Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers vetoed Republican bills that would eliminate income taxes on tips and overtime, require counties to cooperate with federal immigration agents and  overturn his 400-year veto that provided school revenue limit increases.

No tax on tips and overtime

In July 2025, President Donald Trump signed a tax and spending bill that included provisions allowing tipped workers making less than $150,000 to deduct up to $25,000 in tips annually from their federal taxable income and allowing certain employees who work overtime and make less than $150,000 to claim a tax deduction. Republican lawmakers in Wisconsin introduced proposals to align state income tax policy with those measures. 

SB 36 would have given tipped employees a state income tax exemption for cash tips, with a sunset date in 2028.

Evers supported eliminating taxes on tips in his 2025-27 state budget proposal, but GOP lawmakers rejected the provision and instead advanced their bill. Evers’ proposal would have been a permanent change, unlike the Republican proposal. 

“We should not be at the whims of a Republican-controlled Congress that has no problem gutting basic necessities and services like food and access to healthcare just to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires,” Evers wrote in his veto message. 

Wisconsin Republicans have sent Evers a number of proposals influenced by the Trump administration and Republican-led Congress to varying success. He signed a SNAP bill with funding for DHS that also included a policy to prohibit SNAP participants from being able to use their benefits to buy candy and soda, while vetoing a bill to opt the state into a federal school choice tax credit program. 

Evers wrote that his “expectation” when providing tax relief is to pass proposals that are “real, responsible, and targeted to the middle class.” Evers has signed a number of tax cuts given to him by Republican lawmakers throughout his time in office. As a result of cuts, a 2024 Wisconsin Policy Forum report found that the state and local tax burden on residents had hit a record low in 2024. In 2025, another report found that the tax burdens remained low as incomes rose.

Evers said that the state must also “stay well within our means by still ensuring our tax policy changes are sustainable and will not force us to cut services or raise taxes down the road. Therefore, I am vetoing this bill in its entirety because I object to adopting a temporary income tax provision instead of working to provide comprehensive and lasting relief to Wisconsin taxpayers.” 

Evers had a similar message in vetoing AB 461, which would have provided an income tax deduction for overtime. Under the bill, single filers would have been able to claim up to $12,500 per year under the subtraction, while joint filers would have been able to claim up to $25,000. Unlike the “no tax on tips” bill, the change would have been permanent.

“I object to this bill changing the tax code in a way that will treat Wisconsin workers who earn  similar wages differently just because of their classification as salaried or hourly workers. A salaried worker who earns $35,000 (and is not eligible to earn overtime compensation) should not pay a different amount in taxes from an hourly worker who earns $35,000 through working overtime,” Evers wrote in his veto message. “We should focus on creating a fairer tax code that provides real, responsible tax relief that supports rather than divides working Wisconsinites.”

Vetoes ICE compliance bill

Evers vetoed AB 24, which would have required  local law enforcement in Wisconsin to work with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The bill would have required sheriffs to check the citizenship status of people being held in jail on felony charges and notify federal immigration enforcement officials if citizenship cannot be verified. 

Counties failing to comply would be at risk of losing 15% of their shared revenue payments from the state, which help cover the cost of fire, law enforcement and other services.

Republican lawmakers, including Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) and Sen. Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin), introduced the bill at the start of Trump’s second term, saying that the state needed to support his immigration agenda. 

Since the introduction of the bill, the Trump administration has stepped up detaining and deporting  immigrants. The federal government sent agents to neighboring Minnesota, where they shot and killed two U.S. citizens, including a Wisconsin native. This week in Wisconsin, ICE detained Salah Sarsour, a Palestinian activist and president of the Milwaukee Islamic Society. More local law enforcement in Wisconsin have also entered agreements with ICE in the last year. 

According to a Stateline report, experts have said jails are the easiest place to pick up people for deportation, and more local law enforcement cooperation leads to more arrests. 

Evers did not make any specific mention of ICE in his veto message, instead focusing on the potential penalty that local communities could face. 

“Republican lawmakers are trying to micromanage local law enforcement decisions by threatening to gut state aid by 15% for our local communities — that’s a non-starter,” Evers wrote. “We shouldn’t be threatening law enforcement with deep budget cuts; we should be working together with local law enforcement to improve public safety, reduce crime and keep dangerous drugs and violent criminals off of our street.”

400-year veto repeal rejected

Evers also vetoed another attempt by Republican lawmakers to repeal his 400-year veto, which extended school districts’ ability to bring in an additional $325 per pupil annually through funding from the state or through property taxes. Lawmakers rejected calls to provide an increase to schools’ general aid in the most recent state budget, meaning most schools have raised property taxes to make use of the revenue authority. 

Republican lawmakers have argued that eliminating the veto is the best way to help address rising property taxes and pushed forward SB 389 to do so. 

Evers wrote in his veto message that lawmakers “all know that my 400-year veto didn’t raise Wisconsinites’ property taxes — it’s just a heckuva lot easier for them to blame me than it is to tell the truth.” He said he objected to repealing the veto, which was upheld by the state Supreme Court, without providing additional resources to school districts. 

“My 400-year veto is here to stay, lawmakers,” he wrote. “Just fund our public schools and get over it.”. 

Evers also vetoed AB 460, which would have allowed siblings of students in the state’s school voucher program to participate regardless of their income level. Advocates of the legislation said it would help keep families together in school, but Evers said the bill would expand the cost of the voucher system and further burden struggling public schools.

Currently to qualify for a school voucher program, a student’s family must be below a certain income. A student who has attended a prior year remains qualified even if the family income increases above the limit, but then a sibling who hasn’t attended might no longer qualify to apply for the voucher program. 

The legislation went to Evers as the enrollment caps on the state’s voucher programs will sunset next school year. Evers said in his veto message that he objects to increased spending on the state’s voucher program. 

“Funding for private parental choice programs remains convoluted and inconsistent across programs,” Evers said. “The cost burden of private parental choice program expansion falls either on local property taxpayers, who already are struggling due to a lack of investment in public schools by the Legislature, or on the state general fund, which draws resources away from students in public schools.” 

Vetoes closing holdover appointments loophole

Evers also vetoed AB 248. The GOP bill would have closed the loophole in state law that allows for appointees to stay in their positions past the expiration of their term. The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the practice in 2021, when Department of Natural Resources Board member Fred Prehn, appointed during Gov. Scott Walker’s second term, stayed after his term was up, blocking an Evers appointee from taking the seat.  The Court upheld the loophole again in 2025, when Wisconsin Elections Commission Administrator Meagan Wolfe stayed after the expiration of her term.

In his veto message Evers called the bill “just the latest in a decade-plus-long effort by Republican lawmakers to abuse the power available to them, undermine basic tenets of our democracy and erode foundational cornerstones of state government that will have impacts on our state for generations.” He noted that while he was in office lawmakers delayed confirming his nominees for key positions and fired others from their positions “for no apparent reason other than being appointed by a Democratic governor.”

“This bill is a representation of the years of Republican efforts to erode our democratic institutions… This bill represents the worst of partisan politics and what can happen when a Legislature chooses to put politics before people,” Evers wrote. “It’s shortsighted, and it is politics at its worst and most dangerous. I will not enable the Legislature to continue this ridiculous exercise.”

Evers signs handful of school bills

Evers also signed two bills introduced by lawmakers to address concerns about investigations into grooming allegations against teachers. The concerns were prompted after a CapTimes news report that found over 200 investigations into teacher licenses due to allegations of sexual misconduct or grooming from 2018 to 2023. 

SB 785, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 185, requires the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) to maintain an online licensing portal that is searchable by the public at no cost. The portal will need to include information on license holders under investigation and the name of individuals who have had their licenses revoked.

AB 1004, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 186, prohibits public and private schools from entering agreements that would suppress information on the immoral conduct of an employee, would affect the report of immoral conduct by an employer or employees or require an education employer to expunge information about allegations of findings or immoral conduct. 

Evers also signed AB 530, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 189, which prohibits the operation of drones over schools in Wisconsin unless there is authorization by the school’s governing body or by a sheriff or a chief of a local public protection service agency.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Gov. Tony Evers announced Friday that he had signed two executive orders to begin offering commutations, a reduction of a criminal sentence by the governor’s authority to grant clemency.

Even though Evers has granted a record number of pardons, a form of forgiveness that reinstates some rights, during his tenure — over 2,000 — he has not granted any commutations. The last Wisconsin governor to offer a commutation was Republican Tommy Thompson,  who issued seven commutations in addition to 202 pardons. Thompson was governor from 1987 to 2001, 

“It’s time for Wisconsin to join red and blue states across our country and finally move our justice system into the 21st Century by reforming our criminal justice and corrections systems to improve public safety, reduce the likelihood that individuals will reoffend when they enter our communities, and save taxpayer dollars in the long run,” Evers said in a statement. “Issuing official grants of forgiveness through pardons has been one of the most rewarding parts of my job as governor, and I’m looking forward to restoring the commutations process in Wisconsin for the first time since Tommy Thompson was governor.”. 

Members of WISDOM, a non-profit faith-based organization that works to end mass incarceration, say Evers told them in 2023 that he would begin issuing commutations. Subsequently, the organization and other criminal justice advocates have been pressing Evers’ administration to offer commutations and to create a structure to process applications.

Prior to Evers’ announcement, there was no process in place for those in the criminal justice system, either in prison or community supervision (parole, probation or extended supervision), to apply for a commutation. There was only a process to apply for a pardon, but to be eligible for a pardon the applicant had to complete an entire sentence,  including incarceration and community supervision, and avoid any criminal charges for  five years. 

Evers ran for office in 2018 on a commitment to reduce the prison population in Wisconsin, but after a dip during COVID, the number of people in prison population has remained steady at over 23,000. Advocates have said commutations would enable Evers to address the high prison population by offering it to worthy residents, especially those who committed crimes as youth, have been incarcerated for  a considerable number of years, and are good candidates to return to society.

In his announcement, Evers called on lawmakers to take more steps to reduce the prison population.

“Wisconsin cannot wait for criminal justice reforms,” Evers said. “As our prison population continues to skyrocket, increasing costs to taxpayers on overtime and other resource needs, the Legislature must start working toward making long-term justice and corrections reforms a priority, including efforts to help stabilize our state’s prison population that our institutions already are struggling to accommodate. For years, I’ve asked the Legislature to work with me to invest in behavioral and mental health services, treatment and diversion, and reentry programming—these are evidence-based and data-driven policies we know will help keep our communities safer while continuing to ensure dangerous individuals remain in our institutions. My administration will continue doing what we can as long as I am governor, but we cannot do it alone—the Legislature must get serious about this issue.” 

The governor noted in his order, Executive Order 287, that commutation “promotes rehabilitation by providing a system that rewards the positive efforts of incarcerated individuals who demonstrate personal growth and a commitment to change with the possibility of a second chance to contribute to society, become productive members of their communities, make amends, and improve their lives and those of the people around them.”

Additionally, the order noted, “the granting of commutations can also encourage incarcerated individuals to be accountable, take responsibility, make amends, and seek forgiveness for their actions that have harmed other individuals and the community.” 

Advocates have said the possibility of a commutation is an incentive for those incarcerated to be model residents, to strive to improve themselves with job skills, and address behavioral issues to be better prepared for life outside of prison.   

