earlier this month he won’t seek a third term, also used his statement last week to criticize the federal government for not properly investigating the killing of Renee Good by federal immigration officer Jonathan Ross. “The only person not being investigated for the shooting of Renee Good is the federal agent who shot her,” he said.

Six prosecutors in the Minnesota Office of U.S. Attorney quit last week, The New York Times reported, because they objected to their bosses’ push to investigate the widow of Good and their ties to anti-ICE groups.

The ICE surge, which has put as many as 3,000 federal agents in the state — or nearly five times the number of sworn officers with the Minneapolis Police Department — is just the latest round of an ongoing conflict between Minnesota and the federal government. Fraud in Minnesota’s social programs — often funded in whole or part by the federal government — has caught the attention of right-wing media and activists, and the Trump administration has followed with a wide array of investigations of Minnesota programs across a range of agencies.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is auditing Hennepin Healthcare — Minnesota’s largest safety net hospital — for compliance with immigrant employment eligibility laws.

The Trump administration has frozen child care payments and halted small business grants. The administration also says it’s investigating possible housing assistance fraud and looking into Minnesota’s unemployment insurance program. The federal government has also attempted to withhold funds to Minnesota for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps, but a federal court issued a preliminary injunction.

Earlier this week, Trump said he would cut all federal funding to Minnesota and other states that have sanctuary cities beginning Feb. 1, but it’s unclear what that means and few details have been released.

A masked U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent knocks on a car window in Minnesota on Jan. 12. A new court ruling allows ICE to use Medicaid data, alarming some states and advocates who warn it could have a chilling effect on immigrant families accessing health care. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

In a win for President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, a recent court ruling has cleared the way for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to resume using states’ Medicaid data to find people who are in the country illegally.

The case is ongoing. But for now, immigrants — including those who are in the country legally — will have to weigh the benefits of gaining health coverage against the risk that enrolling in Medicaid could make them or their family members easier for ICE to find.

Last summer, 22 states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration to block information sharing between ICE and Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program that primarily covers people with low incomes. But at the end of December, a federal judge ruled that ICE can pull some basic Medicaid data to use in its deportation proceedings, including addresses, phone numbers, birth dates and citizenship or immigration status.

The court ruled that in the states that sued, ICE is not allowed to collect information about lawful permanent residents or citizens, nor records about sensitive health information. In the 28 states that didn’t sue, however, the court did not place any limits on the Medicaid information ICE can access.

The U.S. District Court in San Francisco essentially said that government agencies can share some data, including basic identifying information. “That kind of data sharing is clearly authorized by statute,” the decision states.

But the court also ruled that agencies can’t share more sensitive data without adequately explaining why they need it. In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria wrote that ICE and federal Medicaid information-sharing policies were “totally unclear and do not appear to be the product of a coherent decisionmaking process.” He said the states had shown they would “suffer irreparable harm from these vague and likely overbroad” policies.

By law, federal Medicaid money cannot be used to cover people who are in the country illegally.

But in recent years, nearly half of states, including some led by Republicans, have chosen to use their own Medicaid money to extend coverage to certain groups of people, such as children and pregnant women, regardless of immigration status.

Advocates for immigrants and some state officials worry that ICE’s use of Medicaid data will cause widespread fear among immigrant families, keeping them from seeking the health care that states have said they’re eligible to receive. California’s health department recently called the administration’s actions “a grave breach of public trust.”

“States have constantly reassured people that their health care information won’t be used against them, and that’s changed,” said Tanya Broder, senior counsel for health and economic justice policy at the National Immigration Law Center, an advocacy organization focused on immigrant rights.

Court filings in the lawsuit illustrate the potential impact of the ruling.

In Chicago, for example, a patient at an Esperanza Health Center delayed her first prenatal visit until her third trimester because she worried enrolling in Medicaid could put her husband at risk of deportation, the clinic reported in a December court filing. By the time she received care, she had complications that could have been addressed with earlier health visits. Another patient refused to apply for Medicaid for her child, a U.S. citizen, because she worried that seeking benefits would allow ICE to locate her.

“The expectation of privacy that we all have when we seek to enroll in a health care program has been compromised,” said Broder.

“Not only undocumented immigrants but people who live in families with immigrants and the broader community are going to feel less comfortable in applying for these health programs, over concerns their information is going to be weaponized against them or their family members.”

An about-face

Several months into Trump’s second term, ICE gained access to the personal data of 79 million Medicaid enrollees as part of its efforts to find people who may be living illegally in the United States.

