A 'We Accept (Food Stamps)' sign hangs in the window of a grocery store on Oct. 31, 2025 in Miami, Florida.  (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

The Trump administration continued Monday to press the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn lower court decisions requiring the federal government pay for full benefits for a major food program, even as Congress appeared to approach an end to the record-breaking government shutdown.

Late Sunday, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Rhode Island federal judge’s order that the U.S. Department of Agriculture pay full November benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

On Monday morning, the top federal litigator told the Supreme Court the administration was continuing its appeal.

Later Monday, a Massachusetts federal judge kept in place an order canceling a USDA memo to states over the weekend asking them to “undo” full November benefits, while chastising the administration for sowing confusion. The memo had left states unsure how to proceed, and some refused to obey it.

President Donald Trump and top administration officials have resisted calls to fund November SNAP benefits during the shutdown that began Oct. 1. They argue that because Congress had not appropriated any money for the program for the fiscal year that began that date, USDA lacked the legal authority to make payments. 

That position was a reversal from the first Trump administration’s 2019 guidance and a shutdown plan the department published Sept. 30, then deleted, and has sparked several court challenges.

About 42 million people, about 1 in 8 Americans, use SNAP. Monday was the 41st day of the longest government shutdown in U.S. history.

Trump attorney seeks high court pause

In an afternoon brief following his morning notice to the high court, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer largely repeated the argument he made in an initial appeal to the high court Nov. 7. 

Sauer said courts could not command the USDA to “raid” a fund for child nutrition programs that holds about $23 billion, so as to fund a roughly $4 billion shortfall for SNAP in the short term.

He added Monday that the lower courts’ orders threaten to derail a deal in the Senate to reopen the government, expected to be completed this week.

“Literally at the eleventh hour, those orders inject the federal courts into the political branches’ closing efforts to end this shutdown,” Sauer wrote. “But the answer to this crisis is not for federal courts to reallocate resources without lawful authority. The only way to end this crisis—which the Executive is adamant to end—is for Congress to reopen the government.”

Sauer’s brief came after Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson ordered the government to say how it would proceed in light of the 1st Circuit order late Sunday and gave the coalition of nonprofit groups and municipal government that brought the original suit until 8 a.m. Eastern on Tuesday to respond.

Massachusetts federal judge slams USDA

At an afternoon hearing in Massachusetts, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani denounced USDA’s Saturday night demand that states return authorized funding and maintained a temporary restraining order blocking it from going into effect.

The Saturday night memo called on states to “immediately undo” actions to send benefits to people who use SNAP.

But the states had been complying with a midday Nov. 7 memo from the same department official that instructed them to process full benefits in accordance with the Rhode Island order, Talwani said. 

“What you have right now is confusion of the agency’s own making,” Talwani said.

Keith Becker, who represented the administration in the hearing, said that guidance was meant to keep states from distributing benefits while the Supreme Court stay, issued late Nov. 7, was in place. 

Minnesota authorized benefits after the Supreme Court order, he said.

Talwani said he had provided no evidence of that.

Becker also said Wisconsin, Oregon and Michigan sent out benefits between the time of the Rhode Island order and the Nov. 7 guidance telling states to issue benefits, but Talwani said they were complying with the Rhode Island court order.

The Saturday letter to states was inappropriate, she added.

“It seems to me that the states acted fairly reasonably to follow your Nov. 7 guideline,” she said. “Even if there is a mistake here, the notion that the next move, on Saturday night, is a blustering order, that they’re all going to be sued, and this thing and that thing — we’re trying to get … benefits to people who need food.”

She also said the administration appeared to be using Americans who use SNAP as political leverage, noting that even as the shutdown appears near its end, the administration was refusing to transfer reserve money from a fund that had enough to stay solvent into the spring.

“You’ve chosen not to pay your benefits at this point, and it’s hard to see how it’s not just being used as a leverage point,” she said. “I understand that there’s nice language about saying it’s for child nutrition, but it doesn’t really ring true right now.”

Appeals court ruling

Federal courts have issued a flurry of rulings on the matter since groups, cities and Democratic states sued to force Trump to release November benefits late last month. 

The late Sunday ruling came from a three-judge panel of the 1st Circuit, which upheld a Thursday order from U.S. District Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. that the government forfeited its option to issue partial November benefits when it missed a Nov. 5 deadline McConnell had set.

USDA had argued that making partial SNAP payments, which it had never done before, would be difficult. But it made no plans to prepare those partial benefits nearly a month into the shutdown, Judge Julie Rikelman wrote in the panel’s opinion.

“The record here shows that the government sat on its hands for nearly a month, unprepared to make partial payments, while people who rely on SNAP received no benefits a week into November and counting,” Rikelman wrote. “In light of these unique facts, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in requiring full payment of November SNAP benefits.”

The U.S. Senate is expected to vote Monday night on a bill to end the shutdown. The measure is likely to pass after advancing in a key procedural vote Sunday, but the House would still need to clear it and Trump would have to sign it before the government will reopen. House members have been told to begin returning to Washington.

Sauer noted in his Monday letter that if the bill were to become law, the case would become moot.

Dems blast court fight

Congressional Democrats have been unsparing in their criticism of Trump’s efforts to keep from paying November benefits.

U.S. House ranking Democrat Angie Craig of Minnesota said administration officials “simply do not care about America’s hungry children, veterans, seniors or people with disabilities.”

“Instead of helping hungry seniors and children, President Trump and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins spent weeks illegally withholding food assistance from hungry Americans,” Craig said. “Now, they are again asking the Supreme Court to stop states from feeding hungry residents. The Trump administration would rather preserve its own sense of power than preserve the lives and wellbeing of hungry Americans.” 

Republicans have blamed Democrats for the lack of benefits payments, which they say could have been avoided if enough Senate Democrats voted with Republicans for a bill that would have temporarily reopened the government at current spending levels. 

California Democrat Adam Schiff “voted against funding SNAP 15 times,” the Senate GOP X account wrote in response to a tweet from Schiff. “If he wants to fund SNAP, he should join the eight other Democrats who have voted to reopen the government instead.”

All but three Senate Democrats voted against the measure in 14 consecutive votes. Most continued to oppose the 15th vote Sunday, but seven Democrats and independent Sen. Angus King of Maine voted with Republicans on the bill to reopen the government that also included three full-year spending bills and reinstated fired federal workers. 

Those votes gave Republicans the margin needed to bypass the Senate’s filibuster rule.

Gov. Tony Evers speaks to reporters at a food pantry in La Crosse on Monday. (Screenshot/CSPAN)

Gov. Tony Evers reiterated Monday that Wisconsin won’t pull back the money that the state distributed to its FoodShare program late last week.

