Over the past year, GOP leaders and the Trump administration have used a law known as the Congressional Review Act to push for coal mining in Montana, oil drilling in Alaska and copper mining in Minnesota, while also attempting to reverse protections for a national monument in Utah.

The rarely used act gives Congress a few months to revoke new federal regulations. Only in the past year has it ever been used to overrule land management plans.

Conservation advocates say Congress is recklessly throwing out detailed plans, which are created after years of research, public meetings and local collaboration. They fear lawmakers’ intervention could upend the long-standing management system that governs hundreds of millions of acres of public lands — with consequences that could threaten endangered species and coal miners alike.

But the fallout could be much more far-reaching than the rollback of protections for specific areas, some legal experts say. By using their review authority in a way that was never thought to apply to land management plans, lawmakers are calling into question the validity of well over 100 other such plans that were never submitted to Congress for review.

If those plans are challenged, it could create legal uncertainty for tens of thousands of leases and permits for oil and gas, mining, cattle grazing, logging, wind and solar farms and outdoor recreation.

“Using the Congressional Review Act (to revoke management plans) is really unprecedented and will have unforeseen consequences,” said Robert Anderson, who served as solicitor for the Department of the Interior during the Biden administration. “There’s a huge playing field of actions that would be forbidden if none of these management plans are lawfully in place. This could bring things to a screeching halt.”

Republicans have argued that congressional action is necessary to unleash President Donald Trump’s “energy dominance” agenda. Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum frequently refers to public lands as “America’s balance sheet,” and has pledged to increase returns by extracting more resources like oil, minerals and timber.

Montana U.S. Rep. Troy Downing, a Republican who sponsored a resolution to revoke a management plan in his home state, argued during debate on the measure that Montana’s economy and energy demands rely on coal production.

“When the federal government acts recklessly, it is the responsibility of Congress to step in and course correct. … The war on coal must end,” he said.

What’s the Congressional Review Act?

The Congressional Review Act, which was signed into law in 1996, requires federal agencies to submit new regulations to Congress before they can take effect. Congress then has 60 working days to review those regulations, and may vote to revoke them.

If lawmakers reject a rule, federal agencies are barred from crafting a new one in “substantially the same form,” unless Congress passes a new law.

For 20 years, the Congressional Review Act was rarely invoked. But during Trump’s first term, Republicans used it to overturn 16 regulations, such as a rule to protect streams from coal mining pollution. Democrats used the act to revoke three rules from Trump’s first presidency.

But in 2025, Congress and Trump revoked 22 Biden-era rules.

“It seems increasingly popular from Congress as a way to get a quick win to reverse something that happened under the previous administration,” said Devin O’Dea, Western policy and conservation manager with Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, which has opposed efforts to open public lands for resource extraction. “The long-term implications are what we’re concerned about.”

Until recently, management plans for public lands were not considered subject to congressional review. Federal agencies have issued well over 100 such plans without ever submitting one to Congress. Those documents guide the work of agency officials who oversee specific areas of land, often covering millions of acres.

Created after years of public meetings and local feedback, they determine which landscapes will be leased for oil and gas drilling, protected for endangered species or open for off-road vehicles, along with a multitude of other uses.

But last year, Republicans asked the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan advisory agency for Congress, to affirm a sweeping new view of the Congressional Review Act. The office found that certain management plans were subject to review because their land-use decisions “prescribed policy,” and determined that lawmakers’ queries had opened the 60-day review “clock” for the plans in question.

“A very long deliberative process goes into these plans,” said Justin Meuse, government relations director for climate and energy with The Wilderness Society, a conservation nonprofit. “These plans are so broad and multifaceted and deal with so many different things. This is taking a hatchet to something that should be done with a scalpel.”

Using this new tool, Republicans have revoked plans that restricted mining and oil production on federal lands in Alaska, Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming. Meanwhile, House Republicans voted in January to overturn a regulation that blocked development of a mine near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in Minnesota, a move that now awaits a vote in the Senate.

And GOP lawmakers from Utah are seeking to overturn the management plan for Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in that state.

Conservation leaders say the rollbacks are unprecedented.

“It’s very surprising,” said Autumn Gillard, coordinator with the Grand Staircase-Escalante Inter-Tribal Coalition, a group of tribal nations working to protect the monument. “The (resource management plan) is created as a set of advisement points to land managers to reflect on when making decisions. It’s not a direct set of rules.”

In Minnesota, advocates for the Boundary Waters wilderness area say it is treasured for its pristine lakes, where paddlers can fill their water bottles straight from the surface. They fear efforts to allow a copper mine near the headwaters of the area will irreversibly pollute the most popular wilderness in the country.

“We weren’t expecting the Congressional Review Act to be on the table in this way,” said Libby London, communications director with Save the Boundary Waters, a coalition seeking to protect the wilderness area. “It sets a really scary precedent that undermines decades of land management decisions.”

Officials at the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management did not grant interview requests. Staff at the House Committee on Natural Resources did not grant an interview with U.S. Rep. Bruce Westerman, an Arkansas Republican who chairs the committee and who has championed using the Congressional Review Act to allow more mining and drilling.

Legal questions

Environmental groups have condemned Republicans’ use of the act to push for more resource extraction. If Trump wants more mining and drilling, they say, then federal agencies should take the time to draft new management plans using the same rigorous process.

But perhaps more concerning to some public land stakeholders are the potential implications for a whole host of other lands. None of the plans issued by federal land managers over the past 30 years were ever submitted for review, because no one at the time considered them to be rules.

In other words, hundreds of plans covering millions of acres of land could be deemed invalid under the new congressional interpretation that they qualify as rules.

“That right there is chaos,” said Peter Van Tuyn, a longtime environmental lawyer and managing partner at Bessenyey & Van Tuyn LLC. “Those (plans) go across the full spectrum of what land managers do: conservation and preservation, mining approvals, oil and gas drilling, resource exploitation, public access and recreation. There’s a very real chance that a court could say that a resource management plan was never in effect and all the implementation actions under the umbrella of that plan are invalid.”

In a letter to the Bureau of Land Management late last year, The Wilderness Society and other organizations identified more than 5,000 oil and gas leases that could be legally invalid, as they were issued under management plans that were never reviewed by Congress.

Public lands advocates say the same logic could be applied to mining leases, grazing permits, logging, outdoor recreation and many other activities covered by agency planning documents. Many industries that rely on public lands, such as hunting and fishing guides, could be thrown into chaos.

“Let’s say you’re operating as an outfitter,” said Ryan Callaghan, president and CEO of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers. “Having something like an entire resource management plan rolled back would be a huge curveball, and something you’d have an absolute inability to plan for as a business owner. It’s very reasonable to have a lot of questions as to what the ramifications are.”

Industry concerns

Some industry leaders are also worried about the precedent Congress is setting by wiping out plans that were created after years of local input and consultation.

“I’m fairly concerned about that,” said Kathleen Sgamma, a longtime oil and gas advocate who now serves as principal for Multiple-Use Advocacy, a consulting group focused on federal land policy. “It’s not unreasonable to think about a future day where there is a Democratic trifecta and they would be able to (revoke) old plans likewise.”

Sgamma was nominated by Trump to lead the Bureau of Land Management, but withdrew her nomination last spring amid fierce opposition from conservation groups, and following the publication of a memo in which she had criticized Trump’s role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

She said she was less concerned with the idea that previous plans could be declared invalid. She argued that, if challenged, agency officials could submit those old plans to Congress and start the 60-day review “clock” before litigation advanced.

The greater uncertainty, Sgamma said, is the provision that agencies cannot adopt rules in “substantially the same form” as those that have been revoked by Congress. While Republicans intend to target restrictions on drilling and mining, they are using the Congressional Review Act to revoke entire plans. That could prevent agencies from issuing new plans covering less controversial topics, such as campgrounds and trails.

Van Tuyn, the environmental lawyer, shared that concern.

“If they have a plan that looks 80% like the previous plan, and a court says 80% is ‘substantially similar,’ what does the agency do? Go back to the drawing board and say 50%? You used to have all this public access and now you can’t?” he said.

The Public Lands Council, which advocates for ranchers who operate on public lands, did not respond to an interview request. Western Energy Alliance, which advocates for oil and natural gas production, did not grant an interview request. The American Petroleum Institute did not respond to an interview request. Public Lands For The People, which advocates for mining on public lands, did not respond to an interview request.

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

The Dodge County Sheriff’s Office is denying reports that a U.S. citizen from Illinois was transferred to its jail and then released over the weekend, after being detained by immigration authorities. Multiple local media outlets reported that Sundas “Sunny” Naqvi, 28, was detained upon returning to the U.S. after traveling abroad. 

Naqvi’s family, protesters and local county officials gathered outside the Broadview detention facility in Illinois on Sunday saying that Naqvi had been detained alongside her coworkers. Her family tracked Naqvi’s phone to the Broadview facility and then later to Dodge County Wisconsin, where the jail has long doubled as an immigration detention facility.

During a press conference, CBS News reported, Cook County Commissioner Kevin Morrison — who’s also a family friend of Naqvi — said that “it is our belief” that six people were transported from Broadview to Wisconsin. Naqvi was reportedly released on Saturday along with her coworkers in Dodge County. Naqvi and her coworkers are all of Pakistani descent and headed to India for a work trip with a layover in Turkey, WGN9 reported. Naqvi’s sister, Sara Afzal, said that the group’s flight was canceled due to visa issues. This caused the group to separate and travel to different countries, with Naqvi going to Bulgaria and Austria. They reunited in Turkey and flew back to O’Hare International Airport in Chicago. 

Describing what happened to Naqvi, Morrison said in his speech at Broadview, “All she was told was there was curious travel history, but they had no cause to detain her for those 30 hours.” During the press conference Morrison said of Naqvi that “her first shower was actually today, and she was able to eat some food.” Naqvi’s family members say that she has still not received her passport back. “The fact that this could happen to any U.S. citizen should terrify us all,” said Morrison. 

Naqvi’s family said that federal authorities denied that she was at Broadview. Family members were able to track her cellphone, which was turned off and back on again and showed a location in Dodge County. Federal authorities, however, denied that Naqvi was being detained there.

In a press release issued Monday, Dodge County Sheriff Dale Schmidt refuted the reports. Schmidt’s office “has no record of the individual referenced ever being booked, detained, or released from the Dodge County Jail,” the sheriff said in the statement. “Jail logs confirm that no female inmates or detainees from the federal government were admitted or released during the timeframe in which these events were alleged to have occurred.”