Data on Medicaid enrollees is routinely exchanged between states and the feds, including to verify eligibility to receive federal funding. But the new agreement marked an about-face from past federal policies of not using such information for immigration enforcement.

The effort is unprecedented at the national level, said Medha Makhlouf, a law professor at Penn State Dickinson Law who specializes in health and immigration.

“Previously the federal government has balanced immigration enforcement interests with the protection of health-related interests,” she said. “Now they’re weighing much more heavily the interests of immigration enforcement.”

That puts the federal government at odds with states that have expanded health coverage as a matter of public health and economic policy, she said. Many states have extended coverage to a wider swath of people on the premise that broader coverage helps prevent the spread of disease, prioritizes preventive care over more costly emergency treatment and reduces economic losses when employees miss work because of illness.

The judge’s order will stand until the case is resolved, as the judge considers what kinds of data can be released for use in immigration enforcement.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, said in a July statement that the Trump administration’s data-sharing move was illegal and “created a culture of fear that will lead to fewer people seeking vital emergency medical care.”

Federal officials say they’re allowed to use lawfully collected information for immigration enforcement purposes.

The Department of Homeland Security and ICE did not respond to requests for comment.

Broder, of the National Immigration Law Center, said it isn’t clear whether the limited information the court has allowed the Department of Homeland Security to use can be cleanly separated from data belonging to citizens and lawful permanent residents. The ruling says that if that basic data can’t be separated from data that’s still protected, Medicaid can’t share it with ICE.

California’s Department of Health Care Services, which administers the state’s Medicaid program, emphasized that concern in a statement updated earlier this month. The department said the feds haven’t provided any information about how they plan to implement the court’s order.

Meanwhile, some states are looking at their options for protecting their Medicaid data. Oregon Health Authority Director Dr. Sejal Hathi called the move to use Medicaid data for immigration enforcement “disappointing, to say the least” in a public board meeting earlier this month.

She said her agency is “committed to doing all that we can within our authority to protect the health privacy of our members” and is working with health providers to “ensure that Oregonians, no matter their background, can continue to seek and receive quick and responsive health care without worrying about the safety of their health information.”

States step up

In recent years, an increasing number of states have used their own money to extend health insurance coverage under their Medicaid programs to some noncitizens, such as people with green cards, refugees and those with temporary protected status.

For example, 14 states and the District of Columbia cover income-eligible children regardless of immigration status, while seven states and the district offer state-funded coverage to some adults with low incomes, regardless of immigration status. Nearly half of states — including a handful of red states — cover income-eligible pregnant women, regardless of their immigration status.

Makhlouf, of Penn State, directs a legal clinic at her law school where law students assist people who face legal barriers to getting health care and other public benefits. The students have fielded questions from parents — even those who are in the country legally — who have asked if applying for Medicaid for their children, who are U.S. citizens, jeopardizes their own legal status or exposes household members to scrutiny from ICE.

“We see the chilling effects directly,” Makhlouf said. “Folks have many more questions about the risks versus the benefits of applying for government programs. It should be an easy decision for families to accept help, but it’s not easy anymore.”

In the past year, the Trump administration also has ordered states to hand over personal data from sources including voter rolls and food stamps, even as it consolidates information held across federal agencies into a trove of information on people who live in the United States.

In November, a federal judge blocked the IRS from sharing taxpayer information for immigration purposes.

Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at avollers@stateline.org.

People hold Greenlandic flags as they gather to march in protest against U.S. President Donald Trump and his announced intent to acquire Greenland on Jan. 17, 2026 in Nuuk, Greenland. (Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump showed no signs Tuesday of backing off his goal to acquire Greenland, after saying over the weekend he would place a 10% tariff on eight European countries that object to his plans and posting several times on social media.

Trump’s insistence that the United States gain control of the Arctic island from Denmark came just hours before he was set to travel to Davos, Switzerland, to meet with other world leaders at the World Economic Forum.

Trump said during an afternoon press conference that threatening tariffs on allied countries that oppose his plans is “the best, the strongest, the fastest, the easiest, the least complicated” way to obtain Greenland. 

Trump said he has “other alternatives” and that people will “find out” how far he’s willing to go to make Greenland part of the United States, though he seemed somewhat optimistic he can reach a deal. 

“I think that we will work something out where NATO is going to be very happy and where we’re going to be very happy,” Trump said, referring to the military alliance founded after World War II. “But we need it for security purposes, we need it for national security and even world security. It’s very important.”

Trump said he plans to talk with people living in Greenland when asked about residents not wanting to become part of the United States.