“They [the federal government] want that money back — they’re not getting it back,” Evers said in a short news conference at a La Crosse food bank. “It’s for the people that are part of this program.”

The Evers administration moved swiftly Thursday evening to funnel $104.4 million to Wisconsin’s FoodShare program after a federal court ordered the U.S. Department of Agriculture to fully fund November Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program payments.

Wisconsin FoodShare participants spent $9.9 million of the benefits on groceries Friday, according to the Evers administration.

By Monday, however, the administration said that it was lacking sufficient SNAP funds to reimburse retailers after the U.S. Treasury blocked the federal benefits payment to Wisconsin on Friday.

USDA said it would fully fund November’s SNAP payments in response to Thursday’s court order. Instead, however, the Trump administration petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to halt the order and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson put it on hold for 48 hours.

On Saturday the Trump administration directed states to return a portion of their SNAP funds to the federal government.

“No,” Evers declared in response.

On Monday, Wisconsin joined more than two dozen states in a motion filed in federal court in Massachusetts to block the Trump administration’s Saturday directive.

The directive “underscores the arbitrary and capricious nature of their conduct in this matter and demonstrates the need for immediate relief,” the motion states. “USDA must make full benefits available to SNAP beneficiaries without delay, and the November 8 guidance should be enjoined.”

A federal judge temporarily blocked the directive Monday.

On Monday afternoon, Evers toured WAFER Food Pantry in La Crosse, where he spoke with reporters about USDA’s order to states to pull back funds pushed out to electronic benefit cards used by SNAP recipients, including FoodShare users in Wisconsin.

“That’s embarrassing. That’s embarrassing for any president of the United States,” said Evers in a news conference that was televised on CSPAN.

“He [Trump] can claw all he wants,” Evers said. “It’s not going to happen. They have no authority to do that.”

Evers said that grocery stores should not have to wait for FoodShare funds that they are due when customers make purchases on their electronic benefits cards. “They should be getting reimbursed like they always have,” he said.

The state Department of Health Services and the state Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection both issued statements Monday warning retailers and grocery stores that are part of the FoodShare program that they cannot reject customers with funds legally loaded onto their QUEST benefit cards, and businesses cannot turn away people using the cards.

“While there haven’t been reports of people being turned away or of price gouging thus far, we want to make sure everyone is clear on the expectations. No one in Wisconsin should have to worry about their next meal,” said DATCP Secretary Randy Romanski.

Evers signed an anti-price-gouging order on Oct. 31.

In a letter Sunday to Wisconsin’s congressional delegation, Evers called the administration’s clawback attempt “a shocking and disturbing request—and one that should be condemned by every person, regardless of their political beliefs or party.”

Evers noted that the state’s three Democratic federal lawmakers have spoken up in opposition to the administration’s actions.

“I find it deeply troubling the rest of you have failed to do so,” he wrote, referring to Wisconsin’s seven Republican Congress members, “and I implore you to change that today.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., speaks to reporters while walking to his office on Nov. 10, 2025 on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Tom Brenner/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate approved a stopgap spending bill Monday that will end the longest government shutdown in American history once the measure becomes law later this week.

The 60-40 vote sends the updated funding package back to the House, where lawmakers in that chamber are expected sometime during the next few days to clear the legislation for President Donald Trump’s signature. 

Shortly before the vote, Trump said he plans to follow the agreements included in the revised measure, including the reinstatement of thousands of federal workers who received layoff notices during the shutdown. 

“I’ll abide by the deal,” Trump said. “The deal is very good.”  

Republicans, he added, will soon begin work on legislation to provide direct payments to Americans to help them afford the rising cost of health insurance, one of the core disagreements between the political parties that led to the shutdown. 

“We want a health care system where we pay the money to the people instead of the insurance companies,” Trump said from the Oval Office. “And I tell you, we are going to be working on that very hard over the next short period of time.”

House members told to head to D.C.

Earlier in the day, House Speaker Mike Johnson urged representatives to begin traveling back to Capitol Hill as soon as possible to ensure they arrive in time to vote on the bill to reopen the government, after the measure arrives from the Senate. 

The Louisiana Republican’s request came as airlines were forced to delay or cancel thousands of flights on the 41st day of the shutdown, a situation that could potentially impact a House vote on the stopgap spending bill if members don’t follow his advice. 

“The problem we have with air travel is that our air traffic controllers are overworked and unpaid. And many of them have called in sick,” Johnson said. “That’s a very stressful job and even more stressful, exponentially, when they’re having trouble providing for their families. And so air travel has been grinding to a halt in many places.”

Johnson then told his colleagues in the House, which hasn’t been in session since mid-September, that lawmakers from both political parties “need to begin right now returning to the Hill.”

Trump threatens air traffic controllers

Trump took a markedly different tone over the challenges air traffic controllers have faced during the shutdown in a social media post that he published several hours before he spoke to reporters about the deal to reopen government. 

“All Air Traffic Controllers must get back to work, NOW!!! Anyone who doesn’t will be substantially ‘docked,’” Trump wrote, without explaining what that would mean for workers who had to take time off since the shutdown began Oct. 1. 

Trump added that he would like to find a way to provide $10,000 bonuses to air traffic controllers who didn’t require any time off during the past six weeks.

“For those that did nothing but complain, and took time off, even though everyone knew they would be paid, IN FULL, shortly into the future, I am NOT HAPPY WITH YOU. You didn’t step up to help the U.S.A. against the FAKE DEMOCRAT ATTACK that was only meant to hurt our Country,” Trump wrote. “You will have a negative mark, at least in my mind, against your record. If you want to leave service in the near future, please do not hesitate to do so, with NO payment or severance of any kind!” 

An end in sight

The Senate-passed package will provide stopgap funding for much of the federal government through January 30, giving lawmakers a couple more months to work out agreement on nine of the dozen full-year spending bills.  

The package holds several other provisions, including the full-year appropriations bills for the Agriculture Department, the Legislative Branch, military construction projects and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. 

Seven Democrats and one independent broke ranks Sunday on a procedural vote that advanced the package, drawing condemnation from some House members and outside advocacy groups unhappy that no solution was arrived at to counter skyrocketing health insurance premium increases for people in the Affordable Care Act marketplace.

Republicans hold 53 seats in the Senate, where bipartisanship is required for major bills to move forward under the 60-vote legislative filibuster. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said during a floor speech Monday he was “grateful that the end” of the stalemate was in sight. 