Schmidt said that he takes all allegations about the jail seriously, and that a review and investigation is underway. “We encourage anyone who believes they have evidence related to this matter to provide that information — along with any available electronic metadata — to the Dodge County Sheriff’s Office so it can be properly evaluated,” said Schmidt, who also encouraged Naqvi herself to contact the office. “We are also asking that the unknown individual who reportedly picked her up in the Juneau area and drove her to the Holiday Inn contact the Sheriff’s Office to provide a statement.”

The sheriff said he will not comment further pending investigation into the matter, and that he does not speak on behalf of federal authorities. Late last year, Dodge County sheriff’s deputies were spotted transporting immigration detainees to and from the Broadview facility. 

Wisconsin officials expressed outrage over initial reports of the detention.  Sen. Chris Larson posted on BlueSky  that federal agents “repeatedly lied, saying she was not in custody. After nearly two full days she was released, needing to hitchhike to a nearby hotel to call for a ride home. This should not happen in any nation that purports to call itself the ‘Land of the Free.’”

Naqvi’s family said that she is still recovering from her detention. The Department of Homeland Security had not responded to other media outlets who covered reports of on Naqvi’s detention. Wisconsin Examiner reached out to the department and has not heard back, but this article will be updated if a reply comes. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

President Donald Trump on Monday told House Republicans, who were gathered in Florida for a policy retreat, that he expects the war in Iran will wrap up “quickly,” though he didn’t give a specific date or detail exactly what he wants to do before ending the hostilities. 

“We took a little excursion because we felt we had to do that to get rid of some evil,” he said. “And I think you’ll see it’s going to be a short-term excursion.”

Trump added later in his speech that the U.S. military “will not relent until the enemy is totally and decisively defeated.”

During a press conference afterward, Trump said the U.S. military had struck 5,000 locations inside Iran but that he was holding off on bombing some of the country’s larger targets to see if its leaders would allow ships to safely travel through the Strait of Hormuz.

The danger of navigating the key shipping route during the war has been a factor in rising oil prices and other market volatility globally.

“We’ve left some of the most important targets for later in case we need to do it,” he said. “If we hit them, it’s going to take many years for them to be rebuilt, having to do with electricity production and many other things. So, we’re not looking to do that if we don’t have to.”

Trump said “when the time comes,” the U.S. Navy and undisclosed partners will escort ships through that narrow channel.

“I hope it’s not going to be needed,” he said. “But if it’s needed, we’ll escort them right through.”

Trump said he was “disappointed” that Iranian leaders over the weekend selected Mojtaba Khamenei as the country’s new supreme leader. He is the son of former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed by military strikes shortly after the war began. 

Trump declined to answer if the country’s new leader could soon become the target of similar military action, saying that would be “inappropriate.”

No new laws without elections bill

Trump also focused on legislative requests for Congress during his speech and at the press conference, calling on House Republicans to restructure a bill they already passed that would require proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote and identification to cast a ballot, among other changes. 

Trump said he wants three additional elements written into a new bill. 

The first would be nationwide restrictions on mail-in ballots unless the person is a member of the military based overseas, someone with a disability, someone who is ill or someone who is traveling. 

Trump told GOP lawmakers to add in a provision that would lead to “no men in women’s sports” and language blocking transgender youth from surgery. 

“Now, that should be the easiest thing to get passed that you’ve ever had,” he said.

Trump said if the House GOP passed the reworked bill that Republicans would “win the midterms at levels that you can’t even believe.”

He expressed confidence that Senate Republicans would be able to move such a bill through that chamber, but didn’t detail how that would happen with the 60-vote legislative filibuster still in place. 

“We’re not going to sign a watered-down version like has been sent up there. Let’s go for the gold, and let’s just not accept anything else,” Trump said. “I’ll tell you what, I’m willing to just sort of say, I’m not going to sign anything until this is approved. I really am.”

Democrats unmoved

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said during a floor speech earlier in the day that Trump’s position would not change Democrats’ minds that the legislation is “Jim Crow 2.0.”

“Donald Trump is saying, in effect, unless Congress helps him undermine democracy, he’s prepared to hold the rest of the country hostage,” Schumer said. “This is what he does. He’s a thug, He’s a bully. He can’t ever argue on the merits, so he threatens.”

Schumer said that would mean any bills Congress approves to try to lower the cost of living wouldn’t take effect. 

“No bill to bring down gas prices. No bills to make groceries more affordable. No bills to increase housing. Not until the Save Act passes. That’s what Donald Trump is saying,” Schumer said. “Democrats will make sure that never happens.”

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Annette Ziegler announced Monday that she will not run for a third term in 2027, setting up another open race for the seat. 

Ziegler, 62, plans to serve out the rest of her term but won’t run in the April 2027 race.

“After three decades on the bench, now is the right time for me to step away to spend more time with my husband, kids and grandkids,” Ziegler said in a statement. “I will, therefore, not be seeking reelection to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2027.” 

Ziegler was first elected to the Court in 2007. Ziegler won a second term in 2017 in an unusual race where there was no opposition, becoming the only justice to not draw an opponent over the past two decades.

“It has been the honor of my lifetime to serve as judge and justice for the past 30 years,” Ziegler said. “I will be forever grateful to the voters who elected me twice in Washington County and then twice to serve on our state’s highest court.”

Ziegler’s announcement comes about a month ahead of this year’s state Supreme Court race, which is open following the decision of her fellow conservative colleague, Justice Rebecca Bradley, to not seek reelection this year. 

Appeals court judge and former Democratic state Assembly member Chris Taylor and Appeals Court Judge Maria Lazar, a conservative, will face each other next month for that seat. 

The retirements of the two conservative justices comes after liberals won the majority on the Court in 2023 and held it in last year’s race.

Recent Supreme Court elections in Wisconsin have brought national attention and record spending for the nominally nonpartisan seats with the ideological balance of the Court at stake. The 2026  Supreme Court race has not received as much attention or spending with the liberal majority assured regardless of the outcome.  A victory for Taylor next month would increase the number of liberal justices on the Court, locking in a  5-2 liberal majority until 2030.

When Ziegler’s seat is up in 2027, liberals will likely look to extend their majority while conservatives will be looking to claw back some ground. 

“While I will not be a candidate next year, my appreciation for the people of Wisconsin and the judicial system I have been privileged to serve in remains as strong as ever,” Ziegler said. “I look forward to finishing out the rest of my term on the Court and handing the baton to a new justice in 2027.”

Ziegler served as the chief justice from 2021 to 2025. She was the second justice to be elected to the position after a 2015 constitutional amendment made it an elected position rather than one selected based on seniority. 

When the Court flipped to a liberal majority in 2023 for the first time in 15 years, the liberal members voted to weaken the powers of the chief justice, putting some of the powers under the control of a three-member administrative committee and making a series of changes to the Court’s internal operating procedures. Ziegler at the time called the move an overreach by “rogue justices.”

Ziegler worked as a private lawyer, an assistant U.S attorney and as Washington County Circuit Court judge, a position to which she was appointed by Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson, before she was elected to the Supreme Court. Ziegler earned her law degree from Marquette University. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

WASHINGTON — Americans are paying more for gas Monday as the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran chokes off a significant route for roughly one-fifth of the world’s petroleum products.

Global prices for Brent crude oil, the international standard, climbed over $100 a barrel. Prices were just above $70 a barrel in the days before the U.S. and Israel launched a surprise Feb. 28 attack on Iran, killing the regime’s top leader and other powerful government figures.

The spike, which peaked at $119.50 per barrel early Monday, caused ricochets throughout markets, with major stock indexes falling worldwide. Oil prices have not reached costs above $100 per barrel since mid-2022 after Russia launched its full-scale invasion in Ukraine.

Following the Feb. 28 strikes, Iranian officials effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, threatening and reportedly attacking vessels attempting to cross the narrow passage.

Iran’s top security official, Ali Larijani, reinforced on the social media platform X Monday that vessels trying to cross the Strait of Hormuz are not guaranteed safety as the conflict continues.

“It is unlikely that any security will be achieved in the Strait of Hormuz amid the fires of the war ignited by the United States and Israel in the region,” Larijani wrote.  

President Donald Trump defended the price spike late Sunday in a post on his online platform, Truth Social. 

“Short term oil prices, which will drop rapidly when the destruction of the Iran nuclear threat is over, is a very small price to pay for U.S.A., and World, Safety and Peace. ONLY FOOLS WOULD THINK DIFFERENTLY! President DJT,” he wrote.

While the price fell to $90 a barrel just before 6 p.m. Eastern, Patrick De Haan of GasBuddy, a platform that helps people find the cheapest gas prices in their region, said without indications on the direction of the conflict, there’s no guarantee the price will continue to drop.

“It’s hard to know what (prices) will look like, and there’s not a whole lot of clarity on whether or not the administration is actively trying to address the problem that has caused oil to spike,” De Haan told States Newsroom. 

The price of oil dropped below $90 just after Trump said Monday afternoon that the war was “very complete” during a phone call with CBS News’s Weijia Jiang. 

But prices bumped back up.

“There’s just a lot of headlines, there’s a lot of interest, and there’s a lot of volatility in the situation,” said De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, said.

U.S. gas prices 

The national average for gasoline in the U.S. rose to $3.48 per gallon Monday, according to the AAA gasoline price survey. That’s up from $3.25 per gallon on March 5, according to the survey. 

AAA data shows consumers in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Illinois experienced the highest prices in the Midwest and eastern U.S., with average retail prices ranging from $3.52 to nearly $3.60 for a gallon of regular gas.

Western states, which tend to pay higher gas prices already, saw an average gallon of regular surpass $4. California topped the nation’s list at $5.20 per gallon.

The price to fill up in Arkansas, Kansas and Oklahoma remained the lowest, hovering between $2.92 to $2.99. That’s up from a week ago when prices averaged $2.47 in Oklahoma, $2.57 in Kansas and $2.61 in Arkansas.

Spike among “fastest rates in years”

GasBuddy put the national average Monday of regular at $3.45, and diesel at just over $4.59.

“In just a week, consumers have seen gasoline prices surge at one of the fastest rates in years after oil prices spiked following U.S. strikes on Iran and the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz,” De Haan said.

De Haan added in a blog post Monday that the reason behind oil prices pushing past $100 a barrel for the first time in years is “fuel markets are now rapidly recalibrating to the risk of prolonged disruption to global supply flows.”

“As a result, gasoline prices in many states could climb another 20 to 50 cents per gallon this week, with price-cycling markets potentially seeing increases as early as today,” De Haan said.