“I haven’t spoken to them,” Trump said. “When I speak to them, I’m sure they’ll be thrilled.”

Trump posts about Greenland repeatedly

Trump posted on social media numerous times earlier Tuesday and throughout the weekend, pressing other leaders to help him secure Greenland, despite ongoing opposition. 

“I had a very good telephone call with Mark Rutte, the Secretary General of NATO, concerning Greenland,” Trump posted at 12:26 a.m. “I agreed to a meeting of the various parties in Davos, Switzerland. As I expressed to everyone, very plainly, Greenland is imperative for National and World Security. There can be no going back — On that, everyone agrees!” 

Trump posted an altered image of him showing a map to European leaders that had a version of the U.S. flag covering Canada, Greenland and Venezuela. He also posted a fabricated image of him planting the U.S. flag in Greenland and declaring it a territory with Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio standing behind him. Both were published around 1 a.m.

Trump posted screenshots of text message conversations with Rutte, who pledged to find “a way forward on Greenland” as well as French President Emmanuel Macron, who told Trump that he does “not understand what you are doing on Greenland,” and asked to set up a dinner in Paris with other world leaders to discuss the issue this week. 

Trump said during his press conference that he didn’t intend to accept Macron’s invitation. 

“No, I wouldn’t do that,” Trump said. “Because, you know, Emmanuel is not going to be there very long and, you know, there’s no longevity there. He’s a friend of mine. He’s a nice guy. I like Macron. But he’s not going to be there very much longer as you know. And I think I have meetings with the people that are directly involved.”

Island of Diego Garcia

Trump posted to social media again around 1:38 a.m., this time criticizing the United Kingdom over its plans “to give away the Island of Diego Garcia, the site of a vital U.S. Military Base, to Mauritius, and to do so FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER.”

“There is no doubt that China and Russia have noticed this act of total weakness. These are International Powers who only recognize STRENGTH, which is why the United States of America, under my leadership, is now, after only one year, respected like never before,” Trump added. “The UK giving away extremely important land is an act of GREAT STUPIDITY, and is another in a very long line of National Security reasons why Greenland has to be acquired. Denmark and its European Allies have to DO THE RIGHT THING.”

A BBC news article from September 2024, where one of its reporters was granted access to the island, notes that “Diego Garcia is one of about 60 islands that make up the Chagos Archipelago or British Indian Ocean Territory (Biot) – the last colony established by the UK by separating it from Mauritius in 1965. It is located about halfway between East Africa and Indonesia.”

The U.K. and U.S. originally signed a 50-year lease in 1966 that was later extended for 20 years and is set to end in 2036, according to the BBC article. 

A U.S. military website states that access to “Diego Garcia is restricted, requiring area clearance by U.S. Navy Support Facility Diego Garcia.”

Tariffs, text messages, Nobel Peace Prize

Trump posted on social media Saturday that he would place a 10% tariff on goods coming into the United States from Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom before increasing that to 25% in June if the countries continue to oppose his attempts to acquire Greenland. 

Trump wrote the tariffs would stay in place “until such time as a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland.”

Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre released a statement Monday that he and Finland’s President Alexander Stubb sent a text message to Trump to express their opposition to his tariff announcement. 

“We pointed to the need to de-escalate and proposed a telephone conversation between Trump, Stubb and myself on the same day,” Støre wrote. “The response from Trump came shortly after the message was sent. It was his decision to share his message with other NATO leaders.”

Several news organizations, including PBS News reported that Trump sent a message to Støre stating that because he didn’t receive the Nobel Peace Prize he no longer feels “an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America.”

Støre wrote in his statement that he could confirm the text message conversation and reinforced that European leaders don’t believe the United States needs to acquire Greenland. 

“Norway’s position on Greenland is clear. Greenland is a part of the Kingdom of Denmark, and Norway fully supports the Kingdom of Denmark on this matter,” Støre wrote. “We also support that NATO in a responsible way is taking steps to strengthen security and stability in the Arctic. As regards the Nobel Peace Prize, I have clearly explained, including to president Trump what is well known, the prize is awarded by an independent Nobel Committee and not the Norwegian Government.”

Minnesota Democratic U.S. Reps. Kelly Morrison, Ilhan Omar and Rep. Angie Craig arrive outside the regional Immigration and Customs Enforcement headquarters at the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building in Minneapolis on Jan. 10, 2026. The lawmakers were denied entry to  the facility where the Department of Homeland Security has been headquartering operations in the state. (Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A Department of Homeland Security policy that barred unannounced visits for lawmakers seeking to conduct oversight at facilities that hold immigrants will remain in place, as ordered by a federal judge Monday.