“We’re on the 41st day of this shutdown — nutrition benefits are in jeopardy; air travel is in an extremely precarious situation; our staffs and many, many other government workers have been working for nearly six weeks without pay,” Thune said. “I could spend an hour talking about all of the problems we’ve seen, which have snowballed the longer the shutdown has gone on. But all of us, Democrat and Republican, who voted for last night’s bill are well aware of the facts.”

Schumer bid for deal on health care costs fails

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., was far less celebratory after his bid to get Republicans to negotiate a deal on health care costs by forcing a shutdown failed. 

“The past few weeks have exposed with shocking clarity how warped Republican priorities truly are. While people’s health care costs have gone up, Republicans have come across as a party preoccupied with ballrooms, Argentina bailouts and private jets,” Schumer said. “Republicans’ breach of trust with the American people is deep and perhaps irreversible.” 

“And now that they have failed to do anything to prevent premiums from going up, the anger that Americans feel against Donald Trump and the Republicans is going to get worse,” Schumer added. “Republicans had their chance to fix this and they blew it. Americans will remember Republican intransigence every time they make a sky-high payment on health insurance.” 

Schumer was insistent throughout the shutdown that Democrats would only vote to advance a funding bill after lawmakers brokered a bipartisan deal to extend tax credits that are set to expire at the end of December for people who purchase their health insurance from the Affordable Care Act marketplace. 

That all changed on Sunday when Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois, John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Tim Kaine of Virginia, and Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen of Nevada voted to move the bill toward a final passage vote.

Maine independent Sen. Angus King of Maine, who caucuses with Democrats, also voted to advance the legislation.  

Jeffries still supports Schumer

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said during a press conference Monday afternoon that he still believes Schumer is effective and should keep his role in leadership, despite the outcome. 

“Leader Schumer and Senate Democrats over the last seven weeks have waged a valiant fight on behalf of the American people. And I’m not going to explain what a handful of Senate Democrats have decided to do. That’s their explanation to offer to the American people,” Jeffries said. 

“What we’re going to continue to do as House Democrats, partnered with our allies throughout America, is to wage the fight, to stay in the coliseum, to win victories in the arena on behalf of the American people notwithstanding whatever disappointments may arise,” he said. “That’s the reality of life, that’s certainly the reality of this place. But we’re in this fight for all the right reasons.” 

Speaker Johnson said earlier in the day that the “people’s government cannot be held hostage to further anyone’s political agenda. That was never right. And shutting down the government never produces anything.”

Johnson reiterated that GOP lawmakers are “open to finding solutions to reduce the oppressive costs of health care,” though he didn’t outline any plans to do that in the weeks and months ahead. 

The U.S. Supreme Court denied a challenge to a landmark ruling protecting same-sex marriage equality. The rainbow flag of the gay pride movement and the flag of the United States | Getty Images

The United States Supreme Court has declined to revisit the 2015 landmark ruling that gave same-sex couples marriage equality, a failure for former Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis.

Davis made national headlines in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to several same-sex couples based on her religious beliefs. With the help of conservative legal firm Liberty Counsel, Davis has tried to avoid paying $100,000 as ordered by a federal jury to one of the couples she refused, David Ermold and David Moore. She ultimately tried to use that appeal to challenge Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that required states to license same-sex marriages.

The nation’s highest court on Monday said it will not hear the challenge.

Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel’s founder and chairman who represents Davis, said he “will continue to work to overturn Obergefell.”

“Davis was jailed, hauled before a jury, and now faces crippling monetary damages based on nothing more than purported hurt feelings,” Staver said. “By denying this petition, the High Court has let stand a decision to strip a government defendant of their immunity and any personal First Amendment defense for their religious expression.”

Kevin Jennings, the CEO of Lambda Legal, a pro-LGBTQ+ advocacy law firm, called the case “frivolous” in celebrating its defeat.

“This is a victory not only for the LGBTQ+ community, but for everyone who believes in our Constitution and the rule of law. The court’s decision reaffirms a simple fact: equal protection of the law applies to all, not just some,” Jennings said in a statement. “This frivolous case now belongs in the trash bin of history.”

Jenny Pizer, Lambda Legal’s senior director of strategic initiatives said the decision to not hear the case by the Supreme Court “rightly leaves marriage equality crystal clear and undisturbed.”

Pizer said LGBTQ+ people and their families “still need vigilance and protection,” though.

“We secured the freedom to marry for same-sex couples over a decade ago in our landmark 2015 Supreme Court victory, Obergefell v. Hodges, thanks to the powerful stories of thousands of couples and their families throughout the country, including in our many court cases,” Pizer said. “The fundamental rights of liberty and equal protection that the court affirmed back then remain essential for all American families today.”

Kentucky Lantern is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Kentucky Lantern maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jamie Lucke for questions: info@kentuckylantern.com.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to take up a challenge to a mail-in voting law in Mississippi. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday took up a Republican-backed challenge to counting mail-in ballots received after Election Day.

Depending how the justices rule, the case could be consequential for Washington and other states that vote by mail.

It stems from a lawsuit against a Mississippi state law allowing mail-in ballots received within five business days after Election Day to still be counted. Roughly 30 states have similar laws, with varying grace periods. 

The decision could also have ramifications for next year’s high-stakes midterms, which will decide whether Republicans maintain control of both the U.S. House and Senate. The court will likely hear arguments and rule by mid-2026.

Washington is one of a handful of states that conduct elections by mail and ballot drop boxes. The state accepts mail-in ballots up until the day before certification, which is 21 days after the election, as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. 

Ballots for this month’s elections in Washington are still being counted, and the results of some close races have flipped and narrowed during the past week.

A federal judge in Mississippi upheld the state’s law, ruling the state’s statute isn’t preempted by federal law, which says Election Day is the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. 

But a federal appeals panel sided with the law’s challengers, the Republican National Committee and the state’s Republican and Libertarian parties. The appeals judges cited the U.S. Constitution’s clause that gives states the power to regulate elections, but also noted that clause says “Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.” 

President Donald Trump, in his first term, appointed the three judges who issued that decision.

The legal question now is whether “election day” is when voters cast their ballots, or also when they must be received. The appeals court decided that ballots aren’t cast until election officials get them.

While the ruling doesn’t apply in Washington, if the Supreme Court upheld it, the ballot-counting system here would also be thrown into question.

Mississippi officials appealed to the Supreme Court to protect their five-day grace period. The state’s attorney general, a Republican, wrote in a brief to the high court that the appeals decision “would require scrapping election laws in most States.”

“The stakes are high: ballots cast by — but received after — election day can swing close races and change the course of the country,” Attorney General Lynn Fitch wrote.

The law’s opponents say these measures “deprive the electorate of a clear nationwide deadline that ‘puts all voters on the same footing.’”