Prior to the war, average U.S. gas prices sat just under $3, with expectations for seasonal increases as warmer weather triggers more demand and refineries produce pricier summer blends.

Nearly one-third of the nation’s private sector workers are covered by paid leave programs as more states require employers to provide medical and family leave, according to a new analysis released this week.

Currently, the District of Columbia and 13 states have passed laws requiring paid leave for many workers, according to a report from the National Partnership for Women & Families, a nonprofit that advocates for reproductive rights, health and economic justice, and workplace equality.

“States have shifted the paradigm now that more than 46 million workers across the U.S. are covered by paid family and medical leave programs, pointing the way forward for the rest of the country,” Jessica Mason, senior policy analyst at the organization, said in a news release. 

The programs vary in design, but generally guarantee paychecks while workers take time off for illness or to care for a child or other loved one. They’re funded through employer and employee premiums similar to unemployment insurance or payroll taxes that cover a portion of employee wages when they take leave.

The report cites research showing multistate employers often respond to local paid sick leave laws by providing paid sick leave to their workers even in places without such requirements.

This year, Delaware, Maine and Minnesota began or planned to start offering benefits through new paid leave programs. And the report cites growing momentum in six more states: Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Virginia. If those states were to implement paid leave policies, 44% of workers nationwide would have access to paid family and medical leave, according to the analysis. 

In Virginia, lawmakers in both chambers have approved bills guaranteeing up to 12 weeks of paid family leave. While previous efforts were vetoed by former Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin, current Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger is expected to sign a bill once a final version makes it to her desk, the Virginia Mercury reported. 

In a January address to the legislature, Spanberger said that “being pro-business and being pro-worker are not mutually exclusive.”

“We can support business growth and invest in our workforce. We can attract new companies and protect workers. … That is why we will create a statewide paid family and medical leave program.” 

Virginia is projected to spend about $116.51 million in startup costs over the 2027 and 2028 fiscal years. By 2031, the program is expected to spend $2.1 billion per year in benefits — funded by payroll tax collections. 

Opponents frequently cite the costs of paid leave programs and the burdens they place on businesses. Last month, Virginia Republican state Del. Michael Webert said large corporations may be able to afford new costs and administrative burdens, but not smaller employers. 

“The impact will not fall evenly,” he said ahead of the House vote last month.

Across much of the Midwest and South, state laws prohibit local governments from requiring employers to provide paid sick leave. In 18 states, cities are effectively stripped of the power to enact their own labor protections.

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

Several Democratic states are moving to bar federal immigration agents from being near polling places and other election sites, amid persistent worries that President Donald Trump will use federal law enforcement or the military to disrupt the midterm elections.

Measures to restrict federal agents from operating at or near election-related locations have been offered in more than half a dozen states, according to a Stateline count. While the proposals vary, they broadly seek to combat the prospect of chaotic confrontations between federal agents and voters this November.

A federal law dating to the end of the Civil War already bans sending the military or other “armed men” to polling places, except to repel armed enemies of the United States. The U.S. Constitution also gives states — not the president or federal government — the responsibility for running elections.

But Trump’s calls to nationalize elections, his promise to impose voting restrictions with or without Congress, and his history of working to overturn the 2020 presidential election is prompting some Democratic state lawmakers to act. Adding to lawmakers’ fears is the FBI’s January seizure of ballots from the 2020 election in Fulton County, Georgia, and U.S. Department of Justice lawsuits against dozens of states for copies of their voter rolls that include sensitive personal information.

The president’s party typically loses ground in Congress in midterm elections. Given that, Democrats fear Trump is laying the groundwork to block or cast doubt on a losing outcome.

“When the president says he’s going to break the law, I actually believe him,” said California state Sen. Tom Umberg, a Democrat who has introduced legislation that would prohibit federal immigration enforcement within 200 feet of polling places. He said Trump’s call to “nationalize” elections was the “triggering event” that prompted him to offer the bill.

Legislation to restrict immigration enforcement or the presence of federal forces near polling places and other election sites has been offered or announced in California, Connecticut, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia and Washington. A bill has also been introduced in Kansas, which has a Democratic governor, but the measure is unlikely to pass in the Republican-controlled legislature.

The bills focus on immigration enforcement, but the New Mexico legislation would go further, prohibiting the military or any armed federal personnel from polling locations.

The Trump administration and its supporters have suggested that the president might order U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, to the polls. After former Trump adviser Steve Bannon in early February said ICE will surround polling places, White House press secretary Karolina Leavitt said she couldn’t guarantee an ICE agent wouldn’t be near a polling place

Trump allies have also circulated a draft executive order that Trump could sign declaring a national emergency and attempting to assert broad powers over elections, The Washington Post reported last week. Trump told reporters on Friday that he had never heard of the draft order.

But during a conference call last week for election officials from across the country, the Department of Homeland Security committed to not placing ICE agents at any polling places in 2026, according to both Republican and Democratic secretaries of state who were on the call.

Homeland Security told Stateline in a statement that ICE isn’t planning operations “targeting” polling places, but could arrest individuals if an active public safety threat endangered a polling location.

“There’s no reason for us to deploy to a polling facility,” ICE’s current leader, Todd Lyons, told Congress in February.

Democratic state lawmakers calling for election-related restrictions on ICE in state law say they don’t want to take any chances.

“I think this is just prudent, wise policy to do what we all know is right, which is to protect polling places,” said Virginia Democratic state Del. Katrina Callsen, the chief sponsor of a bill that would prohibit federal civil immigration enforcement within 40 feet of polling places and voting counting sites.

The New Mexico legislature in February passed a measure that largely mirrors restrictions in federal law against armed federal personnel at polling places. The bill is now before Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham.

The bill says officials generally cannot order or bring troops or other armed federal agents to polling places or parking areas for polling places beginning 28 days before Election Day, when early in-person voting begins. It also would prohibit officials from changing who is qualified to vote contrary to New Mexico law or from imposing election rules that conflict with state law. Violators would be guilty of a felony.

New Mexico lawmakers offered the legislation the day after Trump’s initial remarks about wanting to nationalize elections. New Mexico Democratic state Sen. Katy Duhigg, the bill’s lead sponsor, said she wanted a measure that wouldn’t run into issues with the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause, which says federal law supersedes state law.

“I think a lot of states, frankly, are trying to figure out what to do right now,” Duhigg said, adding that courts will likely be asked to sort through new state-level limits on federal forces. “This seems like a reasonable approach to try.”

Republican lawmakers opposed

Some Republican state lawmakers are dismissive of the Democratic measures, casting them as unnecessary.

“I just cannot imagine the president, as much as you might dislike him, ordering federal troops to seize New Mexico elections by armed force,” New Mexico Republican state Sen. William Sharer, the minority leader, said during debate. Sharer didn’t respond to an interview request from Stateline.

In Washington state, one bill would require local election officials to block anyone from accessing areas where ballots are processed or counted for the purposes of immigration enforcement. Law enforcement could be allowed access with a judicial warrant or court order, however.

Washington state Rep. Jim Walsh, a Republican who also chairs the state party, characterized the proposal as “fearmongering” and a solution in search of a problem — unless its supporters acknowledge that people in the country illegally are voting. And he claims Washington doesn’t have the authority to legally bar ICE from areas of an election office.

Washington Democratic state Sen. Drew Hansen, the bill’s lead sponsor, said election workers counting ballots deserve to be able to perform their task without interference from federal immigration authorities. Hansen noted that ICE “does not have a perfect track record, to say the least, of only detaining extremely dangerous, violent noncitizens.”

More than 170 U.S. citizens have been held by immigration agents during Trump’s second term, ProPublica reported in October. A December report by Democrats on the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations identified at least seven U.S. citizens who were held for more than 24 hours.

In Arizona, some Republicans want to encourage an ICE presence at the polls. In February, Republican state Sen. Jake Hoffman offered a bill that would require counties to sign an agreement with ICE to provide a federal law enforcement presence at polling places.

Hoffman didn’t respond to an interview request from Stateline. A scheduled committee hearing on the measure was canceled in February, likely killing the bill. Still, the underlying proposal could be resurrected, Arizona Mirror reported.

“Arizonans deserve to know that election laws are not just written in statute but actually enforced in practice,” Hoffman said in a news release.

Existing federal laws against federal election interference are specific and straightforward, said Sean Morales-Doyle, director of the Voting Rights and Elections program at the left-leaning Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. States such as Arizona don’t get a “free pass” to violate federal law, either, he said.

Options exist to hold people accountable under federal law, Morales-Doyle said. If ICE agents deployed to polling places, federal prosecutors would have five years to bring charges against ICE personnel under the statute of limitations. While the Justice Department under the Trump administration would be unlikely to bring charges, he noted, the time limit extends into the next presidential administration.

Still, Morales-Doyle said he understands why people are skeptical, given how ICE and other elements of the Trump administration have behaved.

“So it is, I think, important to think about what state legal mechanisms there are for holding people accountable,” he said.

Local enforcement

Some of the state legislative proposals would place local election workers on the front lines of resisting federal interference.

The Washington state measure would instruct multiple election workers, when possible, to document incidents in which they deny permission to enter areas that are off limits to immigration enforcement. The New Mexico bill would allow county clerks and voters who experienced intimidation to sue over alleged violations, in addition to state officials.

The California legislation goes perhaps the furthest in empowering local election officials. It would allow county election officials to keep polls open if they determine that voting was disrupted because of violations of a ban on federal immigration enforcement nearby.

Some local election officials appear hesitant to discuss the proposals and whether they are preparing for the possibility of federal interference. The president of the California Association of County Clerks and Elected Officials and the clerks chair of New Mexico Counties, a statewide advocacy group for county officials, didn’t respond to requests for interviews. The Washington State Association of County Auditors declined to comment.

More broadly, other election officials have said the possibility of federal interference is informing their preparations for the midterm elections. Scott McDonell, the Democratic clerk of Dane County, Wisconsin, which includes Madison, told Stateline in February that while Trump’s desire to “nationalize” elections isn’t possible under the Constitution, he is paying attention to agencies that answer to Trump.

“What does the president actually control? The FBI, National Guard, ICE, DOJ in general. That’s far more concerning,” McDonell said. (State national guards can be federalized by the president.)

Barbara Richardson Crouch, the Republican registrar of voters in the Town of Sprague, Connecticut, said she prefers no law enforcement at polling places — whether local, state or federal.