District of Columbia federal Judge Jia Cobb issued an order that denied a request from a dozen Democratic lawmakers, on the technical grounds that an amended complaint or a supplemental brief must be made to challenge a seven-day notice policy instituted by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem this month for oversight visits.

“The Court emphasizes that it denies Plaintiffs’ motion only because it is not the proper avenue to challenge Defendants’ January 8, 2026 memorandum and the policy stated therein, rather than based on any kind of finding that the policy is lawful,” according to Cobb’s order.

Earlier this month, Democrats brought an emergency request to Cobb after a handful of Minnesota lawmakers were denied an unannounced oversight visit to a federal facility that holds immigrants following the deadly shooting of a woman in Minneapolis by a federal immigration officer.

Under a 2019 appropriations law, any member of Congress can carry out an unannounced visit at a federal facility that holds immigrants, but in June, multiple Democrats were denied visits to Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities. 

Those 12 Democrats sued over the policy that required a week’s notice, and in December, Cobb granted the request to stay Noem’s policy, finding it violated the 2019 law. 

Noem has now argued that the January incident does not violate Cobb’s stay from December, because the ICE facilities are using funds through the Republican spending and tax cuts law, known as the “One, Big Beautiful Bill,” and not the DHS appropriations bill. Noem argued that those facilities are therefore exempt from unannounced oversight visits by members of Congress. 

House Democrats who sued include Joe Neguse of Colorado, Adriano Espaillat of New York, Jamie Raskin of Maryland, Robert Garcia of California, J. Luis Correa of California, Jason Crow of Colorado, Veronica Escobar of Texas, Dan Goldman of New York, Jimmy Gomez of California, Raul Ruiz of California, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi and Norma Torres of California.

Wisconsin Republicans are pushing to eliminate diversity initiatives throughout the state with a constitutional amendment that will likely go to voters this fall and through a government efficiency effort that seeks to cut DEI training and programs. | Illustration by stellalevi/Getty Images Creative

Republican efforts to target diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs throughout Wisconsin are advancing this week with a constitutional amendment likely to appear on ballots this fall following a Wednesday Senate vote. 

For the last several years, Republican lawmakers have sought to limit DEI in Wisconsin including by introducing bills that were vetoed by Gov. Tony Evers, holding hostage pay raises for the University of Wisconsin system employees during negotiations to limit DEI, and now, placing a constitutional amendment before voters. The efforts come as the Trump administration has also targeted DEI in the federal government and throughout the country.

“It’s just a larger attack that we’re seeing in this country against anything that uplifts our most marginalized communities…,” Chair of the Legislative Black Caucus Sen. Dora Drake (D-Milwaukee) told the Wisconsin Examiner in an interview. “This started even before, you know, President Trump was elected. There’s just been a pushback with these programs and it’s because we’re starting to see some progress.” 

The Wisconsin State Senate will vote this week on a constitutional amendment that would prohibit local governments from “discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to” anyone based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. The proposal was first introduced and passed by the Republican-led Legislature in 2024. It is one of three constitutional amendment proposals that voters may have the final say on in November.

Drake has been seeking to increase awareness of the anti-DEI constitutional amendment over the last week.

Constitutional amendment proposals must pass two consecutive sessions of the state Legislature before they are  placed on ballots. In recent years, Republicans have, with mixed results, relied on constitutional amendment proposals to bypass Democratic Gov. Tony Evers.

If AJR 102 passes on Wednesday, voters will see the following question on their ballots in November: “Shall section 27 of article I of the constitution be created to prohibit governmental entities in the state from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, public contracting, or public administration?”

Authors of the amendment, including Rep. Dave Murphy (R-Hortonville), have said the proposal will restore “merit, fairness and equality to government practices from the state Capitol, all the way down to our school boards and everything in between.” It passed the Assembly last week. 

Drake counters that Republican lawmakers are misleading Wisconsinites. 

“Legislative Republicans had the opportunity to expand economic and educational opportunities for all Wisconsinites. They’re the ones that have power, and yet they chose not to,” Drake said. “They are now trying to pin the reason why people are struggling on Black and brown people, women and other minority Wisconsinites for their failures by misleading people with what this ballot measure would do.”

Drake brought together Black leaders in Milwaukee including Mayor Cavalier Johnson and Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, who is running for governor, to speak against the constitutional amendment proposal. 

Johnson said at the press conference that the city complies with state and federal law. 