Evers said there will be categories of individuals  ineligible for commutation, including those who have committed sexual assault, physical abuse of a child, sexual exploitation of a child, trafficking of a child, incest and soliciting a child for prostitution.

Executive Order 287 will create a Commutation Advisory Board comprised of 14 members, including the Governor’s chief legal counsel or a designee and others who “have experience or expertise in the fields of reentry services, victim rights, corrections, and related areas and who are otherwise able to provide a valuable perspective on reduction of criminal sentences.”

The governor’s second  executive order, 288, creates a juvenile life sentence commutation process for individuals who were “tried as adults and sentenced to life imprisonment for a crime committed in their youth.”

“A growing body of neuroscientific and psychological research has demonstrated that an individual’s brain, behavior, and personality undergo significant changes throughout their teen years and into their twenties,” said the governor. He noted in a press release the U.S. Supreme Court decision Miller v. Alabama, which found that a mandatory life sentence without parole for juveniles is unconstitutional, in part because they are not fully accountable for their actions due to brain development and maturity.

“Individuals who commit a crime in their youth therefore possess increased potential for rehabilitation, a diminished degree of culpability, and a lower chance of reoffending once they have reached maturity,” said Evers.

Since 2022, there has been legislation offering adjustments of life sentences for people who were sentenced as adults when they were under age 18, but that legislation has failed to gain traction. With SB 882, the most recent example, one  issue has been apparent confusion over the number of those eligible, with the number cited by Sen. Jesse James (R-Altoona), the legislation’s sponsor, reportedly differing from the number advocacy groups were reporting.

Advocacy groups welcome order

Beverly Walker, an official with WISDOM and also with Integrity Center who led the organization’s advocacy for commutation, and Sherry Reames, a WISDOM volunteer who also worked on commutations, said in statements that Evers’ order would address conditions created by Wisconsin’s sentencing policies, including prison overcrowding, that especially affect Black, brown, indigenous and poor communities.

“Today, Gov. Evers took action to advance justice in Wisconsin,” said Walker. “This marks a significant shift forward.”

“Gov. Evers’ decision to restore the commutations process will promote redemption and provide hope for people who have made great strides with their personal growth and development.” said Reames. “This is an important first step, but much work remains to be done.”

Reames said WISDOM would “closely monitor the implementation of the commutation process” and help ensure it is inclusive.

“If Governor Evers and future Wisconsin governors boldly move the commutations process forward in the coming months and years, this would begin to reverse the harm caused by decades of over-incarceration and provide hope and opportunities for many people,” she said.  

Marianne Olesson, co-executive director of EXPO of Wisconsin, one of the advocacy groups that has been pressing for commutations, called Evers’ orders Friday “an important and long-overdue step toward a more just, humane, and credible legal system.” 

“By signing Executive Orders 287 and 288, Governor Evers has reopened a pathway for review, redemption, and second chances for people currently serving sentences, including a process specifically recognizing the unique potential for growth and rehabilitation among youth sentenced to life in prison,” Olesson said. “The new process includes eligibility criteria, review by a Commutation Advisory Board, consideration of institutional conduct and rehabilitation, and opportunities for survivor and victim input.”

Olesson said opportunities for people in the justice system to demonstrate they’ve changed are important. 

 “A justice system that allows no meaningful path for review, even in the face of growth, accountability, and years of demonstrated change, is not a system rooted in true public safety or human dignity,” she said. “Restoring commutations acknowledges that people can evolve and that redemption must be more than just a talking point. We applaud his commitment and we are grateful.”

The Wisconsin State Public Defenders office also praised the orders.

 “For the first time in a generation, thousands of Wisconsinites written off by the state’s legal system will have a clear path to returning home,” Public Defender Jennifer Bias said in a statement.  “For the many Wisconsinites who have done the hard work of redemption and are ready to come home, this is a chance to start anew. For our state, this is an opportunity to heal the scars left by decades of over-incarceration. Governor Evers is taking a bold and necessary step forward.”

This report has been updated with additional comments received after publication from leaders of  WISDOM.

President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting mail ballots faced a fresh challenge on Friday, as a coalition of Democratic states filed a lawsuit seeking to block an order that experts say is an extraordinary attempt by the president to assert authority over elections.

More than 20 states — led by California, Massachusetts, Nevada and Washington — and the District of Columbia sued in federal court in Massachusetts. They argue the order violates the Constitution, which gives states the responsibility to run elections and allows Congress, not the president unilaterally, the power to override state regulations.

“Though the President may wish he had unlimited power to restrict voting rights, the Constitution gives states – not the White House – the authority to oversee elections,” Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, a Democrat, said in a statement.

The lawsuit is only the latest in a growing number of legal challenges to the order since Trump signed it on Tuesday.

The Democratic National Committee, top Democrats in Congress and other Democratic groups have sued, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, League of Women Voters, the League of United Latin American Citizens and other voting rights groups. 

Friday’s state-led challenge marked at least the fifth lawsuit over the order.

“Neither the Constitution nor any act of Congress confers upon the President the authority to mandate sweeping changes to States’ electoral systems or procedures,” the complaint reads.

The Trump administration has said the order is necessary to ensure the security of elections and crack down on noncitizen voting, which studies have found is extremely rare. Trump acknowledged the order would likely face litigation when he signed it but called it “foolproof.”

“The President will do everything in his power to defend the safety and security of American elections and to ensure that only American citizens are voting in them,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement on Wednesday.

List required

The order requires the Department of Homeland Security, with help from the Social Security Administration, to compile a list of voting-age U.S. citizens living in each state and then provide that information to state officials at least 60 days before each federal election. 

The order does not tell states how to use the data, but it instructs the U.S. attorney general to prioritize investigations into state and local officials who issue federal ballots to ineligible voters.

The list of citizens will be drawn from naturalization and Social Security records, according to the order. It will also include data from SAVE, a powerful computer program maintained by Homeland Security that verifies citizenship by checking names against information in federal databases. 

The order also directs the postmaster general to require every outbound mail ballot be in an envelope that includes a tracking barcode. 

At least 90 days before a federal election, states must notify the U.S. Postal Service whether they intend to allow ballots to be sent through the mail. States would then have to submit to USPS a list of voters planning to vote by mail at least 60 days before the election.

“The expression ‘a solution in search of a problem’ came to mind, but this is sort of a quasi-solution in search of a hallucination,” said Pamela Smith, president and CEO of Verified Voting, an organization that promotes the responsible use of technology in elections.

Under the order, the Justice Department and other federal agencies would be directed to withhold federal funds from states and localities that don’t comply with federal laws. It doesn’t specify what federal funds would potentially be targeted or whether states could lose election-related dollars.

“The president’s illegal executive order creates a shadow voter eligibility list within the federal government and it threatens to coerce states into disenfranchising voters missing from those lists,” Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford said at a news conference in Las Vegas.

States say they run elections, not feds

The coalition of states argues in the lawsuit that Trump’s order would require states to upend existing election administration procedures and spend significant time and resources “mitigating the harms” of its requirements and educating voters about the new rules.

The states joining the lawsuit include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin, in addition to the District of Columbia and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat.

Some Republican state officials have backed Trump’s efforts. Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray in a statement voiced “complete and total” support for the order.

“I look forward to continuing to work with the Trump Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, the United States Postal Inspection Service, and our county clerks on implementation of this executive order,” Gray said.

But the states say the order would require states to act contrary to their own voter roll procedures, systems and voter registration laws, the complaint argues. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, a Democrat, said the Constitution is clear that states run elections.

“Not the President,” Mayes said. “And Arizona will not allow the federal government to seize control of our elections.”

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration released its fiscal 2027 budget request Friday, asking Congress to increase spending on defense programs by 43% and decrease funding for non-defense accounts by 10%. 

The proposal kicks off what will be a monthslong process on Capitol Hill as lawmakers write the dozen annual government funding bills ahead of the Oct. 1 deadline. 

Congress rarely adheres to the president’s request entirely, and didn’t do so last year, rejecting many of the proposed cuts, including to health and education.

Last year’s process, the first of President Donald Trump’s second term, was considerably rocky, leading to a 43-day shutdown that began in October, a brief partial shutdown that ended in early February and an ongoing shutdown for the Department of Homeland Security. 

This budget request proposes Republicans again use the complex budget reconciliation process they used last year to enact the “big, beautiful” law to further bolster spending on the Pentagon and DHS. 

The Defense Department would have its budget raised to $1.5 trillion, a $445 billion increase over its current funding level. The administration proposes lawmakers put $1.1 trillion of that in the annual spending bill that would require bipartisan support to move through the Senate and place the other $350 billion in the partisan reconciliation bill. 

“America has already begun to strengthen and reinvigorate the military by committing tens of billions of dollars to new and innovative programs such as the Golden Dome for America, and making critical investments in the defense industrial base,” the document states. “By continuing to provide the resources necessary to rebuild America’s military, the Budget re-establishes deterrence, revives the warrior ethos of America’s Armed Forces, and prioritizes investments against the most acute national security threats.”

Department-by-department requests

The budget asks that lawmakers also increase spending on:  

• The Energy Department by $4.8 billion, or 10%, to $53.9 billion.
• The Justice Department by $4.7 billion, or 13%, to $40.8 billion.
• The Veterans’ Affairs Department by $11.5 billion, or 9%, to $144.9 billion in discretionary spending. 

The proposal asks Congress to decrease spending on: 

• The Agriculture Department by $4.9 billion, or 19%, to $20.8 billion.
• The Commerce Department by $1.3 billion, or 12.2%, to $9.2 billion. 
• The Education Department by $2.3 billion, or 2.9%, to $76.5 billion.
• The Environmental Protection Agency by $4.6 billion, or 52%, to $4.2 billion. 
• The Department of Health and Human Services by $15.8 billion, or 12.5%, to $111.1 billion. 
• The Department of Housing and Urban Development by $10.7 billion, or 13%, to $73.5 billion.
• The Interior Department by $2.3 billion, or 12.9%, to $15.9 billion. 
• The Labor Department by $3.5 billion, or 25.9%, to $9.9 billion.
• The Small Business Administration by $671 million, or 67%, to $329 million. 
• The State Department and other international programs by $15.5 billion, or 30%, to $35.6 billion.
• The Transportation Department by $1.6 billion, or 6.2%, to $26.6 billion.
• The Treasury Department by $1.5 billion, or 12%, to $11.5 billion. 

The budget proposes $63 billion in funding for the Department of Homeland Security, which doesn’t yet have its appropriations bill from the current year for comparison. 

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, said in a statement there are issues with some of its proposals for both defense and domestic spending. 

“While there are some improvements over last year’s domestic discretionary budget request, including full support for the Pell Grant program, the request has several shortcomings,” she said. “For example, the proposal includes unwarranted funding cuts in biomedical research. It would also terminate worthwhile programs like LIHEAP, which helps low-income families and seniors to pay their energy bills during the cold winter and hot summer months, and TRIO, which assists low-income, first-generation students in pursuing higher education.” 

Collins indicated she may bolster defense spending for a certain type of ship that she views as essential to the country’s military. 

“The request for just one DDG-51, the workhorse of the U.S. Navy, is insufficient to counter the ever-growing Chinese fleet, which now exceeds the size of the American Navy, as well as other global threats,” she said. 