In Connecticut, legislators plan to offer a measure to restrict federal immigration enforcement within 250 feet of a polling place or other election site. Crouch, who has been involved in election administration for nearly two decades, said she has long dealt with concerns surrounding law enforcement at voting sites, but that those fears in the past centered on state and local police.

Crouch said a state trooper typically comes through her polling place in the early morning as election workers are setting up, and then again when polls close. Law enforcement is on call, but Crouch said she believes that if someone sees law enforcement, it sends a message that the area isn’t safe.

“I personally have never liked police at election places, even local police,” Crouch said.

Stateline reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@stateline.org.

Online prediction markets allow users to put money on the outcome of almost anything — this weekend’s NBA game between the Warriors and the Thunder, the next supreme leader of Iran, whether the government will confirm the existence of aliens.

But those markets have no state oversight and operate even in states that ban gambling.

The platforms are raising bipartisan alarms, especially related to sports gambling. As states have legalized sports betting in recent years, they’ve required legal sportsbooks to jump through multiple hoops — from age verification procedures to protections for gambling addiction to tax collections. Online prediction markets circumvent all those rules.

Platforms including Kalshi and Polymarket say they are offering contracts similar to commodity markets that speculate on the future price of corn or oil — not outright gambling. But a growing number of states are rejecting those justifications, arguing the platforms are offering a backdoor to skirt state gambling regulations, particularly on sports.

The issue has sparked action from state regulators, new legislation, and lawsuits from both states and prediction markets. Complicating matters are the federal government’s moves to block state regulation of prediction markets, which see more than $13 billion in transactions each month.

Most activity on those platforms revolves around sports. And in national ads, Kalshi even marketed itself as the first national legal sports betting platform — even though states approve and regulate sports gambling since a 2018 Supreme Court decision. In 11 states, sports gambling remains illegal.

“This is sports wagering. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably sports wagering, in this situation,” said Kentucky state Rep. Michael Meredith, a Republican.

Meredith, who sponsored a 2023 law that legalized sports betting in Kentucky, called for states to regulate prediction markets during a webinar hosted by the National Conference of State Legislatures. That organization, representing state legislators across the country, has urged Congress “to act swiftly to address the rapid growth of unregulated sports‑related event contracts.”

State leaders argue their longstanding authority to oversee gambling should allow states to regulate or ban prediction market platforms. But those companies maintain they are not beholden to state regulations.

“I think it’s very clear that this authority should be vested in our state governments,” Meredith said last month.

In New York, lawmakers are considering legislation that would ban prediction markets from offering contracts on sports events, in addition to natural disasters, acts of terrorism and deaths. In Nevada, where gambling and tourism are top economic drivers, regulators are involved in a protracted legal fight after the state sought to stop prediction market activity on sports.

“To me, this is clearly gambling,” Thomas Reeg, CEO of Caesars Entertainment, which operates casinos and sports betting, said during a company earnings call in January.

But states are also fighting an obscure federal agency seeking to protect the emerging marketplace. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates derivatives such as futures contracts on stocks, has asserted it has “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets and promised to fight state regulatory efforts in court.

The CTFC did not respond to Stateline’s request for comment. Neither did Kalshi or Polymarket, two of the leading prediction market companies.

A new wave of betting

Unless Congress passes legislation, experts say the courts will ultimately decide what role states can play in regulating prediction markets.

The standoff has led to litigation between the platforms and states in at least eight states, and officials in 11 states have sent cease and desist orders to prediction market companies, according to the American Gaming Association, an industry group representing casinos and sports books. A bipartisan group of attorneys general from 39 states and the District of Columbia recently urged a federal court to uphold state authority to regulate sports gambling.

The American Gaming Association says prediction markets should either get out of the sports betting business or follow the same regulations and rules that apply to sportsbooks such as DraftKings and FanDuel.

“They don’t want to pay the taxes, they don’t want to undergo the compliance and provide all of the consumer protections that are required by states of operators who operate legal sports betting,” said Tres York, the vice president of government relations for the association.

The organization estimates states have lost out on more than $570 million in sports gambling tax revenues since prediction markets began offering sports events contracts.

Many state leaders and experts are already concerned about the societal effects from the meteoric rise of sports gambling, which has transformed collegiate and professional sports, and the potential for manipulation by players.

“If you already have what I would call an epidemic of sports betting addiction in this country when you have regulated sports betting, imagine what it’s going to be like when you have essentially unregulated sports betting,” said Benjamin Schiffrin, director of securities policy at Better Markets, a nonprofit watchdog group advocating for consumer and investor financial protections.

The wide range of available bets also is raising alarms over election integrity and insider trading. In addition to individual elections, prediction markets have allowed wagers on the ouster of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and the timing of the U.S. strike on Iran. Last week, hundreds of thousands of dollars were bet the day before the Iranian strikes, and more than 100 accounts cashed in $10,000 or more from successful predictions, according to a New York Times analysis.

“It’s a huge change to all of a sudden allow betting on elections, and it really threatens the underpinnings of our democracy,” Schiffrin said. “It just seems like there’s tremendous potential for wrongdoing.”

On its website, Kalshi says it operates under a “strict regulatory framework” with a suite of market integrity, surveillance, financial safeguards, and anti-manipulation protections.

Federal-state conflict 

Citing what it called “an onslaught” of state litigation, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission last month filed a court brief underscoring its authority to regulate prediction markets.

“To those who seek to challenge our authority in this space, let me be clear: We will see you in court,” Commissioner Mike Selig said in a video posted on social media. Selig is the only member of the presidentially appointed commission, which currently has four vacancies.

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, a Republican, immediately vowed to oppose the federal agency and the prediction platforms in court. Gambling has been banned under the Utah Constitution since the state’s founding, and Cox posted on social media that prediction markets are “destroying the lives of families.”

Kalshi swiftly sued the governor and the state in federal court in anticipation of enforcement efforts and pending legislation in Salt Lake City. The company’s lawsuit cited the governor’s post and a column penned by Republican Attorney General Derek Brown explaining why he joined Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, a Democrat, “in urging Congress to address offshore gambling operations that disregard state law and target young Americans.”

Prediction market exchange Kalshi sues Utah over proposed prop betting ban

Utah Republican state Rep. Joseph Elison sponsored the legislation cited in Kalshi’s lawsuit. The bill, which has passed both chambers, would expand the state’s definition of gambling to include proposition betting — bets on the performance of an individual player or team that don’t necessarily affect the outcome of a competition. While Elison acknowledged the courts will ultimately determine the issue, he said prediction markets are essentially offering proposition betting without authorization.

”We’re 50 independent sovereigns that gave centralized government to the federal government to do certain things,” he told Stateline. “But the rest, we want those things to be under our purview. And this is one of those.”

The legal landscape 

In early rulings on the matter, courts have issued a mix of opinions: States have found initial success in state courts while results have been more mixed in federal courts, said Daniel Wallach, a gaming and sports gambling attorney tracking the issue.

But federal law has long affirmed state authority to oversee gambling, he said.

Despite attempts to cast transactions as investments, Wallach says courts will look at the substance of bets, which he said are almost indistinguishable from those made in state-regulated betting markets.

“The argument that this is investing rather than gambling is essentially elevating form over substance,” he said. “Plain and simple, this is wagering on the outcome of a sporting event.”

Wallach said state efforts such as cease and desist orders are counterproductive, as they essentially invite federal lawsuits from prediction market firms. He said states are better off pursuing gambling enforcement efforts in state courts, where several have won preliminary injunctions halting operations of the platforms temporarily.

For now, he said the federal agency has applied almost no scrutiny of the platforms, noting that the president’s family has a financial interest in the industry.

Donald Trump Jr., the president’s eldest son, has a business interest in two of the largest online prediction markets, and the president’s social media platform Truth Social announced it would start its own prediction market, according to The New York Times.

Journalist Dustin Gouker, who authors newsletters on gambling and prediction markets, noted that the CFTC rules that currently regulate prediction markets were built for financial products — not gambling. He said prediction markets have moved into the gaming market because “nobody said no.”

“It’s a bit of a mess,” he said. “If we’re going to have betting in 50 states for everyone 18 and over, shouldn’t we have thought about that a little bit more?”

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

Amid a slew of proposed changes scaling the federal government’s role in broadening assistance in federal rental programs, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development plans to rescind a 2024 regulation requiring public housing agencies and certain federally subsidized landlords to give 30 days’ notice before filing for eviction based on unpaid rent. 

Under the proposed HUD changes, those 30 days would give way to older standards, which vary by housing program and state law, and which can be as little as a few days’ notice. 

The proposed HUD rule also would eliminate requirements that landlords include detailed information about rent charges or available assistance in eviction notices.

Many states and localities already require 30-day or longer notices before a landlord can proceed with an eviction for nonpayment of rent, though some are far shorter. California, for example, generally requires at least three–day “pay or quit” notices for nonpayment of rent, meaning tenants have three days to pay the rent or move out. 

The current HUD rule also requires that landlords provide tenants with a ledger showing how their balance was calculated and information about how to obtain a rent decrease if they have lost income. Tenants’ advocates argue the detail allows transparency over how much is owed and when. Without the rule’s protection, advocates say, HUD tenants in some parts of the country could be evicted for being as little as one dollar short or one day late on rent. 

Several tenants’ rights groups have already filed legal challenges, arguing that the rollback was issued without proper public notice and comment. If the rule remains in effect, housing providers and tenant advocates say its impact will depend largely on states’ eviction laws. 

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

Gov. Tony Evers signed a pair of bills into law Friday that make grooming a crime and require school districts to adopt policies on appropriate communications. 

“Keeping our kids safe, especially while they’re in our schools, must be a top priority for us, whether it’s addressing grooming, gun violence, bullying or other harmful behavior,” Evers said in a statement.

The bills were introduced last year after a report from the CapTimes that found there were over 200 investigations into teacher licenses stemming from allegations of sexual misconduct or grooming from 2018 to 2023, though bill authors, including Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie), said they had worked on the legislation for longer.

“After nearly two years of working to strengthen protections for children in Wisconsin, I’m grateful to see these two important bills signed into law,” Nedweski said in a statement. “This is a major step forward in protecting kids, supporting victims and ensuring that those who prey on children are held accountable.”

AB 677, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 88, defines grooming as “a course of conduct, pattern of behavior, or series of acts with the intention to condition, seduce, solicit, lure, or entice a child for the purpose of producing, distributing or possessing depictions of the child engaged in sexually explicit conduct.” 