“As mayor of a majority-minority city, I know firsthand that when every resident has the tools and every resident has the resources at their disposal to succeed, the entire community is strong,” he said. 

Drake has spoken about the risk of losing programs including the state’s Supplier Diversity Program, which was established in the 1980s and certifies minority-owned, service-disabled veteran-owned and woman-owned businesses to provide better opportunities for them to do business with the state of Wisconsin. She also says she thinks the proposal could have farther reaching consequences. For example, she said, she thinks the Holocaust education bill that lawmakers passed and Evers signed last session could be disallowed. That effort was approved in the same year that the state enacted legislation to require education on Hmong and Asian American history in schools.

“The reality is in the constitutional amendment resolution they’re putting forth, it applies for any type of public dollars, so… if our public schools and school boards put money towards that, in a way, you’re giving preferential treatment to teaching that specific history,” Drake said. “It’s so much more than just the programs… that Milwaukee county and the city have.”

“They’re saying that this constitutional amendment would prevent discrimination, but then it’s preventing the government from taking actions when discrimination actually happens, so essentially, you’re outlawing accountability when discrimination does occur,” Drake said. 

The Senate will vote on the proposal just days after Martin Luther King Day. Republican lawmakers have cited the civil rights leader’s teachings as justification for the amendment. 

“The principle of a colorblind equality and merit-based decision-making is again articulated by one of their greatest civil rights leaders, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr,” Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater), the other lead author of the proposed amendment, said at a hearing in the Senate Licensing, Regulatory Reform, State and Federal Affairs Committee on Jan. 7. “Using immutable characteristics like race, sex, color, ethnicity, national origin and the like to discriminate against or grant any individual or group is wrong, no matter who it targets or what the reason, it creates distrust and injust division and represents resentments that divide people instead of uniting them. Past discrimination, however wrong, cannot be corrected with more discrimination.” 

Nass said the amendment would ensure people are hired, promoted, selected and admitted to school in the “same way we choose people for our Olympic team.” 

Drake said the lawmakers who are citing MLK misunderstand his legacy. 

“The reality is that he was someone that was a pioneer in his time and he wasn’t liked because he actually challenged and named the systematic structures that cause disparities throughout this country,” Drake said. “He actively called out his fellow white faith leaders on why they were silent in the face of injustice. He never advocated for a so-called colorblind society. What he was advocating for was that people have access to opportunity.”

GOAT report identifies recommendations to eliminate DEI

The goals of the amendment — and the broader desire to eliminate DEI — were on display during an informational hearing in the Assembly Government Operations, Accountability and Transparency (GOAT) committee on a recent report compiled by Rep. Shae Sortwell.

The Republican from Two Rivers used his authority on the GOAT committee, which was created to be the state’s version of the federal Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), in February 2025 to begin investigating DEI practices in local government. He submitted open records requests to Wisconsin’s 72 counties, the 50 largest municipalities throughout the state and all school districts.

The resulting report released on Jan. 9 was more than 80 pages long. Sortwell also listed thousands of pages of records from counties and municipalities on his website. 

During a Jan. 15 hearing on the report, Sortwell told the GOAT committee that he wanted it to be a “fact-finding” mission. The Wisconsin Counties Association helped guide counties in responding to the requests.

“This is what we found so that you can draw your own conclusions as to what you think,” Sortwell said.

Four counties Buffalo, Richland, Sawyer and Waupaca didn’t have relevant records to share. 

Pierce County did not provide any records to the committee and was identified as uncooperative, according to the report. Sortwell noted during the hearing that Pierce is small and it is possible that is the reason they didn’t reply. 

The following municipalities reported that they had no records: Ashwaubenon, Brookfield, Caledonia, Fond du Lac, Fox Crossing, Germantown, Howard, Marshfield, Menasha, Menominee Falls, Mequon, Mount Pleasant, New Berlin, Oak Creek, Oconomowoc, Pleasant Prairie, West Bend and Wisconsin Rapids. Janesville and Sheboygan failed to provide records to the committee. 

Sortwell discussed spending that some counties, including Rock, Milwaukee and Waukesha, did on DEI training and a “disproportionality” conference hosted by the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) in 2024.

He also highlighted the report’s finding that the Manitowoc mayor attended 24 DEI-related trainings between 2021 and 2023 for a cost of $4,000.

“I’m trying to understand what he didn’t get in the first 23… Is he so racist and homophobic or something that you couldn’t manage to figure out not to treat people badly because they’re different from him in the first 23?” Sortwell said. “Where’s the controls here?”