Privatizing TSA screening

The president’s request asks lawmakers to cut funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s non-disaster grant program and to begin the process of offloading security screening at the nation’s airports. 

“The Budget begins the privatization of TSA’s airport screeners by requiring small airports to enroll in the Screening Partnership Program, under which TSA pays for private screeners at designated airports,” it states. “The airports that already use this program have demonstrated savings compared to Federal screening operations. The move would yield cost savings compared to Federal screening and begin reform of a troubled Federal agency.”

The budget asks Congress to provide an increase of $1.7 billion to the Bureau of Prisons to improve working conditions and pay, with $152 million of that going to the first year costs to “rebuild Alcatraz as a state-of-the-art secure prison facility.” The Bureau of Prisons has been evaluating whether to restore the closed California facility.

The budget proposes increases in funding for Trump’s efforts to improve the District of Columbia, including a $10 billion Presidential Capital Stewardship Program run through the National Park Service and $403 million for a new Transportation Department program to upgrade security in the Metro system and other local projects. 

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which launched the Artemis II mission this week to orbit the moon, would receive a $5.6 billion, or 23%, cut under Trump’s budget proposal to a total funding level of $18.8 billion. 

It asks Congress to decrease funding for the International Space Station by $1.1 billion and “prioritizes the rapid development and deployment of commercial space stations, while also keeping the safe de-orbit of the ISS on track for 2030.” 

Dems reject ‘bleak’ budget

Washington Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, wrote in a statement that the budget request was “bleak and unacceptable.”

“President Trump wants to slash medical research to fund costly foreign wars,” she wrote. “It doesn’t get more backward than that, and the only responsible thing to do with a budget this morally bankrupt is to toss it in the trash.”

Murray added that she expects Congress to pursue bipartisan spending bills, just as lawmakers did during last year’s process, including investments in domestic issues. 

“This week, President Trump said that our country cannot afford to help families with child care or health care—but his own budget proves what a ridiculous farce that is,” she said. “Imagine how many families we could help if, instead of giving the Pentagon more money than they can even figure out what to do with, we cut people’s heating bills in half and made child care affordable for every family in America.”

Senate Budget Committee ranking member Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., wrote in a statement the request lacks detail for programs that run outside of the annual budget and appropriations process, like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. 

“Going back decades, presidents have sent to Congress detailed budgets with 10 years’ worth of detailed plans – outlining their approach to tax policy and our growing debt, as well as the solvency of our biggest programs like Medicare and Social Security,” he wrote. “This budget doesn’t do any of that. It’s just an out-of-touch plea for more money for guns and bombs, and less for the things people need, like housing, health care, education, roads, scientific research, and environmental protection.”

Minnesota Democratic Rep. Betty McCollum, ranking member on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, said the Pentagon doesn’t have an issue with how much in taxpayer money lawmakers allocate, but “a problem with efficiently spending the funding that Congress has provided them – and accounting for it.”

“The President’s request for $1.15 trillion in defense spending is outrageous and unacceptable, especially when President Trump and Congressional Republicans intend to make further cuts to critical services that Americans rely on at home,” she said. “Our nation cannot be secure without investments in our country’s critical health care, education, nutrition, and infrastructure.”

WASHINGTON — A U.S. fighter jet went down over Iran Friday and one crew member has been rescued, according to several media reports. Iranian state media reported the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps was responsible.  

The attack marks the first time Iran has shot down U.S. military aircraft since the war’s start. Reuters and the New York Times have cited U.S. officials confirming the incident. Axios has cited two unnamed sources. Sources told news media the aircraft was an F-15.

Another U.S. combat plane went down into the Persian Gulf, near the Strait of Hormuz, and the single pilot was rescued, according to media reports citing U.S. officials. Whether the A-10 Warthog was downed by enemy fire is unclear. The crash occurred roughly around the same time that the F-15 was attacked.

The Pentagon has not responded to States Newsroom’s requests for confirmation of the reports.

A U.S. military search and rescue operation is reportedly underway, according to American officials cited in the Times report and Iranian state media. 

U.S. Central Command, which posts about the war every day on social media, had not posted information about the downed jet as of 5 p.m. Eastern.

President Donald Trump has not commented on the incidents. At 3:20 p.m. Eastern, he wrote on his social media platform, Truth Social, “KEEP THE OIL, ANYONE?”

The IRGC reportedly downed the jet, which Iranian media said was an F-35, over central Iran and the crew ejected from the plane, according to the Iranian Tasmin News Agency, citing IRGC officials. 

Tasmin also claimed U.S. Black Hawk helicopters and a C-130 Hercules aircraft were searching for the pilot. A Black Hawk was hit by fire during the rescue operation but was able to remain in flight and land in Iraq, according to the New York Times, citing U.S. and Israeli officials.

Trump vowed to hit Iran ‘extremely hard’

The apparent attack came two days after Trump delivered a formal primetime address telling the nation the U.S. objectives in Iran were “nearing completion” but that American forces would be hitting Iran “extremely hard” over the next two to three weeks.

The U.S. entered the joint war with Israel on Feb. 28, killing the country’s late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and numerous other senior leaders. Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba Khamenei, has taken over as the Islamic state’s top cleric, according to Iran’s government, but he has not been seen in public.

The fighting continues to rock global energy markets after Iran’s takeover of the Strait of Hormuz, a major passageway for one-fifth of the world’s petroleum and liquid natural gas supply.

A gallon of gas in the U.S. now costs just above $4 on average, according to AAA, the highest since 2022, when Russia launched its full-scale war on Ukraine. Brent crude oil, the international standard, was trading at $109 a barrel as of Friday morning.

The war has taken thousands of civilian lives across the Middle East and injured tens of thousands more. Thirteen U.S. troops have been killed.

Energy and other civilian infrastructure has been badly damaged in Iran and across the region. Trump posted a video on Thursday on Truth Social of U.S. strikes destroying a major bridge connecting the country’s capital Tehran to Karaj. 

Trump has repeated several times over the past week that the U.S. will bomb Iran “back to the stone ages.”

Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates Maria Lazar and Chris Taylor tried to tag each other with accusations of partisanship during the sole debate in the campaign Thursday evening. 

After the initially scheduled debate last week was canceled because Taylor was hospitalized with a kidney stone — and another delay Thursday due to severe weather in the Milwaukee area — the debate, moderated by WISN’s Matt Smith and Gerron Jordan, was held at WISN’s studio in Milwaukee just five days before polls open April 7.

The candidates are vying for an open seat on the Court being vacated by conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley. After a string of high stakes races for the Court because the ideological swing of the body was up for grabs, this year’s race has drawn less attention and less money. This year the race will decide if the Court’s liberal wing will gain a 5-2 majority or if the split will remain 4-3. 

Through most of the campaign, Taylor has led in the polls and raised more money, however recent polling showed large swaths of the state’s voters remained undecided. 

Taylor, a judge on the state’s District IV Court of Appeals who previously worked on the Dane County Circuit Court, as a Democrat in the state Assembly and as the policy director of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, painted herself as a “scrupulous” judge who is proud of her work in the Legislature but will bring an independent judicial record to the Supreme Court. 

“I am scrupulous in applying the law, and I have a spine of steel when it comes to making sure people’s rights and freedoms are protected,” Taylor said.

Lazar, a judge on the state’s District II Court of Appeals who worked on the Waukesha County Circuit Court and as an assistant attorney general at the Department of Justice under Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, touted her longer tenure as a judge and described herself as an independent jurist who has never belonged to a political party. 

“I guess when my opponent has a few more years of judicial experience, she’ll understand that being reversed is a part of being an independent judiciary,” Lazar said. 

Yet, as has been the case throughout the campaign, the candidates each tried to cast their opponent as a partisan extremist. 

Lazar repeatedly said that Taylor was answering questions as a legislator, not a judge. 

“On the one hand, you have a judge, an experienced judge who has been on the bench for more than 12 years, protecting the rights of everyone in the state,” Lazar said. “And on the other hand, you have a radical, extreme legislator who is known as the most liberal of the 99 in that Assembly, who now as a judicial activist, wants to put her views, her values and her agenda in the court above the law.” 

But Taylor pointed to cases in which Lazar sided with right-wing interest groups, endorsements from right-wing figures and her work before joining the bench to argue that Lazar is the more partisan figure. 

“She has a very specific agenda that favors big corporations and right-wing special interests,” Taylor said. 

The first clash of the night came over the state’s political maps and election law. Through much of the campaign, Taylor and her supporters have argued that if Lazar is elected she’ll be a vote on the Supreme Court in favor of potential Republican efforts to meddle with the state’s election results. 

Taylor pointed to Lazar’s previous support from election conspiracy theory figures such as Michael Gableman and her decision in Wisconsin Voter Alliance v. Secord, in which Lazar was criticized by the Supreme Court for ignoring existing precedent to rule that a group of election deniers should be given access to the confidential voting records of people with disabilities. She said that Lazar would be a “rubber stamp” for federal efforts to interfere in the state. 

In response, Lazar defended the state’s election system more forcefully than she had previously on the campaign trail. 

“I think it’s important that we tell people in the state of Wisconsin that our elections are safe, they’re fair and that their votes count, and that’s the key, important thing that we need to address in this state,” she said. 

The sharpest disagreement of the night came during a discussion of abortion. Last year, the Court struck down the state’s 1849 criminal abortion ban, which had halted abortion services in the state following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Since the state Court’s decision, a previously instituted law banning abortion after 20 weeks has been the guiding law in the state. 

Lazar said that she thought the return of abortion policy decisions to the individual states was a good thing and that she believes the 20 week line is a good compromise for the divided Wisconsin electorate. 

“I think that it falls within the parameters of where people in the state believe it should be, and if they don’t, the answer is to go to the legislature and the governor, not the courts,” she said, accusing Taylor of supporting abortions up to birth. 

Taylor said Lazar’s support of overturning Roe v. Wade ignores the women across the country who have been harmed by losing access to abortion care. 

“So it is tragic that we have someone running for the state Supreme Court that is celebrating that there are women all over this country who are victims of rape and incest … losing access,” Taylor said. “That is what the reality of overturning Roe v. Wade, that you have called very wise. It’s not been very wise for victims of rape and incest who now live in states where abortion has been outlawed. It’s not very wise for women who have lost their lives in states because they couldn’t get help when a pregnancy went wrong.”

Lazar responded by again accusing Taylor of acting as a partisan. 

“This is exactly what we’ve been doing in this campaign,” she said. “It’s the same old political playbook. If you don’t have anything truthful to say about your opponent, then just lie and mislead.”

Early voting is open until Saturday. Polls open at 7 a.m. on Election Day, April 7. Details for poll locations and hours can be found at MyVote.WI.gov.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A large and diverse crowd packed a community center on Milwaukee’s  south side Thursday, calling for the release of Salah Sarsour, president of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee. Sarsour, who is of Palestinian descent, was detained by federal immigration agents Monday morning. His supporters are calling Sarsour’s arrest an targeted act of political retaliation designed to chill opposition to the Israeli government and support for the Palestinian people.

“This is a man who came to the United States and kind of lived the American dream,” Othman Atta, executive director of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee, told the audience of community members, press, activists, and local elected officials. “And they are trying to tarnish his image. They’re trying to target him.”