In the 2024 general election, Washington election officials received nearly 120,000 valid ballots after Election Day that were postmarked on time. 

Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, a Democrat, along with colleagues in other states, filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Supreme Court to side with Mississippi. They note the appeals court decision “jeopardizes the ability of military service members and their families stationed abroad to have their timely cast ballots counted.”

Asked for comment on the case Monday, Brown’s office referred to the earlier brief.

A spokesperson for Secretary of State Steve Hobbs, also a Democrat, said in a statement that Hobbs’ office supports the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case.

“We view this as an important opportunity for the Court to provide clarity on the authority of states to accept ballots received after Election Day, provided they are mailed by Election Day and meet all other requirements established in state law,” Charlie Boisner added.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly attacked mail-in voting. 

In a March executive order, for example, he urged U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to stop states from counting absentee or mail-in ballots received after Election Day in federal elections. 

Brown and Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield sued the Trump administration over the order. That case is pending in federal court in Seattle.

Washington state’s Republican Party also wants to see a return to in-person voting, with same-day vote counts.

The Supreme Court is already grappling with other litigation focused on mail-in ballots. 

Last month, they heard arguments in the case of an Illinois congressman who sued over a law in his state counting ballots received up to 14 days after Election Day. That case deals with the more procedural issue of the standard plaintiffs must meet to be allowed to sue over an election law.

This article was updated with comment from the Washington secretary of state’s office.

U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., speaks at a campaign event in Norfolk earlier this month. Kaine was one of seven Senate Democrats to join Republicans in advancing a bipartisan deal to reopen the federal government, a move he said was aimed at protecting federal workers and ensuring a future Senate vote on Affordable Care Act tax credits. (Photo by Charlotte Rene Woods/ Virginia Mercury)

This story has been updated.

In a rare public split from his party, U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., broke ranks with most Senate Democrats on Sunday to help advance a bipartisan deal to reopen the federal government — a package that restores pay and protections for federal workers but doesn’t deliver on the extension of the health care tax credits Democrats had been holding out for. The latter immediately prompted criticism from some within his party’s progressive wing.

Kaine, one of seven Democrats and one independent to join Republicans in moving the measure forward, framed his decision as a pragmatic step to end the record-long shutdown and secure key concessions for federal employees. 

“After the elections in Virginia last Tuesday, I kind of assessed on Wednesday, ‘Where are we?’ (on the shutdown). And so I decided to then join the discussions to try to find the path out, and brought to the table an issue that wasn’t subject to the negotiation really before I got there … which was how to treat federal workers,” Kaine said Monday in a Zoom call with reporters.

“And I asked my progressive colleagues in the caucus, do you think another week of punishing SNAP recipients is going to make the Republicans cave, and will another month make them cave? I don’t need to court anybody’s approval and I don’t need to fear anybody’s judgment,” Kaine said.

The Democrat isn’t up for reelection until 2030.

Vote signals a pivot — and a compromise

The procedural vote moving the stop-gap funding measure forward cleared the Senate late Sunday by a 60-40 vote. The legislation aims to reopen the federal government and fund key programs through the next several months, while laying out commitments to debate health-care subsidies and other policy priorities.

For Kaine, the deal included specific safeguards he said he insisted upon. 

The legislation would rehire federal employees who were terminated during the shutdown, provide back pay for all federal employees regardless of status, and include a pledge to prevent future reductions in force for the federal workforce. Those terms, Kaine said, constituted the threshold enabling his support.

He said that after weekend negotiations he locked in the agreement at “4:45 p.m. yesterday afternoon, and I feel very, very good about it.”

Kaine also said his action received support from Virginia Democratic Gov.-elect Abigail Spanberger, who said on the CBS program Face the Nation Sunday that “Virginians need to and Virginians want to see the government reopen.”

“Controversial, tough call, some of my colleagues don’t like it,” Kaine said. “But my governor-elect is very happy with it, and I’m hearing from Virginians this morning. … ‘Thank God you did this.’”

Following up in an email Monday afternoon, a spokesperson for Spanberger emphasized that she supports Kaine’s effort.

“Governor-elect Spanberger has been consistent: Democrats and Republicans in Congress must bring an end to this government shutdown,” the spokesperson said. “Hundreds of thousands of Virginians are feeling the devastating impacts — lost paychecks, work disruptions, and lost SNAP benefits. Governor-elect Spanberger appreciates Senator Kaine fighting for protections for Virginia’s workforce and securing them as part of the negotiations.”

Virginia is disproportionately affected by the ongoing federal work stoppage. With more than 850,000 residents relying on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and one of the nation’s largest federal workforces, the ripple effects of the funding freeze have already hit home. 

The shutdown — triggered by a stalemate over annual appropriations bills and a tied debate over extending subsidies under the Affordable Care Act — began in early October and has since grown into the longest in modern U.S. history. 

In Virginia, the freeze of SNAP payments spurred state action. In late October, Gov. Glenn Youngkin declared a state of emergency and launched the Virginia Emergency Nutrition Assistance program to bridge benefit gaps. The crunch on federal workers and beneficiaries of food assistance added urgency to the political and policy equation.

Implications and dissent

Kaine presented the vote as a tactical win that would help reopen the government, secure worker protections, and then debate the more contentious health-care issues openly rather than under a shadow of shutdown chaos. 

“We don’t have a guarantee, but we have a guarantee of a very high-stakes debate and vote on the Senate floor in the full view of the American public, without the background noise of shutdown consequences drowning out the critical nature of the healthcare debate,” he said.

Still, not everyone agrees with his decision. Some progressive Democrats decried the move as ceding too much to Republicans and weakening leverage in negotiations. 

Political commentator Keith Olbermann, on X, demanded Kaine resign: “Don’t vote and then resign — RESIGN NOW. You are no longer a Democrat.” 

Others, such as retired Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the brother of U.S. Rep. Eugene Vindman, D-Woodbridge, criticized the broader Senate Democratic caucus for collapsing before the public’s appetite for a fight.

“It’s striking and inexplicable that Senate Dems crumbled following decisive signals from the American electorate,” Vindman said on X. “Americans expect the Democrats to fight Trump and Republicans.”

In Virginia’s congressional delegation, responses further reflected the divide. 

Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, D-Loudoun, said he would vote “no” on the Senate proposal once it reached the House, faulting it for failing to fully address health-care costs or federal worker firings. 

“A promise not to fire federal workers in the future is no comfort … to federal workers already fired or contractors who lost their job or aren’t receiving back pay,” he said.

In contrast, Rep. James Walkinshaw, D-Fairfax, applauded Kaine’s move as protecting federal workers and ending “attack after attack” under the Trump administration.