The report listed a number of recommendations for potential bills lawmakers could pass including one to remove DEI language from state grants, to “prohibit all levels of government from contracting with vendors within a discriminatory DEI lens,” to remove the term “health equity” from all state laws and administrative codes, to prohibit policies and practices relating to equity, prohibit the hiring of DEI staff and use of DEI terminology throughout government, the use of funds for DEI trainings and the requirement that employees participate in such trainings and to prohibit DPI from requiring that school districts “adhere to discriminatory and race-based policies and practices, including spending local tax dollars to fund such.”

Sortwell said he thought the constitutional amendment would take care of some of the recommendations, but that other measures could be needed.

Chair of the committee Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) said at the hearing that she thought the report “presents a lot of high-level evidence, probably just scratching the surface really, for why we need this constitutional amendment.”

Sortwell said the recommendations included in the report were based on his judgment.

Democratic lawmakers on the committee, however, spoke to the value of DEI work and questioned the framing and findings of the report.

Rep. Angelina Cruz (D-Racine) told the Wisconsin Examiner that the report includes “gross mischaracterizations” of DEI and “reflects a deep misunderstanding of what DEI is,” and said she would frame the report as more of a “witch hunt” than an investigation.

Cruz said she thought the process of compiling the report was not transparent. She noted that Sortwell’s work on the report was not discussed with Democratic members of the committee before he started and that lawmakers did not have much time to review the thousands of pages before the hearing. 

“If you want to talk about waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer money, it is to waste public servants’ time and our taxpayer resources on generating the data that produce these conclusions that are not grounded in good research methodology,” Cruz said. 

Rep. Mike Bare (D-Verona), the ranking member of the committee, told Nedweski during the hearing that he found her comment troubling.

“I don’t want to make a partisan game here, but I think there’s one side who sees these as not valuable and one side that does see them as valuable,” Bare said. 

The report noted that local health departments have prioritized “health equity” — noting that the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS) includes in its rules that local health departments work to help create it. The report called “health equity” a “phantom DEI term.” 

Republicans and Democrats then engaged in a back and forth about the meaning of the term health equity.

“I don’t think we should be treating people differently because they check some box… that’s equality and I support that, and equity says I want a certain outcome, so I’m going to rig the system,” Sortwell said. 

“I don’t think you have to rig the system — and I don’t think a lot of the things that you’ve pointed out are about rigging the system — services for moms or children support services,” Bare said. “We’re trying to allow for an outcome to be possible… You’ve got 50,000 pages. You didn’t do any analysis to tell us why this is bad. There is a lot more that goes into [the question] should we have health equity or not beyond ideology.”

Pete Buttigieg speaks at a town hall in La Crosse, Wis. on Jan. 16, 2026. | Photo by Ruth Conniff/Wisconsin Examiner

Dairy farmers and U.S. military veterans were heavily represented among the hundreds of voters from western Wisconsin and Minnesota who packed the La Crosse convention center Friday night, braving snow and freezing temperatures to hear what former U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg had to say about our current political predicament.

Buttigieg was following in the footsteps of other Democrats who have visited Wisconsin’s closely divided 3rd Congressional District to needle Republican U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden for failing to meet publicly with his constituents who are bearing the brunt of tariffs, high prices and unaffordable health care spurred by Trump administration policies Van Orden has supported. 

In making his La Crosse appearance to bolster a Democratic candidate in a swing district ahead of the midterms — and perhaps to stick his toe in the water ahead of a potential 2028 presidential run — Buttigieg connected with rural and blue-collar Midwestern voters.That’s something Democrats arguably need to do better if they are going to overcome total domination by the party of President Donald Trump. 

The most interesting thing about the La Crosse town hall was the energized audience of rural and small-town Wisconsin and Minnesota residents worried about the the scary, violent authoritarian regime that is rapidly consolidating its power over a stunned and fractured citizenry. 

Democratic state Sen. Brad Pfaff, who took the stage ahead of Buttigieg, praised him as “a son of the Midwest,” denounced President Donald Trump’s gilded White House ballroom, and declared, “The rich get tax breaks and what do the rest of us get? Rising costs!” Pfaff also took a jab at “tech bros” who got front-row seats at Trump’s inauguration and are profiting from algorithms that sow “hate and distrust and division.” 

Buttigieg picked up on that theme, urging people to reach out in person to connect with their neighbors who might disagree with them. Responding to a veteran in the audience who said he was in despair about talking to people who live in a pro-Trump social media bubble and who “don’t know how close to the abyss we really are,” Buttigeig said, ”This is where I believe in the power of the offline.” 