A green card holder and lawful permanent resident, Sarsour has lived in the United States for over 30 years. “The U.S. government fully vetted his visa application at that time,” Kathryn Brady, head of the Muslim Legal Fund of America’s Immigration Litigation Department, said in a statement Wednesday. Brady said that it’s difficult to believe that the federal government’s “position now is not rooted in a violation of his First Amendment right to speak about the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.”

Atta said that on Monday Sarsour stopped at an old warehouse on Milwaukee’s south side which he owned because mail kept arriving there. As he left, a car came on the wrong side of the street “flying toward him,” said Atta, forcing Sarsour to jump out of the way. The unmarked car stopped and a person allegedly in civilian clothes pointed a gun at Sarsour and asked who he was by name. 

Atta said 12 vehicles were involved in the arrest, and Sarsour was loaded into a van before being told he was being taken by federal immigration officers. 

Atta said that the story was relayed to Sarsour’s attorney Munjed Ahmad during a phone call in which Sarsour declared that he was a lion and willing to fight. Sarsour was transported to the Broadview Detention Center in Illinois before being quickly transferred to another facility in Indiana, Atta said.  

“This is America,” said Atta. “This is Trump’s America.” 

He described Sarsour as a husband, father, grandfather, and a successful business owner who has no criminal record or convictions. 

“According to the papers that were filed in immigration court, they went back to when he was a minor — a teenager — in the West Bank under Israeli occupation,” said Atta. 

When he was a teenager, Sarsour was arrested and detained by the Israeli police. “He served two years,” said Atta. “Many of you who know him know that his passion for Palestine, his passion for justice, was based on the experience he had and that his family and friends had. He would talk to us many times how for 80 straight days, he was interrogated, and brutalized, and tortured while he was in Israeli military custody.” 

Palestinians living both in the West Bank and the region of Gaza, which has suffered catastrophic damage and where tens of thousands of people have been killed during attacks by the Israeli government in the last two and a half years, have reported similar abuse. 

In 2024, the United Nations found that due process rights for Palestinians had been violated in the West Bank for nearly 60 years. Last year, charges were dropped against five Israeli soldiers accused of beating and sexually abusing a Palestinian prisoner in an assault that was captured in a video. A top legal official in the Israeli military admitted to approving the video’s release in an effort to show the world how the over 9,000 Palestinians detained by Israel are treated, the Associated Press reported. 

Al Jazeera reported that the bodies of Palestinians released as part of a ceasefire deal between Israel and militant factions of Hamas exhibited signs of torture including restraints and injuries still evident on the dead. 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said in a statement Thursday that Sarsour was convicted of throwing Molotov cocktails at the homes of Israeli armed forces.” In the statement, which repeatedly called Sarsour a “terrorist” and an “illegal alien from Jordan,” DHS charged that he “lied” on his green card application to enter the country in 1993 during the Clinton administration, and that his first attempts to apply for an immigrant visa at the American consulate in Jerusalem were rebuffed because of those allegations and others of “illegally attempting to possess” weapons and ammunition. 

Atta and Sarsour’s supportive community urged onlookers Thursday not to forget the reports about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. 

Atta said that Sarsour was again detained by the Israeli government after returning in 1995, which is where the weapons allegations came from, and that the written charges were in Hebrew, “which he doesn’t read or understand.”

Sarsour’s son, Kareem, was joined by other members of his family Thursday. Over the last two days, the family has been “bombarded” with “thousands of messages from all the people who knew him saying what he meant to them as a father-figure, as a role model, as a beloved community member, it just tells you who he was,” said Kareem Sarsour. Kareem described his father as “always giving” and said that Sarsour had tried to give his children everything he couldn’t have when he lived in the West Bank. 

The crowd that assembled to support Sarsour and his family included many Muslim residents, local activists, and elected officials, with Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley and  Mayor Cavalier Johnson in the front row, and further back, Alds. JoCasta Zamarripa watched Alex Brower. Christine Neumann-Oriz, executive director of Voces de la Frontera, was in the audience, and speakers from Jewish Voices For Peace joined Muslim and Christian faith leaders in denouncing Sarsour’s detention and calling for his release.

A flurry of Wisconsin lawmakers and local officials have condemned Sarsour’s arrest. Sen. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee) said in a statement that the federal government was “increasingly fascist”  and called Sarsour “a vocal advocate for a free and independent Palestinian State.” 

“We have already seen numerous Muslim activists unfairly and unlawfully targeted by the Trump Administration for their beliefs and their speech,” Larson said. “These Unconstitutional assaults on our freedoms should alarm all of us. When any individual or group is targeted by the government for their speech, all of our freedoms are threatened.” 

Congresswoman Gwen Moore called Sarsour’s detention “completely unacceptable.” “Salah Sarsour is a respected leader in the Milwaukee community, and his detention raises serious concerns about the continued targeting of lawful residents based on the color of their skin or their political beliefs,” she said.

Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee) charged that Sarsour’s detention was an attack on free speech. “Until free expression and free speech are protected, not treated as a privilege of the Trump Administration’s loudest supporters, this openly fascist government should be neither trusted nor obeyed,” Clancy said in a statement. “We must abolish ICE and hold those responsible for these repeated acts of state violence accountable.” 

Statements supporting Sarsour were also put out by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Mandela Barnes for governor campaign, and the Milwaukee Area Labor Council Immigrant Rights Committee. 

Ahmad said that he’s “shocked” at how many communications he’s received from attorneys around the country on Sarsour’s case. “We have assembled a very capable legal team, that legal team continues to grow,” said Ahmad, declaring that they will work to free Sarsour. A hearing is scheduled on April 18. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

WASHINGTON — One year after President Donald Trump announced his now-illegal “Liberation Day” tariffs, he marked the anniversary by signing executive orders adjusting duties on pharmaceuticals and metals as Democratic critics slammed economic fallout from Trump’s trade policies.

Last April 2, Trump shocked American businesses and global markets when he declared a national emergency to impose a 10% tariff on goods from nearly every country, plus higher double-digit duties on imports from major U.S. trading partners. 

Investors lost trillions days after the announcement, and Trump began months of delays and on-again, off-again taxes on imports. 

In doing so, Trump raised the effective tariff rate on foreign goods to its highest point since the 1930s. Economists warned the average American household would end up losing up to a few thousand dollars in increased costs. 

After lawsuits from small business owners and Democratic state officials, the Supreme Court decided 6-3 in February that Trump’s unprecedented triggering of sweeping tariffs under the 1977 International Economic Emergency Powers Act exceeded presidential authority.

Since then, the White House has sought other legal routes to impose tariffs. Several, like duties on metals, are already in place under national security statutes, and have been since Trump’s first term. Almost immediately after the Supreme Court’s major blow, Trump announced a temporary base 10% tariff on all imports under section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.

On Thursday, Trump signed two executive orders changing the tariff calculation on imported steel, aluminum and copper, and slapping a whopping 100% tariff on pharmaceuticals made by transnational companies that decline to invest in manufacturing their drugs in the United States.

Both tariff adjustments are under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, a statute authorizing the president to impose trade restrictions in response to national security threats.

Dems stress affordability 

Democrats pounced on Trump’s “Liberation Day” anniversary ahead of the 2026 midterm elections that will determine control of Congress and will surely include affordability as a central issue.

On a press call organized by the Democratic National Committee, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries laid blame on Trump’s tariffs for increasing costs.

“We can thank the Trump tariffs for imposing thousands of dollars in additional costs on everyday Americans, small business owners and farmers throughout the country,” he said.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement that in one year, Trump “thrust the United States’ economy into chaos with sweeping tariff taxes on dozens of countries.”

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., described Trump’s trade policy as “manic.”

“Trump is taking money out of the pockets of families walking an economic tightrope, by slapping huge taxes on groceries and other essentials,” he said in a statement Thursday.

Several questions on the degree to which tariff costs have been passed on to consumers, and how much they have stymied growth and hiring, remain unanswered, according to a one-year analysis from the Yale Budget Lab.

Sen. Andy Kim, D-N.J., said during the virtual DNC press conference he met this week with business owners in his state and heard trepidation about their decisions moving forward.

“The thing that they just continue to hammer over and over again is just how uncertain this moment is, how much unpredictability that there is and that they cannot, you know, they cannot figure out how to invest further or try to grow their business,” Kim said, adding businesses need “immediate relief” after the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s emergency tariffs.

Kim is among two dozen Senate Democrats sponsoring a bill that would require the U.S. Customs and Border Protection commissioner to report to lawmakers every 30 days on the status of IEEPA tariff refunds.

States Newsroom has interviewed several business owners about the effects of tariffs and the prospect of being made whole by the government for the now illegal IEEPA tariffs they were charged.

 

States with and without abortion bans are advancing bills that would shield anti-abortion pregnancy resource centers from certain government mandates and attempts at regulation, allowing them to sue for damages if any part of the law is violated.

At least four states introduced the legislation this session, and two of them, Kansas and Wyoming, made it law. Montana also passed a similar law in 2025. The bills are still pending in Oklahoma and New Hampshire.

They are based on model legislation drafted by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal advocacy group that represented one of the large umbrella organizations for pregnancy centers around the country, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, when the California government attempted to regulate the centers in 2018 by requiring signage to be placed informing clients of available abortion options at state-funded clinics.

“This really just reflects the legal reality that pregnancy care centers have been hauled into court when they’ve decided they are not interested in pushing abortion and (the government is) going to make them,” said Kristi Hamrick, vice president of media and policy for the anti-abortion group Students for Life Action.

Many crisis pregnancy centers are faith based, with a mission of preventing anyone who walks in from choosing an abortion. In a recent 50-state analysis, States Newsroom found that 21 states allocated more than $491 million of taxpayer funds to crisis pregnancy centers since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision in 2022 that upended federal abortion rights. Medical experts, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, say the centers can endanger public health by delaying legitimate health care and some centers that advertise services like free ultrasounds can miss diagnoses like ectopic or molar pregnancies, which are nonviable and can be life-threatening conditions.

The centers have also been criticized by advocates for misleading potential clients about their services, making it look like they provide abortion care, and for promoting treatments like abortion pill reversal that are unproven and potentially dangerous.

California’s law, which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in 2018 on free speech grounds, also mandated disclosure if the pregnancy resource center was unlicensed. Violators would be fined $500 for a first offense.

Hamrick said the center protection bills are an “inoculation” against what she called malicious lawsuits that would punish them for refusing to go against their anti-abortion mission.

Samantha Nagler, a legal fellow with the Equal Justice Works program at Gender Justice, said the bills are carving out an area of health care where providers can omit information during a visit and face no consequences for it.

“No other health care provider I can think of is just exempted from regulation,” Nagler said.

Israel Cook, legislative counsel for the Center for Reproductive Right’s policy and advocacy team, said this type of legislation is becoming more popular as reproductive rights advocates push for regulation of crisis pregnancy centers.

Colorado passed a law in 2023 making it a deceptive trade practice to disseminate any public advertisement that indicates a facility provides abortions or emergency contraceptives when they do not. The law included a similar provision barring advertisement of abortion pill reversal, but a federal judge blocked enforcement of that part of the law in August. Alliance Defending Freedom also assisted with that lawsuit.