Some of the behaviors that could fall under the law include verbal comments, suggestions or conversations of a sexual nature directed toward a child, inappropriate physical contact or attempts to initiate such contact and communication via texts, emails, social media, or online platforms, meant to seduce, solicit, lure or entice a child.

Under the law, a person convicted of a grooming charge would be guilty of a Class G felony. The charge would increase to a Class F felony if the person is in a position of trust or authority, to a Class E felony if the child has a disability and to a Class D felony if the violation involves two or more children. A convicted person would need to register as a sex offender.

SB 673, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 89, requires public, private and independent charter schools to adopt appropriate communication policies for employees, volunteers and students. Policies will need to be in place by Sept. 1. 

The policy will need to include a range of consequences for policy violations, apply to communications during and outside of school hours, including standards for appropriate content and methods of communication. 

The Department of Public Instruction will need to develop and provide free training on professional boundary violations and identifying, preventing and reporting grooming. School boards will need to provide annual training to employees starting in the 2026-27 school year.

“We have an important obligation to make sure our kids can feel secure, supported, and cared for by educators and staff in our schools — adults they should be able to trust and depend on — while also providing more clarity about what interactions with students are inappropriate and unacceptable and enhancing punishments for adults who violate that sacred trust,” Evers said. 

Evers also signed SB 466, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 93, that expands the Missing Child Alert program to include alerts about 10- and 11-year-olds.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A St Croix County school district that has become the target of right-wing politicians and activists for allowing students to use restrooms corresponding to their gender identity is now being investigated by the Trump administration Department of Education over the practice.

The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights announced in a press release Thursday it was investigating the New Richmond School District “based on reports that the District is allowing biological men to use female restrooms.” 

The head of a Wisconsin LGBTQ+ rights group Friday called the administration’s action an attempt to “bully” school children. 

“The law protects trans girls and their ability to use the girls’ bathroom,” said Abigail Swetz, executive director of Fair Wisconsin. “A federal department’s press release does not, and cannot, change law. However, a federal administration can bully our kids, and that is exactly what this announcement of an investigation is.”

The New Richmond district superintendent, Troy Miller, was not available for comment early Friday afternoon. 

New Richmond policy attacked, defended

The Trump administration’s action follows its increased targeting of states that allow students to use bathrooms that align with their gender identity, including threatening to withhold federal funding. It also follows increasing attention on the New Richmond district’s policy from right-wing advocacy groups such as Moms for Liberty and Wisconsin Republican political campaigns.

A public discussion of the district’s policy arose at a Jan. 29 meeting of the district’s school board, the Hudson Star Observer reported, with community members speaking for and against allowing students to choose the restroom they use. Opponents of the policy included a school board candidate, the newspaper reported.

Videos posted from a meeting in February to the Facebook page NR Students Against Moms for Liberty show a handful of students speaking in favor of allowing students to use the restrooms they are comfortable with. 

“I’m a woman at New Richmond High School who uses the women’s bathroom, and I ask that you hear my perspective. As a woman, I’m not afraid to use the bathroom with someone who is transgender,” one student said. “While fear around potential violence in bathrooms is totally valid, potential worries about what can happen in the bathroom are misplaced. Trans people are not scary or pedophiles. They are our community members.”

In a presentation prepared for that Feb. 10 meeting, legal counsel for the school board defended the policy respecting gender identity. A 2017 federal appeals court ruling in the case Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified School District No. 1 Board of Education “defined ‘sex’ under Title IX to include gender identity,” according to the presentation slide — meaning that schools must allow students to use bathroom facilities consistent with their gender identity.

At a meeting in late February, Board President Bryan Schafer said district lawyers have told the board that the district is following current law and following case law, the Hudson Star Observer reported. School board members voted at that meeting to look into adding more school restrooms and rejected a call for an internal investigation.  

Republican politicians, candidates weigh in

A week after the issue first arose in January, U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany posted on Facebook a demand that the district reverse its policy. Michael Alfonso, who is running in the 7th Congressional District race to succeed Tiffany, has posted on his campaign Facebook page at least five times in the last month about the policy, directing increased national attention to the district. State lawmakers from the area have also weighed in. 

Alfonso is the son-in-law of Transportation Sec. Sean Duffy, who previously represented the 7th District, and recently was endorsed by President Donald Trump. 

“I would expect this from Madison or Milwaukee or some crazy liberal place but not northern Wisconsin,” Alfonso said in a video he filmed with his wife, Evita Duffy-Alfonso, on the way to a school board meeting. “This is why it’s so important for conservatives to remember that elections have consequences. There’s no reason that we should have liberal lunatics on our school boards. We need to make sure we’re getting out to vote in April and August and November because we have a very good chance to take our state back.”

The Department of Education press release Thursday said the agency’s Civil Rights Office “will determine whether the District violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) by allowing students to access intimate facilities based on ‘gender identity,’ not biological sex.” The press release states that an unidentified student in the district has “fear, embarrassment, and anxiety” and no longer uses the restrooms while in school due to the district policy.

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey said in a statement that the department will investigate the complaint fully and address any violation promptly.

“Young women should never be forced to share intimate spaces with boys and men because school leaders care more about radical gender ideology than protecting girls’ safety, dignity, and privacy,” Richey said. “School board members who ignore these allegations are failing the families they serve.” 

Defending students’ choices, gender identity

Swetz of Fair Wisconsin said in a statement to the Examiner Friday that the Whitaker v. Kenosha decision is “very clear when it comes to accessing bathrooms in schools” in its finding that Title IX protects gender identity. 

“Wisconsinites and Americans are tired of this relentless bullying campaign against kids, families, educators, and schools,” Swetz said. These attacks are not only wrong, but also a significant misdirection of resources and focus.”

Sen. Melissa Ratcliff (D-Cottage Grove), who is the mother of a transgender adult child and a co-chair of the state Legislature’s Transgender Parent and Nonbinary Advocacy Caucus, issued a statement Friday defending respect for students’ gender identity.

“Every student deserves to feel safe, respected, and supported at school. Schools have a responsibility to create safe and welcoming environments where all students can learn without fear of discrimination,” Ratcliff said. “Policies that recognize and respect students’ gender identity are consistent with the spirit of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and the values of fairness and inclusion we strive to uphold in Wisconsin schools.”

Ratcliff said the local school board’s decision should be respected. 

“Local school boards are best positioned to make such decisions that reflect the needs of their schools while ensuring every child is treated with dignity and respect,” Ratcliff said. 

Nevertheless, there have been ongoing legal challenges over school bathroom policies in Wisconsin, and some school districts in Wisconsin have adopted policies that restrict transgender students. 

Just before Trump took office in January 2025, a federal judge overturned a Biden administration order extending Title IX to include protections for gender identity. On his first day in office, Trump reversed other Biden administration orders protecting gender identity and LGBTQ+ rights. Since then, the Trump administration has systematically erased references on federal websites to gender identity, labeling the concept as “gender ideology” and substituting “sex” in its place. 

In addition to Moms For Liberty, the right-wing Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) has also called attention to the New Richmond district. WILL recently put out model policies that would separate bathrooms based on sex.

“This is a welcome decision by the Trump Administration to enforce Title IX and protect girls’ privacy,” WILL Deputy Counsel Cory Brewer said in a statement. “For too long, school districts in Wisconsin have allowed policies that force young girls to share private spaces with biological males.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

WASHINGTON — The United States lost 92,000 jobs in February, edging unemployment up slightly according to the latest employment figures released Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The report showed, for the third time in the last five months, losses among nonfarm jobs and highlighted a continued “trend down” in the information sector and federal government employment. The federal workforce is down by 11% from its peak in October 2024, according to the bureau. The report also noted a decrease in health care jobs, “reflecting strike activity.” 

Unemployment ticked up to 4.4% from 4.3% in January, and rates remained higher for women, teenagers and non-white workers.

Administration officials blamed the job losses on winter weather on the East Coast and labor strife among West Coast health care workers.

But Democrats faulted President Donald Trump’s policies, including military action in Iran and reimposing tariffs after the U.S. Supreme Court said many of Trump’s taxes on foreign goods were illegal.

U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Friday’s report is a “blaring alarm that Donald Trump’s economy is deteriorating rapidly,” and speculated the nearly week-old war in Iran will only make things worse.

“Now we’ve seen job losses in two of the last three months and an economy teetering on the edge of recession,” Schumer said in a Friday morning statement. “Tariffs are increasing costs, gas prices are spiking, and jobs are evaporating: The Trump Republican agenda is failing the American people and without immediately changing course the economy may go over the cliff.”

The unexpected report, combined with uncertainty over the war with Iran, rattled U.S. markets Friday morning, sparking a drop across all indexes, according to a daily update from the New York Stock Exchange’s Eric Criscuolo. 

Economists had estimated a February jobs gain for the U.S. to land around 59,000, according to Criscuolo. Additionally, the report is in stark contrast to January’s figures, which showed the economy gained 130,000 jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Trump officials project optimism

But the administration is brushing off negative headlines, and attributing the weak report to ice and snow storms in February and a month-long strike by Kaiser Permanente health care workers. 

“While record-breaking strikes and bad winter weather dragged down February nonfarm employment, the unemployment rate held steady, and there are several positive signs for our economy that continue to show American workers are recovering from the mess left behind by Biden,” Labor Secretary Lorie Chavez DeReemer said in a statement.

She added that the administration’s massive tax and spending cuts law enacted in July is positive for the economy.

Kevin Hassett, director of the White House National Economic Council, told CNBC Friday, “I think what we need to start doing with these jobs numbers, at least on the payroll side, is take the average over a few months.”

“And if you take the average over a few months, we had a surprisingly positive one last month and a surprisingly negative one this one. But on average, it’s about what we expect to be seeing,” he said, adding that the sharp fall in immigration is leading to “break-even employment” in the U.S.

No growth

Economists cautioned the jobs report builds on a negative economic outlook for the country.

“While it’s never sensible to read too much into one month of data, this morning’s report showing a decline in nonfarm payrolls and an increase in the unemployment rate comes at a difficult moment, with inflation still above target and an oil price shock threatening to raise inflation further,” said Daniel Hornung, a fellow at Stanford Institute of Economic Policy Research.

“The report complicates the Fed’s efforts to keep both unemployment and inflation low, and it makes it difficult for the Administration to argue heading into the midterms that their policies are leading to the kind of growth or improvement in living standards that they’ve long promised,” Hornung, the deputy director of the National Economic Council under President Joe Biden, said.

David Kelly, JPMorgan Asset Management’s chief global strategist, described the report as “weak.”