“We are increasingly sorted into these silos where not just our opinions, but our facts, or would-be facts, are presented to us. But our relationships, our families, our neighborhoods, our communities, our churches, our little league, our sports loyalty, right? That’s where we have a chance to get through to people.”

Rebecca Cooke, who lost her challenge to Van Orden in 2024 by three percentage points and is seeking a rematch, used her few minutes on stage ahead of Buttigieg to emphasize her dairy farm upbringing and work experience as a waitress, declaring, “I’m a working-class Wisconsinite who hopes to be your next member of Congress.” Cooke touted “right to repair,” legislation, “so every time your John Deere breaks down you don’t have to go to the dealership.” Her parents, she said, were on their annual trip to Mexico to get their dental work done for an affordable price “which is ridiculous.” She described how her dad was hit with a bill for over $1,000 at Walgreen’s when he went to fill a prescription for cancer medication. She’s running, she said, to represent people who “just want to be able to put gas in the car and have a little money left over.”

Going beyond Democrats’ ubiquitous talking points about “affordability,” audience members brought up their spiritual beliefs, the meaning of democracy, how technological change is driving a growing sense of alienation, the need to reconnect with neighbors and overcome political divisions, and the horror of seeing federal agents gun down a woman in a residential neighborhood in Minneapolis.

A young woman who lives near Minneapolis broke down crying as she asked Buttigieg, “How do we deal with this attack on our community, on people that we love?”

“The only antidote to a politics of fear is a politics of courage,” Buttigieg told her, praising her compassion and her desire to work for change. “It seems like you’re alone in caring,” he added, but “the majority of Americans think what’s going on there is wrong.” He had just come from talking to farmers in a conservative area of the state, he said, who were very worried about the impact of immigration enforcement on their workers. “We can bring together strange bedfellows,” he said, “as they’re doing everything they can to pull us apart.” 

A Vietnam veteran, part of a large contingent of vets who stood to accept applause as Buttigieg acknowledged them and thanked them for their service, held up a copy of the U.S. Constitution and said he was upset by Trump’s “abuse” of the military and the National Guard. “I’m really worried that a lot of our people are going to look at our veterans, look at the National Guard — and I’ve got that same creepy feeling that we used to have when we came back before — we’re not going to get the respect for what we really are.”

“Thank you for reminding us of your experience, and I know that was an experience for, really, a generation of service members,” Buttigieg said. When he finished his tour of duty in Afghanistan, he added, “I was fortunate to belong to a generation of veterans who came home to a pretty good welcome, because our country learned the hard way how to separate its attitudes about a policy from its attitudes about the people who were sent somewhere by that policy.”

He connected that change in attitude to a general capacity Americans have for learning from their mistakes, “We learned, we grew. That’s the best thing about this country,” he said. Current efforts to whitewash U.S. history assume that “any time you talk about the things that were wrong about America, that must mean you hate America,” he said, but “some of the finest moments that brought out the greatest character of this country is how we put it right.”

There’s a long way to go before we put things right in our country now, just one year into what already appears to be the most destructive administration in U.S. history. But the feeling in the room at the town hall in La Crosse was hopeful that a new, majoritarian politics could shake off the divisiveness and fear of the Trump era and reclaim democracy and a government by and for the people.

As third-generation dairy farmer Sabrina Servais put it, describing the loss of half of dairy farms in Wisconsin since the early 2000s and her fierce love for her own family’s small, organic farm, “the most beautiful place on Earth,”  “It’s easy to feel small when you’re so far away in rural America. Will anyone listen? … But we matter. We’re a swing state. We have the power to change the outcome of elections. We are the working class of America. How dare they doubt us? … We believe that, despite everything, the world is still beautiful.”

Many candies contain Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5 and Yellow No. 6. They are among the food dyes banned in West Virginia by a measure signed into law in March. Such bans are just one example of how the "Make America Healthy Again" movement has made inroads in state legislatures. (Photo by Carol Johnson/Stateline)

This article first appeared on KFF Health News.

When one of Adam Burkhammer’s foster children struggled with hyperactivity, the West Virginia legislator and his wife decided to alter their diet and remove any foods that contained synthetic dyes.

“We saw a turnaround in his behavior, and our other children,” said Burkhammer, who has adopted or fostered 10 kids with his wife. “There are real impacts on real kids.”

The Republican turned his experience into legislation, sponsoring a bill to ban seven dyes from food sold in the state. It became law in March, making West Virginia the first state to institute such a ban from all food products.