“It’s very scary for (the centers) to not be on the hook for the kind of harm that they perpetuate,” Cook said.

Oklahoma sponsor: Law allows centers to ‘stay in their lane’

The bills prohibit a state or local government from adopting or enacting a law, rule, ordinance or any other type of regulation that would require a center to offer or perform abortion, make referrals for abortion or abortion medication, or post any type of advertisement or material promoting abortion or abortion medication. Every bill, with the exception of Kansas, also says the centers cannot be compelled to offer or refer for contraception.

The Kansas Legislature passed House Bill 2635 on March 12 and overturned a veto by Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly on Friday. Kelly said she vetoed it because Kansans already voted to keep the government out of private medical decisions in 2022, preventing lawmakers from passing an abortion ban. Kelly also opposes the funding that crisis pregnancy centers receive from the state on an annual basis — the legislature approved $3 million in 2025, on top of a $10 million tax credit program.

Oklahoma’s House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a similar bill in early March, but it hasn’t yet been heard by the Senate. It was sponsored by Republican Rep. Denise Crosswhite Hader, who said it was legislation that allowed the centers to continue their mission.

Oklahoma’s bill prescribes the largest penalties with an allowance for treble damages, which means a successful lawsuit could yield three times the amount of damages proven in court. A pregnancy center would be entitled to at least $10,000.

“I don’t see abortion as care. I see abortion as ending a pregnancy,” she said on the House floor during debate. The centers want to help with continuing a pregnancy, she said, but when they avoid abortion, they’re getting sued, “and what we’re trying to do is help it so that they can stay in their lane and not fight lawsuits over and over.”

The state government allocated $18 million to a revolving grant fund for crisis pregnancy centers in 2024 that will last through November 2027.

Oklahoma has a near-total abortion ban, with no exceptions for rape or incest, only an exception to save a pregnant person’s life. With that in mind, Democratic Rep. Cyndi Munson told States Newsroom she doesn’t see the need for the legislation.

“If a private organization has a policy, they can stick to their policy. I don’t know why we need to put additional protections into law,” Munson said.

Meanwhile, Oklahoma’s health care struggles continue, according to Munson. The state ranked 46th in infant mortality in a report from the nonprofit March of Dimes, and 31st in maternal mortality. But reproductive health care in general can also be difficult to obtain. Munson said she recently had to wait an entire year to receive her annual gynecological exam because her provider is overbooked.

She worries that at a certain point, crisis pregnancy centers will be the only type of health care that’s left, especially in more rural parts of the state.

“Not every woman is looking for abortion access, but they all need reproductive health care,” Munson said.

Gov. Tony Evers signed a pair of bills Thursday that will create a new state grant program to support nonprofits housing and serving homeless veterans. 

AB 596, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 153, and AB 597, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 154, direct $1.9 million to be used to create a new state grant match program for nonprofits serving homeless veterans. Evers did not comment on signing the bills into law in his release.

The bills were introduced by Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto) and Rep. Benjamin Franklin (R-De Pere) after the closure of two Wisconsin Veterans Housing and Recovery Program (VHRP) sites, one in Green Bay and the other in Chippewa Falls, and disagreements with Democrats and Evers on who was to blame for the closures. The VHRP serves veterans who are on the verge of or experiencing homelessness, including those who have experienced incarceration, unemployment or underemployment, physical and mental health problems. 

“I’m glad that the funding the Legislature provided to house and support Wisconsin’s military heroes will soon be going to organizations helping veterans across our state,” Wimberger said. “I hope the bills encourage even more groups to answer the call and step up to provide vital services to our veterans in need.”

The new program will provide $25 per day per veteran to eligible nonprofits that house veterans. To be eligible, nonprofit groups need to be participating in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs per diem program, which currently provides about $82 per day per veteran housed to groups that offer wraparound supportive services to homeless veterans. 

There are currently just four eligible nonprofits, and none are in the Green Bay or Chippewa falls areas. Democratic lawmakers expressed these concerns as the bills were debated, though Republican lawmakers have argued other nonprofits could become eligible if the program became law.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Universities of Wisconsin President Jay Rothman says that the Board of Regents is trying to oust him from his position — and he is refusing to go as he says he has not been given any clear reasons for their loss of confidence in him.

In a letter first obtained by the Associated Press dated March 26, Rothman said he met with Regent President Amy Bogost and Regent Vice President Kyle Weatherly in a meeting they requested. Rothman wrote that he was “surprised” that during the meeting they “indicated for the first time and without any prior discussion or notice that an unidentified majority of the Board of Regents had lost confidence in my leadership despite all that my team and I along with our universities have accomplished to move the Universities of Wisconsin forward.”

Rothman, who was an attorney in Milwaukee and CEO of the law firm Foley and Lardner, was hired by the UW Board of Regents in January 2022. He was chosen after the UW system did not have a permanent leader for two years.

In the letter, Rothman said Bogost and Weatherly did not give reasons for the regents’ conclusion or the lack of confidence in him, but that “each Regent has his or her own perspective on the matter.” 

“You did not provide any tangible reasons for the Board’s determination. It also appears that whatever conclusions were reached, the concerns were vetted without the benefit of any recent in-person or even virtual meeting of the entire Board,” Rothman wrote. “From a Board governance and leadership perspective, I find that to be extraordinarily difficult for the Board to defend; as a person who reports directly to the Board, I am profoundly disappointed.

Rothman wrote that he was given three options for his departure: announcing his resignation and retirement in the near future with an effective date at the end of this calendar year, which he said was the Board’s preferred path; resigning at any time with 120 days notice and the Board terminating his employment if he didn’t resign.

Bogost said in a statement that the Board “is responsible for the leadership of the Universities of Wisconsin and is having discussions about its future.”

“We don’t comment on personnel matters,” Bogost said. 

In his letter, Rothman provided a list of 37 accomplishments throughout his tenure. The list includes obtaining the largest increase in funding from the state Legislature in the last 20 years; engaging with “third-party advisors to evaluate and assist the universities in addressing financial headwinds and improving operational efficiencies”; implementing a direct admissions program for eligible in-state high school students; continuing the tuition promise program by securing private funding; and rebranding the system from the UW System to the Universities of Wisconsin. 

“If the foregoing list is not sufficient evidence of my leadership in driving bold and transformative change, I really do not know what is. Since to date you have not provided any substantive reason or reasons for the Board’s finding of no confidence in my leadership, I am not prepared, as a matter of principle, to submit my resignation. In light of the current circumstances, I do not believe my resignation at this time is in the best interests of either the Universities of Wisconsin or the state of Wisconsin,” Rothman wrote. 

During his tenure, Rothman has overseen the closure or dramatic downsizing of at least eight UW branch campuses and has also sought to work with the Republican-led Legislature, which has often appeared hostile towards the UW system. 

In 2023, Rothman negotiated a deal on university system diversity, equity and inclusion programs (DEI) and funding with Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) and Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg), both of whom are now retiring from the Legislature. Under the deal, which was initially rejected by regents, Rothman got funding for building projects and staff cost-of-living adjustments — which lawmakers had already approved but were holding back as a bargaining chip — while Republicans got cuts to UW DEI initiatives. 

In 2024, Rothman also responded to student pro-Palestinian protests by defending the actions of police officers on campus and saying encampments would be gone eventually.

While Rothman appears confident in his achievements, not all UW stakeholders have been happy with his leadership. AFT-Wisconsin President Jon Shelton said in a statement that even without the details of the reported “loss of confidence,” the union supports the Board’s action. 

“President Rothman’s tenure has been defined by his unwillingness to listen to the stakeholders that truly define our campuses: on everything from our faculty, staff, and students’ commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion to UW System Administration’s disastrous efforts to impose a general education curriculum on our campuses instead of simply implementing a universal credit transfer policy last December as required by Act 15,” Shelton said. 

“We are encouraged by the Board’s recent actions,” Shelton added. “We will gladly work with them moving forward to ensure any UW system president fights to uphold the values that has made the UW System great.”

Rothman wrote that there are also to-do list items that make it a bad time for him to leave, including finding new chancellors for UW-Madison and UW-Eau Claire as well as establishing priorities for the next state budget.

“I understand that, as you indicated on Saturday, the Board may act to terminate my employment, which the Board is empowered to do,” Rothman wrote. “If, however, the full Board would like to discuss this matter with me in either an open or closed session, I would welcome the opportunity to participate in such a meeting.” 

In a second letter to Regents Ashok Rai and Jack Salzwedel dated April 1, Rothman wrote that in a separate conversation, they also provided no reason for the request for his departure. 

“Similar to Regent President Bogost, you indicated that you could not offer any reason at this time. In fact, you said that topic would be discussed at the upcoming meeting of the Board,” Rothman wrote. 

The Board of Regents met in a closed special meeting on April 1 in the evening to discuss personnel matters. 

“Unfortunately, I am left to conclude that any basis for a Board finding of no confidence in my leadership will be, at best, an after-the-fact rationalization of a decision that clearly has already been made without the benefit of any recent meeting of the Regents and despite all the successes and transformative accomplishments during my tenure as President,” Rothman wrote in the letter to Rai and Salwedel. “I am not prepared, as a matter of principle, to submit my resignation at this time.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Democrats this week blasted the Trump administration’s attempts to shift management of federal student loans from the Education Department to the Treasury Department, saying it would contribute to dysfunction in the student loan system.

In a Wednesday letter, the ranking members of five Senate panels — the committees covering banking, finance, education, federal spending and the Appropriations subcommittee overseeing the Education Department — called on Education Secretary Linda McMahon and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to “immediately” rescind the interagency agreement announced in March.

The letter is part of Democrats’ efforts to stop President Donald Trump and his administration from outsourcing Education Department responsibilities to other agencies as part of the administration’s attempts to dismantle the department, which Congress created and only Congress can abolish. 

Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Ron Wyden of Oregon, Patty Murray of Washington state and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, along with independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who caucuses with the Democrats, penned the letter. 

They are the respective ranking members of the Senate Committees on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs; Finance; Appropriations; the Appropriations subcommittee overseeing Education Department funding; and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.  

They argued the transfer would introduce “more dysfunction into the federal student loan system, worsening the ongoing student loan default crisis that the Trump Administration has already exacerbated.” 

An ‘illegal scheme’

Under the agreement, Treasury will take over Education’s responsibility for collecting on defaulted federal student loan debt — the first step in a multi-phase process toward Treasury taking on the entire, roughly $1.7 trillion federal student loan portfolio. 

The senators called the move an “illegal scheme” that “threatens to trap student loan borrowers, students, and families in chaos and bureaucracy, all while American taxpayers are left to foot the bill for Treasury to administer programs that (the Education Department) can and should administer itself, likely costing more money and burying borrowers and families in unnecessary red tape.” 

The lawmakers also emphasized the spending package Trump signed into law in February rejects the president’s calls to axe the agency — funding the Education Department at $79 billion this fiscal year. 

The senators point to the joint explanatory statement accompanying the measure, which states that “no authorities exist for the Department of Education to transfer its fundamental responsibilities under numerous authorizing and appropriations laws, including through procuring services from other Federal agencies, of carrying out those programs, projects, and activities to other Federal agencies.” 

The lawmakers gave McMahon and Bessent two weeks to respond to their inquiries on the logistics, timing, costs and implementation of the transfer. 