On the Republican side, Rep. Ben Cline, R-Botetourt, said, “After 40 days of unnecessary hardship, Democrats have finally recognized that their government shutdown strategy was a failure. … Sadly, it came at the expense of our troops, SNAP recipients, and federal employees who bore the brunt of their political brinkmanship.” 

A calculated risk

Political scientist Stephen J. Farnsworth of the University of Mary Washington said Kaine’s calculation reflects the kind of decision lawmakers make when they’re freed from the immediate pressures of reelection.

“The farther an elected official is from their next election, the more likely they are to make the decision about how to proceed based on sound public policy evaluation,” he said, noting that Kaine’s next reelection campaign is five years off.

“The fact that the Democratic senators who are part of this negotiation are some distance from their next election, or have announced their retirement, suggests that this is more about their evaluation of how the government should proceed rather than reelection considerations,” he said.

On the intra-party split between Kaine and fellow Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, Farnsworth added: 

“It seems to me that reasonable people could disagree on what the party’s best step forward would be. And it’s certainly unusual when there is a difference of opinion between the two Democratic senators, but even people who agree most of the time don’t agree all the time.”

Warner, who voted against the compromise, said in a statement that while he appreciated that the Senate proposal includes “important language preventing further mass layoffs of federal employees,” he could not support an agreement that “still leaves millions of Americans wondering how they are going to pay for their health care or whether they will be able to afford to get sick.”

Whether Kaine’s move proves bold or miscalculated remains to be seen. 

“Only time will tell,” Farnsworth cautioned. “The reality is that an awful lot of people are suffering from the economic consequences of the shutdown. It’s better for the government to be open than not.”

 

President Donald Trump attends inauguration ceremonies in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 20, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump announced on Monday he pardoned his former lawyer Rudy Giuliani and other people allegedly involved in the attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election, but the president’s federal pardon does not shield members of the group from state charges.

Posting to social media early Monday, U.S. Pardon Attorney Ed Martin released the names of 77 people for whom Trump signed federal pardons in a proclamation dated Nov. 7. Martin is an attorney who represented several people charged in the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection on the U.S. Capitol. 

After losing the 2020 presidential election, Trump goaded his supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol and stop Congress from certifying the election results. He was later impeached by the House for a second time, in connection with the insurrection, but the Senate acquitted him.

It’s the latest move from the president, following his return to the White House, to absolve anyone involved in the efforts to overturn or challenge former President Joe Biden’s victory. The proclamation notes that pardons were granted to address “a grave national injustice.”

Those on the list include former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and Sidney Powell, a lawyer who was indicted along with Trump in a Georgia election case to overturn the state’s results in the 2020 presidential election. 

The proclamation, which is only for federal charges, is symbolic and does not prevent state-level prosecutions. Many of the people named on the list were alleged to have been part of the fake electors’ plot to submit fraudulent certificates claiming that Trump won the battleground states of  Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, instead of Biden.

The White House did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment. 

‘Pardoning a conspiracy’

A coalition of more than 100 pro-democracy groups, Not Above the Law, condemned the move by the president to pardon people involved in trying to subvert the 2020 presidential election.

“Trump isn’t just pardoning people – he’s pardoning a conspiracy and trying to rewrite history,” according to the coalition. “He’s creating a two-tier justice system where he and his allies operate above the law. In Trump’s America, loyalty overrides accountability to the Constitution and our federal laws.”

Those on the list include:

• Mark Amick, a fake elector from Georgia.
• Kathy Berden, a fake elector from Michigan.
• Christina Bobb, a former personal lawyer for Trump.
• Tyler Bowyer, a fake elector from Arizona.
• Joseph Brannan, a fake elector from Georgia.
• Carol Brunner, a fake elector from Wisconsin.
• Mary Buestrin, a fake elector from Wisconsin.
• Darryl Carlson, a fake elector from Wisconsin.
• James “Ken” Carroll, a fake elector from Georgia.
• Brad Carver, a fake elector from Georgia.
• Robert Cheeley, a lawyer who pushed false claims about Georgia’s 2020 presidential election results.
• Kenneth Chesebro, an architect of the fake electors plot.
• Hank Choate, a fake elector from Michigan.
• Jeffrey Clark, a Trump attorney who allegedly assisted the president in his failed bid to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.
• Vikki Townsend Consiglio, a fake elector from Georgia.
• Nancy Cottle, a fake elector from Arizona.
• James DeGraffenreid, a fake elector from Nevada.
• John Downey, a fake elector from Georgia.
• John Eastman, an alleged architect of the fake electors plot.
• Jenna Ellis, a Trump attorney who allegedly assisted the president in his failed bid to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.
• Boris Epshteyn, a Trump advisor who was indicted in Arizona for trying to overturn the state’s 2020 presidential election results.
• Amy Facchinello, a fake elector from Michigan.
• Bill Feehan, a fake elector from Wisconsin.
• Carolyn Hall Fisher, a fake elector from Georgia.
• Harrison Floyd, a lawyer who allegedly tried to overturn Georgia’s 2020 presidential election results.
• Clifford Frost, a fake elector from Michigan.
• Gloria Kay Godwin, who tried to obtain signatures for a recall election petition in Georgia’s 2020 presidential election.
• Edward Scott Grabins, a fake elector from Wisconsin.
• Stanley Grot, a fake elector from Michigan.
• John Haggard, a fake elector from Michigan.
• Scott Hall, the first to plead guilty in the 2020 election subversion case in Georgia.
• Misty Hampton, who was indicted in Georgia’s Fulton County election interference case.
• David G. Hanna, a fake elector from Georgia.
• Mark W. Hennessy, a fake elector from Georgia.
• Mari-Ann Henry, a fake elector from Michigan.
• Durward James Hindle III, a fake elector from Nevada.
• Andrew Hitt, a fake elector from Wisconsin.
• Jake Hoffman, a fake elector from Arizona.
• Burt Jones, a fake elector from Georgia.
• Anthony T. Kern, a fake elector from Arizona.
• Kathy Kiernan, a fake elector from Wisconsin.
• Timothy King, a fake elector from Michigan.
• Trevian Kutti, former publicist of Kayne West, now Ye, who was accused of intimidating Fulton County election workers into falsely admitting to fraudulent ballots in the 2020 election.
• James Lamon, a fake elector from Arizona.
• Cathleen Alston Latham, a fake elector from Georgia.
• Jesse Law, a fake elector from Nevada.
• Stephen Cliffgard Lee, a Chicago pastor accused of intimidating Fulton County election workers into falsely admitting to fraudulent ballots in the 2020 election.
• Michele Lundgren, a fake elector from Michigan.
• Meshawn Maddock, a fake elector from Michigan.
• Michael J. McDonald, a fake elector from Nevada.
• Shawn Meehan, a fake elector from Nevada.
• Robert Montgomery, a fake elector from Arizona.
• Daryl Moody, a fake elector from Georgia.
• Samuel I. Moorhead, a fake elector from Arizona.
• Loraine B. Pellegrino, a fake elector from Arizona.
• James Renner, a fake elector from Michigan.
• Eileen Rice, a fake elector from Nevada.
• Mayra Rodriguez, a fake elector from Michigan.
• Mike Roman, a Trump attorney from Wisconsin who allegedly took part in the efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
• Rose Rook, a fake elector from Michigan.
• Kelly Ruh, a fake elector from Wisconsin.
• Greg Safsten, a fake elector from Arizona.
• David Shafer, a fake elector from Georgia.
• Marian Sheridan, a fake elector from Michigan.
• Ray Stallings Smith III, an attorney for Trump who allegedly tried to overturn the 2020 presidential election results in Georgia.
• Robert F. Spindell Jr., a fake elector from Wisconsin.
• Shawn Still, a fake elector from Georgia.
• Ken Thompson, a fake elector from Michigan.
• Pam Travis, a fake elector from Wisconsin.
• James Troupis, an alleged architect of the fake electors plot.
• Kent Vanderwood, a fake elector from Michigan.
• Kelli Ward, a fake elector from Arizona.
• Michael Ward, a fake elector from Arizona.
• C.B. Yadav, a fake elector from Georgia.