“We’re not seeing any job growth at all, really, in this economy,” Kelly told CNBC Friday morning. “But because immigration has done such a 180 here, and we’ve got a huge drop in the labor force — and that’s keeping the unemployment rate from spiking here — but it’s a very, very slow economy.”

Flocks of poultry in Dane, Jefferson and Walworth counties have been infected with highly pathogenic avian influenza, according to the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. 

The virus has been circulating across North America since 2021, infecting both wild and domesticated birds. The birds on the affected properties will be killed to prevent the further spread of disease, and DATCP has established a 10 kilometer control area around the infected premises in which the movement of poultry is restricted. 

The infected birds in Dane County were in a backyard poultry flock while in Jefferson and Walworth counties the affected birds were in commercial flocks, according to DATCP. 

Officials and farmers in Wisconsin have been managing avian flu infections since spring 2022 when outbreaks across the state shut down poultry shows, exhibits and swap meets. Last year, a dairy herd was quarantined after an infection was discovered. 

DATCP said it is monitoring farm workers at the affected facilities for signs of infection and recommends biosecurity measures to protect flocks and herds near where the current infections were found.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Like many churches, Christ Presbyterian Church on Madison’s near east side displays “welcome” banners outside its front doors. Unlike most churches, those doors are always locked to protect the clients and staff of the Community Immigration Law Center, which works out of offices in the church. 

The locked doors are just one of the many ways CILC has been forced to change as the administration of President Donald Trump seeks to massively decrease the immigrant population in the United States. 

The names of staff members are no longer publicly available on the organization’s website. Legal clinics to provide advice to asylum seekers are no longer being held because the administration has effectively stopped the asylum process. 

Already bursting at the seams of its office spaces in the church, CILC is working this year to grow its staff from eight lawyers and four paralegals to 10 lawyers and 16 paralegals in an effort to fill the gaping need across Wisconsin for immigration attorneys. 

The organization has also beefed up its rapid response capabilities, so when a community organization such as Voces de la Frontera hears about an immigration arrest, that person and their family can be quickly connected with an attorney through CILC. 

Grant Sovern, one of CILC’s co-founders, says that until the last few months, the organization was doing pretty well keeping up with cases — about 300 detention cases since Trump took office.  But with the Trump administration reversing protective orders that had been issued under President Joe Biden and continuing to upend longstanding policies, reinterpret rules and threaten the arrest of new classes of immigrants, CILC needs to do its best to make sure the government is adhering to the law and the Constitution, he adds. 

“The only chance we have for due process is applying the legal system, because the Constitution is still almost working in most of the cases,” Sovern says. “But you can’t just do that on your own. And in immigration, that’s more true because the federal government has a ton of discretion in how they apply those laws and the day-to-day workings of this immigration court.” 

CILC’s legal director, Aissa Olivarez, grew up in the Rio Grande valley near the U.S.-Mexico border. After five years teaching first grade, she attended law school at UW-Madison with the intention of practicing immigration law. She has stayed in Wisconsin because she saw a greater need here than in her home state of Texas, where there’s already robust infrastructure to assist immigrants. 

Growing up Mexican-American near the “militarized border” prepared her for all the tactics that Trump’s ICE has spread across the country, she says. But over the last year, the fear that ICE has caused in Wisconsin’s immigrant communities — particularly as surges of federal agents in neighboring Minnesota and Illinois drew headlines — has put a heavy burden on the CILC staff to be there for their clients. 

“How do we make this sustainable from an emotional point of view?” Olivarez says. She notes that she and her staff are often the first people detained immigrants meet with after their arrest. “And so oftentimes we get a long story or a lot of information that we may not need, but we know how important it is to listen, to lend an ear and to get the facts so that we can complete our mission of making sure that people get strong and good legal advice, but also the mission of just being a human in that space, and providing individuals with the space to talk, with the ability to discuss and ask questions and bring humanity.” 

But, she says, that can mean “we are carrying a very large emotional load, especially watching the way that the dismantling of people’s rights and the dismantling of our immigration courts is happening. There’s a lot of grief involved, and a lot of grief that we have to navigate, knowing oftentimes what people are facing, what they’re going through, and also worry for our own families.” 

Olivarez says it can be daunting to face the caseload, knowing there are about 1,000 days left in Trump’s term, understanding the pace is not likely to let up and trying to avoid burning out. But she feels CILC is playing an essential role for migrant communities across the state. 

“Can we keep up with that in an emotional way? Because the stakes are so high, because it means permanent separation from a family member, permanent exile from the United States, that we are well enough so that we can do the work. But we also haven’t faced this as an organization before,” she says. “And it’s really easy — because of all of the stories we hear and the people we see in these facilities — to lose hope. But I can tell you, the people who are not losing hope are the people who are being impacted. You know, they want to keep fighting. They stay strong through months and years of detention, and it’s a complete privilege and honor to be able to be trusted by the community in that way.” 

Natalia Lucak, the daughter of Czech immigrants, is CILC’s senior program manager. Lucak previously ran the organization’s asylum clinics, assisting asylum applicants with getting the proper paperwork filed to the right agencies. 

Now, she’s working with immigrants in Wisconsin — many of whom have come to the country with legal status only to lose that status because of Trump administration policy changes — to prepare for what happens if ICE arrests them. 

When Lucak started working in immigration law during President Barack Obama’s second term, “the goal and the hope was to help people stay here,” she says. Now she feels like she’s had her “wings clipped” because her job has become all about managing and assessing risk. 

Her job has become “preparing people for the possibility of being detained and advising them that you know what could happen if they’re detained, the likelihood of success in their case,” Lucak says.

“Now it’s just a very different calculus, especially when I talk to families, and as they think about, you know, what would happen to their children if they’re detained?” she says. “How would prolonged detention impact the family? And how much risk are they willing to take to stay here and just hope that things are okay when we are seeing increased detention numbers across the country and certainly in Wisconsin in the last few weeks.” 

For the first time, Lucak says she’s helping families weigh if it’s better to leave the country on their own before they get arrested and deported. There is a lot for her clients to weigh, all while they’re scared for the safety of their loved ones.  

“This administration is random. It’s just by luck that you’ve avoided [arrest] so far And that luck may run out, and who knows when? And so let’s plan,” she says. “People are crying often doing these consultations, and especially if they have kids, maybe they have U.S. citizen kids.”

The questions can be endless. 

“I’ve had various clients who have kids who are special needs, and so they’re U.S. citizens,” Lucak says. “They’re accessing certain programs here. And you’re kind of deciding, do we leave on our own? Do we uproot? Do I risk being deported and being separated from my child? Would my child stay here? My child go with me? How would my child come with me? Like even preparing, does your child have a passport? Like, does your child, if you’re gonna leave, or if you’re detained and deported, and your child needs to follow, that child needs a passport. There are all these documents you need to get in line. And so it’s really just like, do you have a family plan, who’s gonna pick up your kid if you’re detained there at school?” 

Even amid all the uncertainty, all the stress and the burden of being a small staff working out of some church offices to thwart the full weight of the federal government, Lucak says she and her colleagues plan to just keep trying to figure it out. 

“We are gonna find ways to fight and make them follow the law, make them follow due process, make them do these things,” she says. “And you know, they do have our back up to a wall because of all the power that they hold, especially when it comes to immigration.”

She adds that the staff has to be nimble “and not hold being too precious about things that worked under Biden. Like it’s not going to work anymore, and we just have to do it differently.”

Attending the State of the Union Address last month as Congresswoman Gwen Moore’s guest was, in a word, surreal.

As a child care provider and small business leader in Wisconsin, I spend my days thinking about how rising costs affect my staff and the families whose children we care for. I never imagined I would one day sit in the Capitol for an address like this.

Watching at home does not capture the scale of it: the formality, the history, the gravity of the room.

Last year, for the first time in my life, I began speaking publicly about health care affordability. For years, I relied on Affordable Care Act enhanced tax credits to afford my own coverage. When those credits expired, I watched members of my team face impossible decisions: pay dramatically higher premiums or go without health insurance altogether. That is not an abstract policy debate for us; it is a real and immediate stressor.

Congresswoman Moore invited me to share those experiences. She  and I had many conversations about the realities facing working families, including how the expiration of those tax credits is affecting millions of Americans, particularly the educators and families I see every day. We talked about the pressure of rising rent, utilities, groceries, child care and other costs, and how health care is increasingly becoming the expense that pushes families over the edge.

So when I took my seat in the Capitol, surrounded by university presidents, members of the military and leaders from across the country, I listened carefully.

I hoped to hear a serious plan to address health care costs.

Instead, health care received only brief mention in what I later learned was the longest State of the Union address in American history.

The President spoke about a “golden age” and a booming economy. But for whom? And in what parts of the country?

That’s not the reality I see.

Certainly not in the everyday lives of the people who form the foundation of our workforce: the teachers, farmers, caregivers, service workers and small business owners I interact with every day.

A golden era for a select few does not make a golden era for a country.

Not for teachers standing in classrooms.

Not for farmers working their fields.

Not for the caregivers, service workers and small business owners whose work sustains our communities.

They are the threads in the quilt that holds this country together. When policies ignore their struggles or make basic necessities like health care more expensive, those threads begin to fray.

Nearly 44% of U.S. adults say it is difficult to afford health care right now. Premiums have doubled, tripled or even quadrupled for millions of families following the expiration of enhanced ACA tax credits, a policy decision now affecting nearly 22 million Americans.

More than one million Americans have already dropped coverage, including more than 20,000  Wisconsinites.

We all know there are people behind those numbers.

They are assistant teachers deciding whether they can risk going uninsured. They are kitchen staff weighing premiums against rent. They are parents of toddlers delaying doctors’ appointments because another bill is already overdue.

In child care, those decisions ripple far beyond a single household. When educators cannot afford health care, they leave the field, and when they leave, classrooms close and parents lose the care they rely on to go to work. In that way, health care affordability is not just a personal issue; it is a workforce issue and an economic issue for the entire country.

At the same time, proposed cuts of more than $1 trillion from Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act are putting enormous pressure on the health care system itself. Across the country, over 750 hospitals, maternity wards and nursing homes are facing service cuts or closure because of these changes.

Every closure, every service reduction and every essential worker lost means higher costs, longer delays for care and greater risk for families.

None of that made it into the speech.

Meanwhile, billionaires have seen their wealth increase by $1 trillion, and pharmaceutical companies reported more than $130 billion in profits last year alone.

But the working families I know are making impossible trade-offs.