‘A hard reset’

Education Department spokesperson Ellen Keast said in a statement shared with States Newsroom on Thursday that the current approach to student loan management was not working.

“With the student loan portfolio approaching $1.7 trillion and defaults nearing 25 percent, now is the time for a hard reset in how the federal government provides and services student loans,” Keast said. 

“We are confident that our partnership with the Treasury, an experienced and proven fiduciary, will strengthen program administration and better serve American students, borrowers, and taxpayers,” she added.

The Treasury Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate approved legislation Thursday that would end the shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security, sending the same bill it passed last week to the House, which didn’t take any action during a brief session.

But it appeared the shutdown also could be affected by executive action. President Donald Trump wrote in a social media post later in the morning that he “will soon sign an order to pay ALL of the incredible employees at the Department of Homeland Security.” 

He didn’t detail when that would take place or from where he would pull that money. White House spokespeople did not immediately respond to a request for details. 

Asked about the Senate-passed bill, Speaker Mike Johnson’s office didn’t immediately return a request for comment as to when the House may approve the legislation. But members aren’t scheduled to return from a two-week spring break until April 14. 

The House could have cleared the measure for Trump’s signature during a short session it held an hour after the Senate approved the bill, but its leaders chose not to.

Those pro forma sessions, as they are known, are held about every three days when one or both chambers of Congress are on break and the vast majority of lawmakers are away from Capitol Hill. They typically don’t include any real work and are intended to avoid recess appointments. 

The Senate approved the bill after a few procedural remarks from Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and didn’t hold a recorded vote. 

‘Deep division and dysfunction’

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement after the House opted not to clear the legislation that the “deep division and dysfunction among House Republicans is needlessly extending the DHS shutdown and hurting federal workers who are missing another paycheck.”

“The Senate did its work twice to fund key parts of DHS without funding the lawlessness of ICE and Border Patrol,” he added. “House Republicans need to get to work and end the longest Republican shutdown in history.”

The DHS appropriations bill the Senate approved would provide funding for the vast majority of the department except Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol. 

It would ensure funding for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, Coast Guard, Federal Emergency Management Agency and Secret Service. 

Senators approved an identical DHS funding bill last week by voice vote, but Johnson, R-La., rejected it and instead put an eight-week stopgap spending bill up for a vote in the House.

That legislation had no chance of getting past procedural hurdles in the Senate, which require at least 60 lawmakers to vote to end debate. 

Objections to immigration enforcement

Senate Democrats originally held up approval of the DHS spending bill after federal officers shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis in January. They have said repeatedly since then they won’t approve any more funding for immigration and deportation activities without new guardrails. 

Thune reached a deal with Schumer last week to pass a DHS funding bill without any new money for ICE or the Border Patrol, which have tens of billions available from Republicans’ “big, beautiful” law. 

GOP lawmakers said at the time the idea was to approve another reconciliation package to further bolster funding levels for immigration enforcement and deportations. 

“To my Democrat colleagues, this bill is the moderate option. What’s coming next is going to supercharge deportations,” Missouri Sen. Eric Schmitt said during floor debate at the time. “To my Republican colleagues, let this be a rallying cry every time the Democrats obstruct the safety of American families, the wall gets 10 feet higher and ICE gets another $100 billion.”

Thune and Johnson released a statement Wednesday that they had brokered a deal to do just that, with Trump’s support. 

“In following this two-track approach, the Republican Congress will fully reopen the Department, make sure all federal workers are paid, and specifically fund immigration enforcement and border security for the next three years so that those law-enforcement activities can continue uninhibited,” they said. “In return, Democrats will once again demonstrate to the American people their support for open borders and keeping criminal illegal immigrants in America.”

Trump wrote in his social media post that “Republicans are UNIFIED, and moving forward on a plan that will reload funding for our FANTASTIC Border Patrol and Immigration Enforcement Officers.” 

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Pam Bondi is leaving the Department of Justice and will be replaced for now by President Donald Trump’s former personal defense lawyer, the president announced Thursday.

“Pam Bondi is a Great American Patriot and a loyal friend, who faithfully served as my Attorney General over the past year. Pam did a tremendous job overseeing a massive crackdown in Crime across our Country,” the president wrote on social media.

Bondi will depart for an “important new job in the private sector, to be announced at a date in the near future,” Trump added.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, “a very talented and respected Legal Mind,” will move up in an acting role, he said.

Blanche thanked the president on social media and praised Bondi for doing her job “with strength and conviction” adding he was “grateful for her leadership and friendship.”

Trump did not indicate who he would nominate to succeed Bondi on a permanent basis.

Bondi’s exit follows the departure last month of another high-profile Cabinet member, Kristi Noem, whom Trump reassigned from the position of secretary of Homeland Security. 

Epstein files

Bondi, the former attorney general of Florida, oversaw the legally mandated release of government files on the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who surrounded himself with powerful figures, including Trump, even after he pleaded guilty to soliciting a minor in 2008. Epstein died in a Manhattan jail cell awaiting federal trial on sex trafficking charges.

Trump’s name appeared thousands of times in the files, along with those of numerous celebrities, writers and tech giants. Trump denies knowing about Epstein’s scheme to groom and solicit hundreds of young girls for sex.

Shortly after being installed as attorney general, Bondi touted her access to the Epstein files, telling Fox News in February 2025 that the sex offender’s client list was “sitting on my desk,” and distributing binders marked “Epstein Files: Phase I” to conservative political commentators.

By July, the department announced it had found no leads in the files warranting further investigation and that no further information would be made public. The announcement set off a firestorm in Congress that eventually led to the bipartisan passage of legislation mandating the department to release millions of documents related to Epstein.

Bondi received heavy criticism for missing the legally mandated deadline to release the files, and for a botched rollout that disclosed the names of several victims. 

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform subpoenaed Bondi on March 4 to testify before the committee for its separate investigation of the files. Bondi appeared on Capitol Hill for a closed-door briefing with the committee that quickly turned heated, according to CNN’s Kaitlan Collins.

Dem slams ‘legacy of failure’

Lawmakers released an avalanche of statements upon Trump’s announcement that Bondi will no longer hold the highest law enforcement role in the United States.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., ranking member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, slammed Bondi’s tenure as a “profound betrayal not only of the Department of Justice but of the American people the Department exists to serve.”

Bondi’s “legacy of failure” includes the firing of prosecutors and federal law enforcement agents who investigated crimes committed leading up to and during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, Raskin said in a statement Thursday. Three FBI agents sued this week over their ouster.

“This shameful legacy is cemented by her grotesque mishandling of the Epstein files,” Raskin said, alleging Bondi protected powerful figures by redacting their names, yet allowing names of victims to be publicly disclosed.

Bondi and Raskin shared a heated exchange over the Epstein files during a Feb. 11 oversight hearing, at which she called Raskin a “washed-up loser lawyer.”

Bondi built a reputation of combativeness and an unwavering loyalty to Trump during hearings before lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who chairs the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, thanked Bondi for being responsive to his oversight records requests and said she “helped bring violent crime down to historic lows.”

“The Judiciary Committee stands ready to advance President Trump’s next Attorney General nominee,” Grassley said.

Wisconsin’s economy, along with the nation’s, is cooling, the state’s labor department reported Thursday, with unemployment up slightly in January and jobs trending down from January a year ago.

The state’s trend tends to match seasonal patterns in Wisconsin, said Scott Hodek, section chief for the Office of Economic Advisors in the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, during an online briefing. But it also tracks with the national economic slowdown, he said, although Wisconsin’s experience has been easier.

“The Wisconsin labor market has cooled a bit along with the national economy, but unemployment does remain historically low” in the state, Hodek said.

The state projected 3,032,500 jobs in January 2026 — an increase of 8,000 from December 2025, but a drop of 15,400 from January 2025. “That fits what we know of national trends that we have seen so far in the first quarter,” Hodek said.

Wisconsin’s construction industry has been gaining in the last year, with 10,000 more jobs in January 2026 compared with January 2025, and an increase of 2,400 jobs since December.

Manufacturing, however, lost 2,100 jobs in January 2026 compared with December 2025, and 8,600 jobs from January 2025. That continues “a long-running trend,” Hodek said.

The number of jobs reported each month is a projection made from a federal survey of employers’ payrolls.

The Wisconsin unemployment rate edged up to 3.3% in January — an increase from 3.2% in December 2025, but the same as January 2025, Hodek said. Labor force participation in Wisconsin is 64.3%, higher than the national average of 62.5%, DWD reported.

Labor force participation measures how many people age 16 or older are working or looking for work; it leaves out people in the military or living in institutions including prisons and nursing homes.

The employment and labor force projections are based on a different survey that the federal government conducts of households.

The report released Thursday is one of three to come out in April. Hodek said the January data didn’t come out sooner because the federal government shutdown in October delayed an annual review that adjusts the labor market statistics to new benchmarks. Data for February and March will be released later in April to catch Wisconsin up with the calendar. 

A national report that looks at hiring trends as well as layoffs and firings through February shows that “hires have been down and overall openings have been down, and separations have been pretty stable,” Hodek said.

Those numbers aren’t available yet for Wisconsin, he said, but the December data showed the state had a higher rate of job openings and a lower rate of job separations, he added.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

About 100 Wisconsinites joined a virtual town hall hosted by Citizen Action of Wisconsin Wednesday evening to share how data center developments across the state are harming local residents through the increased use of energy. 

Over the past year, data centers have become an increasingly potent issue in the state as the number of data center facilities in Wisconsin has risen to about 50. Data center proposals are currently pending in communities including Beaver Dam and Janesville. The Democratic and Republican candidates for governor have frequently been asked about the issue and lawmakers of both parties introduced legislation to manage data center growth — yet both chambers of the Legislature adjourned for the year without the bills being signed into law. 

The Legislature’s lack of action, and the 10 month wait before the body is back in session in January 2027, was a big concern for data center opponents at the event Wednesday who are worried about how many data center projects can be planned and started before then. 

“These are happening fast. A lot of these decisions are being made in the next six to 18 months, which is especially concerning because, as mentioned earlier, the state Legislature went home on a 10 month long vacation without helping us with many of these important decisions,” Kat Klawes, Citizen Action of Wisconsin’s climate policy coordinator, said. “There are data centers and power plants being built 24/7, so there are people out at construction sites across the state, still working late at night. And there’s local projects that are being approved.

“And this is a big issue, because Wisconsin does not have a statewide plan,” Klawes said “These projects are being approved on a case-by-case basis. Local towns are coming up against billion dollar companies and teams of lawyers who are demanding things. There’s no consistent framework for cost, water use, energy demand, community impact or community say. There is none of that. Wisconsin is the wild, wild west.”

Among the biggest concerns shared by attendees were the pressure that data centers’ massive energy use will put on regular Wisconsinites’ energy bills and the effect that increased energy use will have on the climate. 

Keviea Guiden, who works on energy burden issues on Milwaukee’s north side, noted that Wisconsin is two weeks away from the end of the winter moratorium on utilities shutting off people’s power. She said that with so many Wisconsin families already struggling to pay their bills, the state needs to do something to prevent data centers from further increasing the cost of energy. 

“We will be burdened with having to pay for those facilities being built,” she said. “Families are already being forced between if they should pay for health care, day cares, diapers, if they should figure out if the dog could even eat as well.” 