Blister packs of hormone replacement therapy medication. (Getty photos)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced Monday it plans to remove warnings from hormone replacement therapy drugs that can be used to address symptoms of menopause, saying the statements are no longer needed. 

The black box warning, the strongest caution possible from the FDA, was added in the early 2000s after a study from the Women’s Health Initiative showed an uptick in rates of blood clots, breast cancer, heart attacks and strokes for women who used certain types of hormone replacement therapy. 

FDA Commissioner Marty Makary said during a press conference the change for estrogen-related products “is based on a robust review of the latest scientific evidence.”

Makary rebuked the medical establishment for not putting enough effort into researching women’s health conditions, including menopause. 

“A male-dominated medical profession, let’s be honest, has minimized the symptoms of menopause, and as a result, women’s health issues have not received the attention that they deserve. More than 80% of women have notable severe symptoms lasting up to eight years. How could the medical establishment get it so wrong for so long?” Makary said. “Women deserve the same rigorous sciences as is used for men.”

Study criticized

Department of Health and Human Services Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health Director Alicia Jackson said the black box warning on estrogen was based on “the flawed, overgeneralized and misinterpreted WHI study.” 

Jackson said menopause leads to a series of complicated and often painful experiences for women, including “sleepless nights, derailed careers, painful sex, broken bones and a loss of wellbeing.”

Jackson explained that when the level of estrogen drops throughout and after menopause, “a cascade of disease and aging begins.”

“A preponderance of data now shows that estrogen, when started early, acts as a protective shield for the brain, lowering risks of memory loss, mental health decline and neurodegenerative disease, even Alzheimer’s,” Jackson said.  

Makary said women should talk with their doctors and can request their estrogen levels be monitored as they approach the age where menopause typically begins and throughout that years-long process. 

He said that sometimes doctors can prescribe microdosing for hormone replacement therapy, followed by a half-dose and eventually a full dose as a woman’s estrogen levels decrease over time. 

Makary didn’t say how many of the companies that produce hormone replacement therapies plan to remove the black box warning but said he expects nearly all will do so. 

“Companies are, generally speaking, very excited when the FDA tells them they can remove a scary warning on your product,” he said. 

Review by panel

The FDA’s process for removing the black box warning requirement, Makary said, began with an expert panel earlier this year. The FDA’s subject-matter experts then conducted a “comprehensive review of the literature” and recommended the agency remove the requirement, which Makary accepted. 

The scientists who were part of the expert panel, he said, have written an article that will be published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

President of the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists Steven J. Fleischman wrote in a statement that he “commends the HHS leadership for improving the lives of perimenopausal women by making the estrogen products they need more accessible to them.”

“The modifications to certain warning labels for estrogen products are years in the making, reflecting the dedicated advocacy of physicians and patients across the country,” Fleischman wrote. “The updated labels will better allow patients and clinicians to engage in a shared decision-making process, without an unnecessary barrier, when it comes to treatment of menopausal symptoms. ACOG has long advised clinicians to counsel patients based on an individual’s unique risk factors and treatment goals; this announcement does not change ACOG’s guidance on estrogen therapy.”

Former Dane County Judge James Troupis appears in court on Dec. 12. He faces felony forgery charges for his role in developing the 2020 false elector scheme to overturn the election results for Donald Trump. (Screenshot | WisEye)

President Donald Trump has pardoned a group of Wisconsin Republicans who participated in his scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election by casting false Electoral College votes. 

The pardons were issued to a large group of people instrumental to Trump’s 2020 effort, including Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell. Included on the list, posted to X Sunday night by Trump’s pardon attorney Ed Martin, are some of the Wisconsin Republicans who cast the fake votes as well as two attorneys and a former aide who were instrumental in planning the effort. 

The pardons are largely symbolic because the president’s authority only extends to federal, not state, crimes. 

Wisconsinites Carol Brunner, Mary Buestrin, Darryl Carlson, Andrew Hitt, Kelly Ruh, Bob Spindell and Pam Travis received pardons. Attorneys Kenneth Chesebro and Jim Troupis, and former Trump aide Mike Roman were also on the list. 

The 10 people who served as false Trump electors had previously settled a lawsuit against them, which included a formal statement that Joe Biden won the 2020 election and an agreement that they would not serve as electors in any election in which Trump was on the ballot. 

Cheseboro, Troupis and Roman are all facing felony charges in Wisconsin for their role in planning the false elector plot. 

Sen. Ron Johnson, whose office played a part in the scheme by trying to pass the fake Electoral College ballots to then-Vice President Mike Pence, celebrated the pardons. 

“Thank you [Trump] and [Martin] for issuing these well-deserved pardons. It’s well past time for [Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul] to end his corrupt lawfare against a good and honorable man, Judge James Troupis,” Johnson wrote on X. 

While the pardons won’t have any effect on the state prosecutions, critics said the real effect is Trump creating a permission structure for his allies to undermine U.S. election results. Jeff Mandell, general counsel of Law Forward, the progressive voting rights focused firm that filed the lawsuit against Wisconsin’s 10 false electors, called the pardons “offensive” and said they invite attacks on democracy.