The bill was among a slew of state efforts to regulate synthetic dyes. In 2025, roughly 75 bills aimed at food dyes were introduced in 37 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Chemical dyes and nutrition are just part of the broader “Make America Healthy Again” agenda. Promoted by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., MAHA ideas have made their deepest inroads at the state level, with strong support from Republicans — and in some places, from Democrats. The $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Program — created last year as part of the GOP’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act to expand health care access in rural areas — offers incentives to states that implement MAHA policies.

Federal and state officials are seeking a broad swath of health policy changes, including rolling back routine vaccinations and expanding the use of drugs such as ivermectin for treatments beyond their approved use. State lawmakers have introduced dozens of bills targeting vaccines, fluoridated water and PFAS, a group of compounds known as “forever chemicals” that have been linked to cancer and other health problems.

In addition to West Virginia, six other states have targeted food dyes with new laws or executive orders, requiring warning labels on food with certain dyes or banning the sale of such products in schools. California has had a law regulating food dyes since 2023.

Most synthetic dyes used to color food have been around for decades. Some clinical studies have found a link between their use and hyperactivity in children. And in early 2025, in the last days of President Joe Biden’s term, the Food and Drug Administration outlawed the use of a dye known as Red No. 3.

Major food companies including Nestle, Hershey  and PepsiCo have gotten on board, pledging to eliminate at least some color additives from food products over the next year or two.

“We anticipate that the momentum we saw in 2025 will continue into 2026, with a particular focus on ingredient safety and transparency,” said John Hewitt, the senior vice president of state affairs for the Consumer Brands Association, a trade group for food manufacturers.

This past summer, the group called on its members to voluntarily eliminate federally certified artificial dyes from their products by the end of 2027.

“The state laws are really what’s motivating companies to get rid of dyes,” said Jensen Jose, regulatory counsel for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit health advocacy group.

Andy Baker-White, the senior director of state health policy for the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, said the bipartisan support for bills targeting food dyes and ultraprocessed food struck him as unusual. Several red states have proposed legislation modeled on California’s 2023 law, which bans four food additives.

“It’s not very often you see states like California and West Virginia at the forefront of an issue together,” Baker-White said.

Although Democrats have joined Republicans in some of these efforts, Kennedy continues to drive the agenda. He appeared with Texas officials when the state enacted a package of food-related laws, including one that bars individuals who participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — SNAP or food stamps — from using their benefits to buy candy or sugary drinks. In December, the U.S. Department of Agriculture approved similar waivers sought by six states. Eighteen states will block SNAP purchases of those items in 2026.

There are bound to be more. The Rural Health Transformation Program also offers incentives to states that implemented restrictions on SNAP.

“There are real and concrete effects where the rural health money gives points for changes in SNAP eligibility or the SNAP definitions,” Baker-White said.

In October, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill that sets a legal definition for ultraprocessed foods and will phase them out of schools. It’s a move that may be copied in other states in 2026, while also providing fodder for legal battles. In December, San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu sued major food companies, accusing them of selling “harmful and addictive” products. The lawsuit names specific brands — including cereals, pizzas, sodas and potato chips — linking them to serious health problems.

Kennedy has also blamed ultraprocessed foods for chronic diseases. But even proponents of the efforts to tackle nutrition concerns don’t agree on which foods to target. MAHA adherents on the right haven’t focused on sugar and sodium as much as policymakers on the left. The parties have also butted heads over some Republicans’ championing of raw milk, which can spread harmful germs, and the consumption of saturated fat, which contributes to heart disease.

Policymakers expect other flash points. Moves by the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that are making vaccine access more difficult have led blue states to find ways to set their own standards apart from federal recommendations, with 15 Democratic governors announcing a new public health alliance in October. Meanwhile, more red states may eliminate vaccine mandates for employees; Idaho made them illegal. And Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is pushing to eliminate school vaccine mandates.

Even as Kennedy advocates eliminating artificial dyes, the Environmental Protection Agency has loosened restrictions on chemicals and pesticides, leading MAHA activists to circulate an online petition calling on President Donald Trump to fire EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin.

Congress has yet to act on most MAHA proposals. But state lawmakers are poised to tackle many of them.

“If we’re honest, the American people have lost faith in some of our federal institutions, whether FDA or CDC,” said Burkhammer, the West Virginia lawmaker. “We’re going to step up as states and do the right thing.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — an independent source of health policy research, polling and journalism. Learn more about KFF.