Attendees complained about the large amount of water data centers use to cool their systems and the effect that could have on local water supplies — especially the Great Lakes. But the bigger climate concern is the emissions caused by increasing the amount of electricity Wisconsin’s utility companies generate. Green Bay resident Arden Kozlow connected the fight against data centers to the fight against oil pipelines such as the activism against the Line 5 pipeline across northern Wisconsin. 

“We’re just fast tracking a process that is already happening with absolutely no regulation and no care for how it’s happening, and that, frankly, this only adds to the problem that we’ve already had with oil pipelines,” Kozlow said. “So it’s all just sort of feeding into itself and creating a bigger and bigger problem.”

Attendees still suggested a number of statewide solutions for managing the effects of data centers. 

One proposal is capping the state’s utility rates at 2% of household income, which advocates said would encourage the state’s utilities to invest in lower cost renewable energy. Attendees also supported legislation proposed by Democratic lawmakers that would put a moratorium on data center construction until many of the questions about their impacts can be answered.

State Rep. Angelito Tenorio (D-West Allis) joined the town hall to tout his proposed legislation that would require Wisconsin get 100% of its energy from carbon free sources by 2050. 

“We have a moral imperative to move towards clean energy, renewable energy,” he said, noting that Wisconsin lags behind its neighbors in Iowa, Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota on the issue. 

With the Legislature out for the year, local government approvals will remain the only lever Wisconsin residents have to push back against data center developments.

Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley and County Board President Marcelia Nicholson-Bovell signed legislation Wednesday afternoon reaffirming the county’s commitment to adhering to the goals of the 2016 Paris Climate agreement. 

“In Milwaukee County, we know that the climate crisis is a real, pressing threat to our environment, our economy, our health, and our quality of life,” Crowley said at the gathering beside other officials at the Urban Ecology Center of Washington Park. 

The international agreement called on nations to adopt policies to keep average global temperatures from increasing more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The United States joined nearly 200 global nations and states in signing onto the agreement under President Barack Obama. President Donald Trump pulled out of the agreement after he was sworn into office in 2017 and, after President Joe Biden rejoined the agreement, again in 2025.  Trump has called the agreement “unfair,” “one-sided,” and a “rip-off.” Since the Trump administration exited the agreement, state and local governments across the country have signaled their aims to stick with the agreement’s aims. 

Milwaukee County first signed onto the Paris Climate Accords in 2017. The county’s goal is to reach net-zero operational emissions by 2050. The event Wednesday was held on the first day of Earth Month.

Crowley praised Milwaukee’s efforts towards reducing carbon emissions and climate resiliency despite being in a time “when federal climate leadership is stepping back.” He said at the event that the county has reduced its emissions by nearly 50% since 2005. 

Nicholson-Bovell echoed the sentiment.

“Milwaukee County continues leading the way in the march toward a more environmentally sustainable community,” she said. “Our legislation recommits Milwaukee County to the Paris Agreement and Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding, because our children’s future depends on how we combat the climate crisis and build the equitable future we all deserve.” 

Crowley and Nicholson-Bovell were joined by Milwaukee County Supervisors Felesia Martin, Anne O’Connor and Sky Capriolo.

The Urban Ecology Center itself is an example of the steps Milwaukee County has taken towards reaching net-zero. The Washington Park center was recently renovated, becoming the first all-electric non-residential building in Milwaukee County, the center’s executive director, Jen Hense, explained. 

Now the building creates zero emissions and, with the planned installation of 100 new solar panels next week, is set to reduce its energy consumption by about one-third.

When the building was renovated, about 60% of its original structure was re-used. Some of the wood used in the renovations was also reclaimed from trees felled by Milwaukee County to combat the emerald ash borer insect. Bird-safe glass had also been installed, so far decreasing the number of collisions the building is responsible for. Surrounding the ecology center are ponds where people often fish, and the center works to re-introduce native plants to assist local ecosystems.

Hense stressed the importance of the Urban Ecology Center’s work. There are over 35,000 young people who attend outdoor and science programs at the county’s three Urban Ecology Centers, and more than 600,000 people visit the green spaces the center stewards in Riverside Park, Washington Park, and Menomonee Valley. 

“We know that these natural spaces, and hundreds more across the county — that are loved and cared for by amazing individuals and incredible environmental organizations — are important to our community, and are essential to protect for generations to come,” said Hense. “We know that combatting the global climate crisis can start right here in the county, and that this work is truly an act of environmental justice.” 

Nicholson-Bovell recalled growing up in a Milwaukee neighborhood where the nearest park didn’t have grass. She said that she was born premature with under-developed lungs, a condition worsened by the air pollution in her community. Studies have shown that increasing the number of urban trees would help improve polluted air conditions. 

“The environment that I grew up in had been ripped apart by the building of a freeway,” said Nicholson-Bovell. “And it was little kids like me who struggled to breathe in our communities. We didn’t have access to clean air, we didn’t have access to green space. And when I became a Milwaukee County supervisor, I promised that no child that I could help support would ever have to experience that again.”

Crowley said visiting the county’s parks reminds him “of just how lucky we are to have accessible access to beautiful green spaces like the one that we are in today.” He stressed that having this “in our backyard” should never be “taken for granted” while highlighting the success the county has already achieved at reducing its climate impact. “And it is because, and through, our office of sustainability that we remain focused on building green infrastructure, creating local sustainability jobs, and making sure that every single neighborhood is part of our climate solution,” said Crowley. 

Crowley said that partnership and collaboration with higher levels of government will be needed to fully accomplish the county’s climate goals. Yet that assistance is unlikely to come from the current federal government. Trump has repeatedly called climate change a hoax. Under Trump, the Environmental Protection Agency also repealed the 2009 endangerment finding that greenhouse gases threaten public health. During both Trump Administrations, climate data and even the words “climate change” have been purged from federal websites. Climate policies at the state level have also been blocked or frustrated by Wisconsin’s Republican-controlled legislature. 

Grant Helle, director of the Milwaukee County Office of Sustainability, said that “while federal climate leadership declines, Milwaukee County is taking action.” Helle said that local action is “not optional, but essential.” Helle noted that the new Marcia P. Coggs Health and Human Services Center will have on-site solar which will off-set over 11% of that facility’s energy use. The county is also re-thinking how building design could impact climate change, an issue which Helle said residents are concerned about. 

A stream of extreme weather events in recent months and years have likely fueled those concerns. Just weeks ago, people in parts of Wisconsin endured a historic blizzard, receiving so much snow that plow services needed to be shut down. Some Milwaukee communities still haven’t fully recovered from record-breaking amounts of rain and flooding that swept through the city in August. The Trump Administration has denied multiple requests for assistance and flood relief made by Wisconsin communities. 

Extreme heat gripped areas of the state in 2023, coinciding with increased wildfire activity within the state, while smoke from fires in Canada worsened air quality. Severe storms also hit Milwaukee and other Wisconsin communities in 2022 and 2021. O’Connor recalled the floods of 2010, where people were “literally canoeing down the street where I live in my district.” 

Crowley said that the August floods should be an indication that the midwest is not safe from climate change. 

“That tells us how do we build infrastructure that is resilient, and how do we think long term making sure that this planet is continuously livable for our young people and for many generations moving forward,” he said. 

Nicholson-Bovell said that the floods were devastating, but that climate change is a national issue. “My husband I met in St. Louis,” she said. “They had a historic tornado rip through the inner-city of St. Louis and they’re still scrambling to try and find housing for individuals.” 

Helle said that increased flooding, harsher heatwaves, and worse air quality are climate hazards Milwaukeeans are already experiencing. “It’s really unfortunate,” said Helle. “But what it does is go to show that we need to continue to make efforts here in Milwaukee County right now where we can to lower the impact on those residents that we ultimately serve.” 

 

Democratic attorneys general this week filed their 100th lawsuit against the Trump administration, part of a coordinated legal strategy. 

And the attorneys general say they are winning most of their court cases against the administration. Of the 67 cases with court rulings, the Democratic Attorneys General Association says its members have won 55 of those challenges. 

A legal challenge over environmental regulations filed this week is the AGs’ latest effort to oppose the ever-widening power of the executive branch. Since the president’s second term began last January, Democratic-led states have sued the administration on a variety of issues — ranging from the withholding of congressionally approved funds to immigration enforcement to the administration’s tariffs on foreign goods. 

Marking its 100th lawsuit, the Democratic Attorneys General Association said its members were the only group of elected leaders successfully opposing the Trump administration’s “harmful and reckless actions.”

“For too long, Trump has trampled the rule of law,” Sean Rankin, the association president, said in a news release. “And Democratic AGs have held him accountable for the harms he has done to our economy and our democracy.”

On Tuesday, a group of state and local governments sued over the administration’s repeal of limits on emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants. The coalition argued the rollback was unlawful, saying the federal government has failed to provide a reasoned basis for it or consider the new technologies. The Trump administration has said the move was made “to ensure affordable, dependable energy for American families.” 

While it’s not unusual for states to sue the federal government, it’s one of the few paths Democrats have available to oppose President Donald Trump’s actions, with Republicans controlling the White House and both chambers of Congress.

Oregon Democratic Attorney General Dan Rayfield has been among the most prolific, suing the administration more than 50 times. Rayfield has said the suits are not political theater — they’re a vital means to checking the president’s overreach.

“People should be shocked that Oregon has filed 55 lawsuits,” he told Stateline earlier this year. “Their mind should be blown. But their mind should be equally blown at how often we’re winning these cases.”

State lawsuits represent a slice of the more than 700 lawsuits the Trump administration has faced since last January, according to a New York Times tracker. In more than 400 cases, the courts have let the administration’s policies stay in effect even as they remain in active litigation. But in more than 150 cases, the tracker shows the courts have at least partially halted administration policies. 

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

Democrats sued over President Donald Trump’s executive order clamping down on mail ballots on Wednesday, signaling the start of another fight with the White House over elections.

The order, which would create a national list of voting-age American citizens and directs the U.S. Postal Service to place limits on mail-in ballots, constitutes an extraordinary and illegal attempt by Trump to intervene in the voting process, election experts said.

An array of Democratic groups, including the Democratic National Committee, filed a federal lawsuit against the order in the District of Columbia late Wednesday. U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York are also plaintiffs. They are represented by Marc Elias, a prominent progressive voting rights litigator.

The Democrats allege in a 61-page complaint that Trump has tried “again and again” to rewrite election rules for his own advantage. It accuses the president of acting beyond the scope of his authority and unlawfully intruding on the authority of Congress and the states, as well as violating the authority of the U.S. Postal Service.

“The Executive Order’s provisions are convoluted and confusing,” the complaint reads. “What is clear is that it dramatically restricts the ability of Americans to vote by mail, impinging on traditional state authority.”

Several Democratic election officials have also promised to challenge the order. 

“The executive order is unconstitutional and I think it is very likely that it will be struck down,” Colorado Democratic Secretary of State Jena Griswold said in an interview. She said her state would join litigation against the order.

Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said he would meet the federal government in court, while Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar said “we look forward to our day in court challenging this illegal action.” Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows said her state was “not going to obey in advance” because the states, not Trump, are in charge of elections.