“Many are dismissing these pardons as merely symbolic. That misses the point,” Mandell said in a statement. “While the pardon has little immediate effect, its purpose is emblematic: it sends an unmistakable message that this White House disdains democracy and will assist, in word and in deed, any effort, no matter how extreme and outrageous, to cling to power regardless of election results.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The Wisconsin Legislature is considering a bill to legalize online sports gambling. (Getty Images)

A bipartisan bill to legalize online sports betting in Wisconsin is speeding through the state Legislature.

After being introduced in late October, the Assembly and Senate versions of the legislation received public hearings this week, and on Thursday the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Revenue voted 5-3 in favor of advancing the bill to the Senate floor. 

Under the Wisconsin Constitution, any gambling must be managed by the state’s federally recognized Native American tribes. Sports betting was first allowed in the state in 2021, but all of those bets had to be made in person at tribal casinos. The proposed new legislation would allow online sports betting using a “hub and spoke” model in which the servers running the betting websites and apps are housed on tribal land. 

The structure is similar to the state of Florida’s agreement with the Seminole tribe, which owns and operates the Hard Rock Casino brand. 

Proponents of the bill, including a bipartisan mix of legislators, representatives of the tribes and the state’s professional sports teams, say that hundreds of millions of dollars in unregulated online sports bets are already being made in Wisconsin, so legalizing the practice will kill the black market while providing tax revenue and consumer protections. 

But critics say the Legislature is rushing through a bill that could face legal hurdles and ignoring the ways in which online sports betting can be especially harmful for people with gambling addictions. 

Wisconsin’s legalization move comes seven years after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized sports betting in 2018. So far, 39 states have legalized sports betting and 32 of them have allowed online or mobile sports bets. 

Wisconsin would be the first state to legalize online sports gambling since North Carolina and Vermont did so in June 2023. Only now, Wisconsin’s legislators are doing so amid a national reassessment of the country’s relationship with sports gambling. Ads for apps such as FanDuel and DraftKings are ubiquitous. Both the National Basketball Association  and Major League Baseball are dealing with the fallout of player gambling scandals. Questions have arisen about the healthiness of frictionless sports gambling for the predominately young, male users of these apps. 

“American culture, and American sporting culture is trying to adjust to this new widely legalized moment,” Dr. Jason Lopez, a professor at UW-Madison who studies sports media and gambling, told the Wisconsin Examiner. 

If the bill is passed and signed into law, sports betting wouldn’t be immediately legalized. The state and tribes would need to renegotiate their existing gaming compacts and then those new agreements would need approval from the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

But, Rep. Tyler August (R-Walworth), said at Tuesday’s Senate hearing, the state should get moving before the illegal betting market grows too large. 

“I don’t gamble, but I think  it’s the right thing to do, based on some of the data that we’ve seen,” said August, whose district is right on the Illinois border, which residents can easily cross to place online bets. “This is an activity that’s not declining, it’s increasing. And I think that it’s appropriate for us to deal with this now before it gets even bigger.”

Jim Crawford, attorney general of the Potawatomi tribe, said an estimated $1 billion in illegal online sports bets were made by Wisconsinites last year. At the hearing, tribal representatives highlighted the services tribal governments could improve with the increased sports betting revenue. 

“While online gaming is currently the wild west in Wisconsin with no regulations or protections for consumers,” Crawford said. “It does not have to be. This bill is a first step in ensuring that consumers will be able to have a legal, regulated and protected way of participating in this extremely popular technology.”

Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green), one of the bill’s co-authors, said he doesn’t believe the bill will put gambling addicts at further risk. But Sens. Andre Jacque (R-New Franken), Rachael Cabral-Guevara (R-Appleton) and Sarah Keyeski (D-Lodi) voted against moving the bill out of committee. Jacque said at the hearing he was worried about the recent gambling scandals in professional sports and the risk of gambling addiction. 

“This would allow them to place bets by their device anywhere in the state, as opposed to going on site at a casino, at a reservation,” Jacque said. “I would say, from an opportunity standpoint, that potentially could feed more into addictive behavior.” 

Noah Henderson, the director of the sport management program at Loyola University Chicago, said the frictionless nature of online sports betting is one of its challenges. 

“Brick and mortar sports books provide a cooling-off period, when people are trying to chase losses, if they have to get in their car again and go to the sports book, they might realize halfway there that they’re acting impulsively,” Henderson said. “It’s easier for families to see the signs of gambling disorder or problem gambling when individuals have to leave the home, right? It’s a lot easier to hide problem gambling or a gambling disorder when it’s only on a mobile device, where there’s no absences, they’re not leaving the house more than they normally do.” 

Henderson said there’s not much Wisconsin’s Legislature can do about the societal acceptance of legalized sports betting and a culture that has fully absorbed the promotion of gambling. 

“It is incredibly common to see on the pre-game show, the halftime show, the best bets, the best live bets, the best parlay combinations. So I think that there’s only so much Wisconsin can do to stop that, to stop sports gambling from being the culture of young men — predominantly young men — watching sports,” he told the Examiner. 

So, according to Henderson, the state is faced with a choice between legalizing and facing the broader cultural changes head-on while getting the tax revenue or hoping that prohibition disincentivizes sports betting. 

“I think that there might be a bit of harm reduction in this public policy where, if we keep mobile sports wagering outlawed in this state, it’s not going to curtail the sweeping normalization of sports gambling that we’ve seen,” Henderson said. “That’s at a national level. So Wisconsin has two options, which is to not allow it, and hope that the lack of resources for legal sports gambling incentivizes young men and women not to partake in this. But at the end of the day, there’s still a market and a need … they would rather regulate and tax it for consumer protection and to grow a tax base off of it and not have sports gambling happening without being able to derive some tax benefit from it that can go towards gambling education, public schools, or whatever else Wisconsin’s government deems important.” 

One organization that is against the bill is the Sports Betting Alliance, which represents the major online sportsbooks. 

The bill uses the federal Indian Gaming Regulation Act as a mechanism to allow online bets in Wisconsin. That law allows tribes to license their gaming operations out to third parties so long as the tribe gets 60% of the net revenue. 

Damon Stewart, an attorney for the alliance, said at the hearing that the revenue sharing requirement would make it too expensive for the most popular apps to partner with the tribes and provide their already existing apps and infrastructure. He also said he believes the law as currently written runs afoul of federal law. 

“We support the goal of legal online sports betting in Wisconsin. We want to work with the tribes. We want to partner with them,” Stewart said. “But this bill will only result in limited choices for customers. There’s no national brands, no chance for all the tribes to actually participate in the market, no ability to make an effective dent in the illegal market that already exists and years of litigation that will hold up the implementation of the law.” 