I attended the State of the Union hoping to hear that relief was coming —  that health care affordability would be treated as the urgent economic issue it is for my family, the families we serve at the daycare and for all working families.

Instead, I heard a version of the economy that does not match the reality I see every day.

In our corner of America, parents are postponing appointments. Employees are calculating whether they can risk going uninsured. Small business owners are wondering how long they can keep absorbing rising costs.

Being present in the Capitol did not change that reality.

Because for those of us entrusted with caring for children and for the families who rely on us, health care affordability is not a political talking point.

It is basic survival.

And Americans do not need to be told that we are living in a golden era.

We need to feel it.

That means passing legislation, making real investments, and taking meaningful action that improves the daily lives of the people who hold this country together. It means proving, not just promising, that the American people are worth investing in.

Because a truly golden era is not measured in stock market gains or applause in a chamber.

It is measured in whether everyday families can afford to live, work and care for one another with dignity.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

WASHINGTON — The top Democrat on the U.S. House Budget Committee sent a letter to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Thursday, asking its experts to determine how much the war in Iran could cost. 

“The Constitution grants Congress both the power of the purse and the responsibility of declaring war,” Pennsylvania Rep. Brendan Boyle wrote. “A timely and comprehensive estimate from CBO will support Congress in the conduct of its constitutional responsibilities. 

“Congress should ensure we are spending taxpayer dollars to improve the quality of life for the American people, not paying for another endless war in the Middle East.”

Boyle asked the CBO to detail how much the war would cost “under several scenarios, including scenarios of the war lasting longer than 4 to 5 weeks and deploying U.S. troops on the ground in Iran.” 

He requested the CBO to look at possible unintended costs of the war as well, such as how would “moving an aircraft carrier from near Taiwan to off the coast of Iran impact the United States responding to potential Chinese aggression?”

And Boyle asked the CBO to detail how the war in Iran could affect prices within the United States. 

The Trump administration has not publicly disclosed how much it’s spent on the war or what it expects the total price tag will be for what is dubbed Operation Epic Fury. A spokesperson for the Department of Defense told States Newsroom, when asked about costs, that they “have nothing to provide on this at this time.” 

President Donald Trump said during an afternoon appearance at the White House that Iranian leaders called to try to negotiate an end to the war, but didn’t say if he would begin talks. 

“They’re calling. They’re saying, ‘How do we make a deal?’ I said you’re being a little bit late,” Trump said. “And we want to fight now more than they do.”

Six US troops killed

Trump launched the war on Saturday, killing Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and several other top officials in that country’s government. The U.S. and Israeli militaries have continued bombing in the days since. 

Retaliation from Iran has, so far, led to the deaths of six U.S. troops, with top Defense Department officials expecting more casualties in the days and weeks ahead. 

Trump has said he expects the war could last between four and six weeks, or go longer. He hasn’t ruled out sending U.S. ground troops into Iran, though several Republican lawmakers left classified briefings earlier this week saying boots on the ground would be a step too far.  

Congress has not approved an Authorization for Use of Military Force or declared war against Iran, with both Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., saying they believe Trump’s actions are within his authority as commander-in-chief.  

Democrats, and a couple of Republicans, tried unsuccessfully this week to pull back U.S. troops by forcing floor votes on War Powers Resolutions that would have directed Trump “to remove the United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Iran, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or a specific authorization for use of military force.” 

Republicans in the House and Senate largely voted against the resolutions.

Trump expected to ask Congress for more money for Iran war

Congress approved $838.7 billion for the Department of Defense in January as part of its annual government funding process. Republicans approved another $150 billion for the Pentagon to spend on specific programs, like air and missile defense, as well as shipbuilding, in their “big, beautiful” law enacted in 2025.

But several GOP lawmakers said this week they expect the Trump administration will send a supplemental spending request to Capitol Hill in the coming weeks to bolster the military’s coffers. 

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt declined to say Wednesday if Trump will ask lawmakers for more funding for the Iran war, though she didn’t rule it out. 

“I don’t have any updates for you on congressional asks from the president,” Leavitt said. 

Any supplemental spending request would need to pass the House and move through the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster to become law.

That would require support from at least seven Democrats in the upper chamber if all 53 GOP senators vote to advance an emergency spending bill for the war. 

State Medicaid budgets will be reduced by a total of $665 billion over the next decade, after President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act cuts federal investment in the health insurance program, according to a new analysis.

Researchers from RAND Health, a policy and research nonprofit, analyzed state and federal data to estimate how much the loss of federal money will affect state Medicaid budgets, publishing their findings late last month. Medicaid is the public health insurance program for people with low incomes, jointly funded by state and federal money.

Overall, the net impact on state budgets, apart from their Medicaid programs, will be a reduction of $86 billion, according to the report. That number is lower than the total reduction in Medicaid budgets because while some states will have to spend more money from their general funds to cover Medicaid losses, others will have to spend less.

New federal rules such as work requirements for some Medicaid enrollees are designed to reduce the number of people on Medicaid, which means states that cover those people would no longer have to pay their share of those medical bills, saving them money. But many states use financial strategies, such as “provider taxes,” to qualify for extra federal Medicaid money. The new law limits their ability to do that, and that will force them to dip into their general funds to cover the loss of revenue.

“The effects of the law on Medicaid budgets and enrollment are substantial, but will vary widely across states, and in some cases may be at least partially offset by savings to the state general fund,” said Preethi Rao, a senior economist at RAND and lead author of the study, in a statement.

By 2034, Medicaid will have 7.6 million fewer enrollees, the authors estimated. The federal government will save about $714 billion from 2025-2034.

Arizona, Iowa and Nevada will see their Medicaid budgets reduced by more than 15%.

California and New York will see the biggest total drop in their Medicaid budgets, $112 billion and $63 billion, respectively.

At the other end of the spectrum, states that don’t rely as heavily on financing strategies like state-directed payments and provider taxes, won’t see such a significant impact. Florida is likely to see less than half a percent change to its Medicaid budget, the report found. North Dakota and Nebraska are also likely to see minimal impacts because their losses are expected to be offset by increased federal rural health funding.

State general funds in Tennessee, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Kentucky could see more than a 2% savings due to lowering Medicaid enrollment or reducing the types of care covered, the report found.

A few states with small Medicaid populations are expected to see an increase in their budgets due to that rural health program funding, including Wyoming and South Dakota.

“As states plan for the upcoming changes in funding and eligibility, understanding these state-specific differences will be important,” Rao said.

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

Two dozen states asked a federal court to block the tariffs that President Donald Trump instituted last month after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down his previous tariffs. 

The lawsuit, filed in the federal Court of International Trade, aims to strike down the president’s latest attempt at imposing tariffs, calling them illegal and requesting refunds to states. Last month, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump overstepped his authority implementing sweeping tariffs last year. 

Immediately after the ruling, Trump announced a new set of tariffs based on a different law. The new tariffs use Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 and set the global tariff rate at 10%, though the administration has suggested that they intend to increase it to 15%. 

“The President is using his authority granted by Congress to address fundamental international payments problems and to deal with our country’s large and serious balance-of-payments deficits,” White House spokesman Kush Desai told States Newsroom. “The Administration will vigorously defend the President’s action in court.” 

The lawsuit contends that the statute the White House is relying on has never been put into use — and the Trump administration is applying it improperly. 

“This statute has never been used ever at all in the history of this country,” Oregon AG Dan Rayfield said on a conference call with reporters about the lawsuit. Rayfield called the law “archaic,” adding that it was originally intended to be used when the country still operated on the gold standard, which the country moved away from for a fiat system. 

In their lawsuit, the 24 states said Trump’s justification for using the law “is fatally flawed” because he redefines key terms to force the statute to authorize tariffs. Specifically, they argue, the term “balance of payments” refers to a currency crisis “that was of great concern” in the early 1970s when U.S. currency was tied directly to gold — but that doesn’t apply since the nation ended the gold standard in 1976.

Since the 1974 law was crafted to deal with issues relating to the country’s economy under a different monetary system and does not address tariffs, the AGs contend that its use is wholly illegal. 

“A trade deficit is not a ‘balance of payments’ deficit. These are not the same thing at all. The president doesn’t know the difference or he doesn’t care,” Arizona AG Kris Mayes said. “Either way, he is breaking the law again.”

The lawsuit also contends that Trump’s tariffs  violate the Constitution’s separation-of-powers principle, which was a core argument in the first tariffs lawsuit — one with which the Supreme Court agreed. 

“If he had the support of Congress, he could have legally passed his tariffs by now,” Rayfield said. “But the truth is he doesn’t have the support of Congress, nor does he have the support of the American people, and he is doing an end run.”

Although the first tariffs lawsuit took nearly a year to resolve, Mayes said the AGs are confident the recent Supreme Court ruling means they will swiftly win injunctions against the implementation of Trump’s second round of tariffs. 

“We are hoping to get a quicker decision based on the very resounding, we think, victory we achieved in the Supreme Court,” she said, adding that they are hoping for a preliminary injunction against the tariffs being implemented in the near term as the case works its way through the process. 

“I think we’re pretty confident or we would not be here,” New York AG Letitia James said, letting out a small chuckle, when asked if they believe they will be successful in this second lawsuit. 

James herself has had her own personal legal battles with Trump whose Department of Justice indicted her on two counts of bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution. 

The indictment was thrown out and two grand juries declined separate efforts by the DOJ to bring the charges back. 

“At the end of the day for us this is not about political gamesmanship — this is about making sure our communities don’t pay the price for President Donald Trump’s inability to take an L,” California AG Rob Bonta said. 

Attorneys general from the states of Arizona, Oregon, California and New York are leading the charge on the new lawsuit. They are  joined by the AGs of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. The governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania are also part of the new lawsuit.

WASHINGTON — House Republicans and a handful of Democrats followed the Senate in blocking a measure Thursday to stop President Donald Trump from furthering the war in Iran without authorization from Congress.

The joint war with Israel that began six days ago has already claimed the lives of six U.S. troops and injured and killed dozens of civilians across Israel and the Persian Gulf nations. Iranian officials say more than 1,000 have been killed since Saturday, according to multiple reports. 

The War Powers Resolution sponsored by Reps. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., and Thomas Massie, R-Ky., failed in a 212-219 vote. Massie was the lone Republican to sign on to the measure.

Massie and Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, broke ranks with Republicans to vote in favor of limiting Trump’s hand in Iran. But Democrats Greg Landsman, D-Ohio, Jared Golden, D-Maine, Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, and Juan Vargas, D-Calif., joined the majority of Republicans in opposing the War Powers Resolution.