Advocacy groups also promised lawsuits. The Campaign Legal Center said it would challenge the order with its partners, the Democracy Defenders Fund, the League of United Latin American Citizens and other organizations.

White House calls for passage of SAVE America Act

Ahead of the Democrats’ lawsuit, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement that election integrity has always been a top priority for Trump. She also called on Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, which would require voters to provide documents proving their citizenship to register to vote.

“The President will do everything in his power to defend the safety and security of American elections and to ensure that only American citizens are voting in them,” Jackson said.

In Nebraska, Republican Secretary of State Bob Evnen downplayed the possibility of immediate changes to his state’s elections, while praising Trump for prioritizing election integrity. Nebraska will hold a primary on May 12.

“Over the coming months, we will continue to monitor and participate in how the implementation of the executive order might impact the November 3rd general election,” Evnen told the Nebraska Examiner.

Tens of millions of Americans vote by mail in federal elections, underscoring the stakes of any major restrictions on voting by mail. About 30% of voters cast mail ballots in 2024, according to data gathered by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

Another elections challenge

Opponents of Trump’s election-related moves have a good track record in court.

Trump’s first order on elections, issued just over a year ago, attempted to require voters to prove their citizenship. While Congress is debating the SAVE America Act, which would implement similar requirements, federal courts found that the president had overstepped his authority when he attempted to impose changes unilaterally.

Nearly 30 states are also fighting U.S. Department of Justice lawsuits seeking to force them to turn over copies of voters containing sensitive personal information on voters. Three federal judges have so far ruled against the Trump administration.

State administration of elections is a fundamental feature of American democracy, spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. States run and regulate elections, but Congress — not the president alone — can override states and set national standards.

At a basic level, critics of Trump’s executive order argue it tramples on state authority and bypasses Congress. 

“Once again, the President is attempting to act beyond his powers and seize control of our elections. Now he is attempting to weaponize the United States Postal Service against the voters. We will not stand for it,” U.S. Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the ranking Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, said in a statement.

‘This will help a lot’

Trump cast the executive order as a necessary step in support of election integrity when he signed it during an Oval Office event on Tuesday. He acknowledged it would likely face legal challenges but called it “foolproof.”

Trump, who has long called the 2020 election stolen, falsely asserted that elections have been marked by significant fraud, saying the order was aimed at “stopping the massive cheating that’s gone on.” In fact, instances of noncitizen voting are extremely rare.

“I think this will help a lot with elections,” Trump said.

The order requires the Department of Homeland Security, with help from the Social Security Administration, to compile a list of voting-age U.S. citizens living in each state and then provide that information to state officials at least 60 days before each federal election. The order does not tell states how to use the data, but it instructs U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to prioritize investigations into state and local officials who issue federal ballots to ineligible voters.

The list of citizens will be drawn from naturalization and Social Security records, according to the order. It will also include data from SAVE, a powerful computer program maintained by Homeland Security that verifies citizenship by checking names against information in federal databases. 

The Trump administration has been encouraging states to run their voter rolls through SAVE to identify potential noncitizens, but some election officials say it wrongly flags Americans as noncitizens. Several voting rights and civic groups have sued over Texas’ use of SAVE.

The Justice Department confirmed last week that it will share voter data it obtains with Homeland Security. At the same time, DOJ lawyers have been adamant in court that the Trump administration isn’t creating a national voter registration list.

“And yet here is an executive order that very overtly and expressly directs DHS to create that national voter database,” David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research, told reporters on Wednesday.

Postal Service involvement questioned

The order directs Postmaster General David Steiner, who was named to the role by USPS’s Board of Governors last year, to require every outbound mail ballot be in an envelope that includes a tracking barcode. 

At least 90 days before a federal election, states must notify the U.S. Postal Service whether they intend to allow ballots to be sent through the mail. States would then have to submit to USPS a list of voters planning to vote by mail at least 60 days before the election.

“What the president is doing today is he’s going to make sure mail-in ballots are safe, secure and accurate,” U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told reporters on Tuesday.

Trump’s effort to enlist USPS in election administration goes against the agency’s own policies. When the Postal Service updated its rules last year, it noted that it does not establish rules or deadlines for elections, or determine how the mail is utilized for elections.

USPS spokesperson Cathy Purcell said the agency was reviewing the executive order.

The order is a “structural inversion” of how mail voting works, said Pamela Smith, president and CEO of Verified Voting, an organization that promotes the responsible use of technology in elections. USPS delivers mail and isn’t involved in distributing ballots, she said.

“It is not up to the Postal Service to have this gatekeeping role over ballot delivery,” Smith said.

Under the order, the Justice Department and other federal agencies would be directed to withhold federal funds from states and localities that don’t comply with federal laws. It doesn’t specify what federal funds would potentially be targeted or whether states could lose election-related dollars.

States receive minimal federal election security grant funding each year from the Election Assistance Commission. During the 2025 fiscal year, the EAC distributed $15 million total, which can be used for upgrades to voting systems, cybersecurity, training and other needs.

“Even if it were to come to pass,” Smith said, “I don’t think it would carry much weight as a stick.”

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday seemed poised to reject the Trump administration’s attempt to redefine the constitutional right to birthright citizenship, and instead uphold the country’s long understanding of citizenship by birth on American soil. 

If a majority of Supreme Court justices strikes down President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship for children born to parents without legal status or temporary immigration statuses like visas, it will be the second recent major blow to the president via the high court. Earlier this year, a majority of justices struck down his use of sweeping tariffs. 

Trump, who signed the executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship as one of his first acts after his inauguration in 2025, came to the courtroom to hear the oral arguments, a first for a sitting president. 

‘Quirky’ administration argument

A majority of the justices during Wednesday’s oral arguments were skeptical of Solicitor General D. John Sauer’s arguments that the citizenship clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment was only intended to grant citizenship to the children of newly freed African American slaves, not immigrants. 

Chief Justice John Roberts called one of Sauer’s key arguments “quirky,” and questioned how it could be applied to an entire class of immigrants without legal status. 

Sauer argued that the children born to parents without legal status or temporary visitors are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” and are instead subject to the laws of their home country. He cited carve outs in birthright citizenship, such as the children born to foreign diplomats.

“You expand it to a whole class of illegal aliens,” Roberts said. “I’m not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples.”

Along with Roberts, the liberal wing of the court and conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett also did not seem swayed by Sauer’s argument. 

Gorsuch asked Sauer if, under the Trump administration’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, Native Americans would be considered birthright citizens “under your test.” 

“Uh, I think so,” Sauer said.

Indigenous people were granted U.S. citizenship by Congress in 1924, but were not granted citizenship under the 14th Amendment because those children were born to parents who were citizens of tribal governments. 

Sauer also contended the 1898 Supreme Court ruling that upheld citizenship based on birth on American soil, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, was wrongly decided. 

He argued that the Wong Kim Ark case did not take into consideration “sojourn travelers,” who are temporary visitors in the U.S. and give birth.   

Sauer also said the Trump administration was not looking for the justices to overturn that case. 

ACLU arguments

Liberal justice Elena Kagan said that Sauer’s argument to the court was an effort to create a “revisionist history” of the Wong Kim Ark case. 

“Everyone took Wong Kim Ark to say that, as a result of that, birthright citizenship was the rule,” she said. “And I think everybody has believed that for a long, long time.”

American Civil Liberties Union lead attorney Cecillia Wang said during oral arguments that when the federal government tried to strip Ark of his citizenship, “largely on the same grounds (the Trump administration) raised today,” the Supreme Court rejected those efforts.

“This Court held that the 14th Amendment embodies the English common law rule (that) virtually everyone born on U.S. soil is subject to its jurisdiction and is a citizen,” said Wang, who is the daughter of Taiwanese immigrants.

Her parents were in the U.S. on student visas when she was born in Oregon, meaning that if Trump’s executive order were in effect at that time, she would have been denied U.S. citizenship.

“Ask any American what our citizenship rule is and they’ll tell you, everyone born here is a citizen alike,” Wang said. “That rule was enshrined in the 14th Amendment to put it out of the reach of any government official to destroy.”

Birthright citizenship has been a longstanding core principle in the United States, where nearly any child — regardless of their parents’ immigration status — born on U.S. soil is automatically granted citizenship. 

The text of the clause is: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Experts have warned that if the constitutional right to birthright citizenship were struck down, it would effectively create a class of millions of stateless people, leaving them without a country to call home.

If the high court determines that Trump violated the Constitution with his executive order, it would be a major block to the president’s goal in defining who is American, as Trump has aimed to reshape the country’s racial and ethnic makeup through limits to migration and an aggressive immigration campaign of mass deportations. 

A decision from the high court on the case, Trump v. Barbara, is likely not going to come until the end of the court term, in late June or early July. If the court decides to uphold the executive order, it would go into effect 30 days after the ruling. 

New world, old Constitution

Sauer argued that birthright citizenship should not be applied to children of temporary visitors, such as foreigners who partake in what opponents call “birth tourism.”

Roberts asked Sauer how much of an issue birth tourism is – the idea that foreign visitors specifically travel to the U.S. for the purpose of giving birth and obtaining citizenship for their soon-to-be born children.

“No one knows for sure,” Sauer said, citing media reports that many Chinese tourists travel to the U.S. and give birth. 

However, China does not allow its citizens to have dual citizenship. 

Roberts seemed skeptical that birth tourism should be considered in Sauer’s legal arguments for the purpose of restricting birthright citizenship. He told Sauer that birth tourism “wasn’t an issue in the 19th century.” 

“We’re in a new world now,” Sauer said. “Where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child as a U.S. citizen.” 

But Roberts shot back, “Well, it’s a new world, it’s the same Constitution.”

Other countries

Sauer also argued that the U.S. should fall in line with the citizenship laws of other countries.

“Unrestricted birthright citizenship contradicts the practice of the overwhelming majority of modern nations,” he said. “It demeans the priceless and profound gift of American citizenship.”

Kavanaugh questioned why the U.S. should worry about the citizenship requirements of other countries. 

“Obviously we try to interpret American law with American precedent based on American history,” Kavanaugh said. “I’m not seeing the relevance as a legal, constitutional interpretive matter necessarily, although I understand it’s a very good point.”

Shortly after oral arguments ended, Trump took to his social media site, Truth Social, where he falsely said the U.S. is the only country to have birthright citizenship. Argentina, Brazil, Canada and Mexico are among several countries that have birthright citizenship.

“We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!” he wrote. 

Trump left Wednesday’s oral arguments after Sauer was finished presenting his argument to the justices, and about a few minutes into arguments from the ACLU’s Wang, according to White House pool reports. Oral arguments lasted for about two-and-a-half hours.

Earlier decision

This is the second time the Trump administration has brought a birthright citizenship case before the justices. 

Last year, after federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Washington state struck down the president’s executive order, the Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court, but asked the justices to consider the lower courts’ use of universal injunctions, rather than the merits of birthright citizenship.

The justices took up the case, and in a 6-3 vote divided along ideological lines, the use of universal injunctions was curtailed by the conservative wing of the high court. 

After the ruling, immigration advocates and the ACLU filed class action suits, which were successful in blocking the birthright citizenship executive order. The suits argued that future children born in the United States without gaining citizenship constituted a nationwide class.

“If you credit the government’s theory, the citizenship of millions of Americans past, present and future could be called into question,” Wang said.