Golden issued a statement following the vote saying he is reluctant to support a halt to the current fighting, despite Trump’s lack of clarity.

Servicemembers are “actively engaged in hostilities, our allies are under attack and the Iranian regime is more desperate than ever to reassert its power. While I do not believe that an abrupt about-face is a good course of action given the reality on the ground, that should not be construed as my approval,” Golden said. 

Davidson wrote on social media Monday that he wants to “review the intelligence behind the Iran strikes. I’m open to being persuaded these strikes were necessary. But I do not support a regime-change war, and any boots on the ground or prolonged conflict requires authorization from Congress.”

House lawmakers otherwise split along party lines, with Republicans offering resounding support for the intervention.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., described the War Powers Resolution as a “a terrible, dangerous idea.”

During debate on the House floor Wednesday, Rep. Brian Mast, R-Fla., said Trump “is utilizing his constitutional Article II authority to defend the United States of America against that imminent threat that we agree upon.”

Mast sponsored a separate, symbolic resolution reaffirming Iran as the largest state-sponsor of terrorism. The measure passed Thursday in a 372-53 vote. Two members voted present. All who voted “no” or present were Democrats.

Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., who argued for the War Powers Resolution on the floor Wednesday, said the U.S. is now involved in a conflict with Iran “at President Trump’s own behest.”

“What is the strategy for preventing regional escalation, and what is the plan for the day after? What will this cost the American people? Because the American people deserve those answers, and Congress deserves a vote,” Meeks said.

House vote echoes Senate

A similar War Powers Resolution failed in the U.S. Senate Wednesday when all but one Republican, Kentucky’s Rand Paul, voted against it. Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., was the only Democrat to join Republicans in opposing the measure.

Republicans, joined by Fetterman, have blocked other attempts to rein in Trump’s military interventions during his second term. A War Powers Resolution to stop Trump from further operations in Venezuela failed in the House and Senate in January. 

The U.S. apprehended Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro and his wife on Jan. 3 on drug trafficking and weapons charges. Maduro remains in U.S. custody while awaiting trial. His arrest followed months of a U.S. bombing campaign on alleged small drug boats in the Caribbean Sea that have killed more than 130 people, according to the human rights-focused Washington Office on Latin America, which has joined a chorus of critics who argue the strikes are illegal.

Congress overrode a veto by President Richard Nixon in 1973 during the ongoing Vietnam War to pass the War Powers Resolution as a check on presidential power 

Strikes continue

U.S. and Israel continued strikes on Iran Thursday. 

Trump urged all Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps members and police to lay down their arms and “accept immunity.” Otherwise, they’ll face “absolute guaranteed death,” he said at an unrelated White House event Thursday afternoon.

“We also urge Iranian diplomats around the world to request asylum and to help us shape a new and better Iran with great potential,” Trump said.

The war widened its reach as Azerbaijani officials said two drones from Iran struck an airport and other civilian targets inside the NATO ally’s borders. 

“These acts of aggression will not remain unanswered,” according to a statement Thursday from Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Defense.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told NBC News Wednesday night that if the U.S. launches a ground invasion, “we are confident that we can confront them, and that would be a big disaster for them.”

White House press secretary told reporters Wednesday American ground troops are “not part of the current plan” but did not rule out that it’s an option “on the table.”

All six U.S. troops killed by an Iranian drone in Kuwait Sunday have been identified by the Pentagon.

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump Thursday said Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem will be leaving the post for a job as a special envoy, following an appearance before a U.S. Senate panel this week that provoked bipartisan criticism of her handling of the department that is tasked with fulfilling the administration’s mass deportation campaign. 

Oklahoma GOP Sen. Markwayne Mullin, a Trump loyalist who has championed the president’s war against Iran, will lead the Department of Homeland Security, the president wrote on his social media site, TruthSocial.

“I thank Kristi for her service at ‘Homeland,’” Trump wrote, adding that her role ends March 31.

In a social media post, Noem wrote she looked forward to her new role as a special envoy for a new “Security Initiative in the Western Hemisphere.”

In that role, she will work with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, she said, adding that her new position will “build on the partnerships and national security expertise” that she made as DHS secretary, but did not go into detail. 

“I look forward to working with them closely to dismantle cartels that have poured drugs into our nation and killed our children and grandchildren,” she said, adding that the “Western Hemisphere is absolutely critical for U.S. security.” Trump said her title would be special envoy for the Shield of Americas, “our new Security Initiative in the Western Hemisphere” that will be announced at a conference in Doral, Florida, on Saturday.

As members of Congress and other officials reacted to the sudden news of Noem’s ouster Thursday, the outgoing secretary spoke at a previously scheduled event with local law enforcement leaders at a conference in Nashville. 

Noem took questions from the officials in the room, but was not asked about the shakeup and did not address it.

In a social media post, Mullin said he was grateful for the nomination and, if confirmed, would support Trump’s “mission to safeguard the American people and defend the homeland.”

“I look forward to earning the support of my colleagues in the Senate and carrying out President Trump’s mission alongside the department’s many capable agencies and the thousands of patriots who keep us safe every day,” he said. 

Senate hearing

In the heated hourslong oversight Tuesday hearing before senators, Republicans grilled Noem over handing no-bid contracts to close allies and her agency’s slow disaster relief response. 

North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis berated Noem for a full 10 minutes, criticizing her for a policy she instituted to require disaster relief funds over $100,000 to be approved by her, which he said created a bottleneck in approving funds to his state that is recovering from Hurricane Helene.

He slammed her leadership at DHS as a “disaster” and said it showed the same bad decisionmaking that led her to shoot and kill her 14-month-old dog named Cricket, which she detailed in her 2024 memoir. 

After the president announced Thursday that he would nominate Mullin to lead DHS, Tillis gave his support in a social media post.

“Senator Markwayne Mullin is a great guy and a great choice to lead DHS, restore competence, and refocus efforts on quickly distributing disaster aid, keeping the border secure, and targeting violent illegal immigrants for deportation,” Tillis said. “Another big positive: he likes dogs.”

Also cited were multiple video recordings that contradicted her statements that two U.S. citizens killed by her federal immigration officers in Minneapolis were “domestic terrorists.”

Senate Democrats have refused to approve funding for the Department of Homeland Security, now at day 19 of a shutdown, unless certain policy changes are made to immigration enforcement tactics. A vote in the Senate to move forward on approving a funding bill for the agency failed again on Thursday, in a 51-45 vote. Sixty votes are required.

Ad campaign 

The Wall Street Journal reported earlier Thursday that Trump was planning to fire Noem after she said during the Senate hearing that a special $220 million ad campaign that prominently featured her was personally signed off on by the president. 

Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy questioned Noem about her decision to award a no-bid contract for the ad campaign, in which she pressured immigrants in the country without legal authority to “self deport.” 

A ProPublica investigation found that Noem awarded the contract to the husband of former DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin.

Kennedy asked Noem if the president was aware of the cost of the ad campaign. Noem said Trump knew about it and approved it. 

According to the Wall Street Journal’s Thursday story, the president had not agreed to the campaign, and he was frustrated with its self-promoting style. 

Kennedy had mused to Noem that the ad campaign was “effective in (boosting) your name recognition.”

Minneapolis killings

Democrats have called for Noem to step down following the deaths of U.S. citizens in Minnesota, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, both 37.

Noem had approved an aggressive immigration operation, sending more than 2,000 federal immigration agents to the city. The months-long operation in a city with a high Somali refugee population sparked massive protests and community pushback. 

Following Pretti’s death, the second, Trump directed White House border czar Tom Homan to take over the operations.

Cabinet departure

Noem is the first high-profile Cabinet official to leave her role, which she’s held for a little over a year. 

A similar inflection point with the Trump administration’s immigration policy occurred in the president’s first term in 2018, when huge controversy was generated when parents were separated from their children at the southern border. 

Then-DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was charged with implementing the policy, which was crafted by Stephen Miller, who is still a top architect of the Trump administration’s immigration policy. Nielsen eventually resigned from her role months later.  

Back to South Dakota?

While the president said Noem will move into another role, the former governor of South Dakota could still have a future in her home state with a potential primary race against Republican Sen. Mike Rounds.

To earn a spot on the June 2 primary ballot, Noem would have to gather nominating petition signatures from 2,171 registered South Dakota voters by March 31.

If that race were to materialize, it would pit two former governors against each other. Rounds was governor of South Dakota from 2003 to 2011, and Noem served from 2019 until last year, when she resigned to join Trump’s Cabinet.

However, such a race would be an uphill battle for her as Rounds already earned a reelection endorsement from Trump in July. 

Before she was governor, Noem served in the U.S. House as South Dakota’s lone representative. She could seek a return to that position, because Republican Rep. Dusty Johnson is running for governor. 

The leading candidate for the state’s Republican nomination for U.S. House is Attorney General Marty Jackley, who lost to Noem in the 2018 Republican gubernatorial primary.

Markwayne Mullin 

Mullin, if confirmed by the Senate, would be the first Native American to lead DHS. He is an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation. 

Mullin appears to have little experience in homeland security. In the Senate, he does not sit on any committee that oversees or appropriates funds to the agency. 

He’ll be tasked with carrying out the president’s campaign promise of mass deportations, along with leading crucial agencies such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, transportation security and cyber security, among other departments. 

He would also be taking over an agency that received a separate funding stream from Congress that provides more than $170 billion for immigration enforcement and detention, which he voted for last year. 

Mullin will have to leave the Senate in order to run the agency, if confirmed. Another former senator who serves in Trump’s cabinet, Rubio, resigned as Florida’s senator after the Senate confirmed him in a 99-0 vote. Rubio voted for himself before submitting his resignation.

In his time in the House from 2013 to 2023, Mullin sat on the Energy and Commerce, Transportation and Infrastructure and Natural Resources committees.

In the Senate, he sits on the Appropriations, Armed Services, Indian Affairs and Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committees.

During a 2023 HELP Committee hearing, Mullin challenged International Brotherhood of Teamsters President Sean O’Brien to a physical fight.

On Appropriations, he chairs the panel that handles funding for the legislative branch, and on the HELP Committee, he chairs the panel on Employment and Workplace Safety.  

He would undergo a confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, where he called the committee chair, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a “freaking snake,” and said he understood why Paul’s neighbor assaulted him, according to an Oklahoma journalist. 

Paul’s ribs were broken by his neighbor in the assault in 2017.

Seth Tupper contributed to this report.