Stewart argued in his testimony that without the name recognition of the most popular apps, the legalization effort may not effectively kill the black market. Henderson said it’s possible for the tribes to develop their own infrastructure, but it’s easier to let the bigger companies manage the administration if the revenue sharing deal can be worked out. 

“This is probably a losing endeavor for those big sports books to enter a mid-sized sports gambling market with already pretty challenging margins,” Henderson said. “Especially when sports books enter a new market for sports gambling, there’s a lot of upfront costs that come with advertising that usually these businesses and markets take several years to even become profitable with more favorable regulations in place.” 

“Legislation can be amended. It doesn’t seem like this is the only formulation of it, but I think revenue sharing can definitely happen,” he continued. “I just don’t know if the 60-40 model makes sense for retailers to want to come in. Otherwise it would just be much like Florida, where tribal governments would have to build the infrastructure on their own or purchase white light label sports gambling software and pass it off as their own.”

In his testimony, Stewart called for the Legislature to slow down the process and get it right the first time. 

“I want to be respectful. It’s just my perception that with a bill dropped last week, two hearings this week, it does seem to be, compared to a lot of legislation, a bit of a rush,” Stewart said. “And on the topic of this complexity, a topic of this importance that affects a lot of citizens of the state, I would hope it would be seen as reasonable as asking to let us have the chance to work with the tribes.” 

The tribal representatives testifying said they were prepared to move forward without the big name apps. 

“We certainly appreciate the Sports Betting Alliance’s support of the goal of this legislation,” Crawford said. “But it’s also something that is a little bit concerning to us, that they are sort of implying that we don’t have the capability of operating statewide mobile sports, which, if you’ve ever been to our facility and to our retail sports betting, you know that we do a pretty good job, and the customers are happy. And so we look forward to doing that on a statewide basis, on a regulated basis, where the consumers are protected and they are generating revenues for the state of Wisconsin that stay in the state of Wisconsin.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Fred Clark (standing) Democrat from Bayfield County, talking to John Kotar, retired UW-Madision Forestry, Ecology and Management Proffesor in Cable, Wisconsin, Oct. 22. | Photo by Frank Zufall/Wisconsin Examiner

In 2021, Fred Clark, who represented Baraboo as a Democratic representative in the state Assembly from 2009 to 2014, moved north to Bayfield County to retire, but over the last year, he said, he has become concerned about what he sees as an assault on the U.S. Constitution and the future of America, so he decided to re-enter politics.

Clark recently announced he’s running for Congress to represent Wisconsin’s 7th Congressional District.

Incumbent Tom Tiffany (R-Minocqua) is running for governor and two of the highest profile Republican state senators in the district — Romaine Quinn of Rice Lake and Mary Felzkowski of Tomahawk — both recently announced they will seek reelection to  the state Senate. The other candidates who have announced they are running for Tiffany’s seat,  three Republicans and one Democrat, have little districtwide name recognition. 

Clark sees an opportunity to mount a strong campaign as he tries to flip the large, Republican-leaning district, which covers much of the top half of Wisconsin, from red to blue.

“I think this is the first time in 15 years to have a truly competitive election in the 7th Congressional District,” he said. 

Clark, who is also not widely known in the 7th CD, has his work cut out for him. His background in logging, as the owner of Clark Forestry, Inc., could appeal to voters in the northwestern district, where forestry products are a critical part of the economy. He has also worked as a forestry consultant with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and as a forest ecologist for The Nature Conservancy, and was the executive director and a founding board member of Wisconsin’s Green Fire, a conservation group. 

He also has a history of building relationships with Republicans and independents, which is critical in a  district that has voted by wide margins for Republicans since 2010, starting with former U.S. Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Hayward), now Secretary of Transportation. Duffy who won the district before it was redrawn following the last Census, and then increased his winning margins in the redistricted boundaries for four more elections. Tiffany also won by wide margins.

At a meeting of Democrats in Cable on Oct. 22 at The River Eatery, a venue heavily supported by the silent sports community that tends to vote blue, Clark was asked if he would reach out to independents and Republicans in the district. He answered in the affirmative, saying his goal is to convince 40,000 voters who either did not vote or voted Republican in the last congressional election to “reevaluate” their decision.

“I’m asking a lot of people who may have voted Republican in the past to think about who’s going to represent their interest the best and who’s got the ability to work for you and will show up and listen,” he said. “People want to shake your hand and look you in the eye and believe that they share enough with you that they could trust you to represent them, even if you didn’t agree with them on everything.”

At that Oct 22 meeting, Clark criticized policy decisions in Washington he said were “hurtful and damaging and are being felt across rural America right now.”

Clark is critical of the Big Beautiful Bill passed this summer by Republicans, and of their refusal to extend Affordable Care Act health insurance subsidies. More than 270,000 Wisconsinites are projected to lose health insurance because of either dropping their coverage when premiums rise or losing Medicaid under the new rules. .

Clark is also concerned there will be fewer federal dollars to support rural hospitals.

“The health care outcomes are going to be worse and the rural health care system that we all rely on is going to continue to get worse because we’re going to lose doctors and we’re going to lose specialists and we’re going to lose clinics,” he said.

Support for wood pulp sustainable fuel initiative

Hayward is in the running, along with two other sites in Michigan and Minnesota, for a large $1.5 billion sustainable aviation fuel plant using pulp wood. The Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation is offering $60 million in incentives on top of a  $150 million grant funded through the Department of Natural Resources forestry account. It could be a boon to the wood pulp industry, but there have also been environmental concerns that the operation involving chipping trees in the field would leave less timber debris that adds nutrients to the soil, helping to protect the long-term health of the forest.

As a forester, Clark  believes the project would be good for the economy. The state’s  pulp and paper industries have been in a long  decline.  Clark says chipping  can be done in a manner that doesn’t risk the forest, but he is also critical of the  state’s plan to offer  the $150 million grant.

“We need to find new uses for wood from Wisconsin forests, and it’s really important that we have those markets for wood so that people managing forest land can continue to do that and we have a strong forest-based economy,” he said. “The sustainable aviation fuel truly is an opportunity to add a new product, or forest products mix, that could be good for forest conservation and forest ownership.”

“What I’m concerned about,” he added “and I don’t think it’s a good idea, is to hand out a $150 million cash subsidy to try to get into a bidding war with other states to land this plan.” He says he prefers the idea of offering tax credits as incentives to “writing a big blank check to this company.”

Worries about privatizing forestry

Clark also supports the Good Neighbor Authority program with the U.S. Forest Service, which involves county forestry departments helping to manage federal forest harvests. U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-Madison) was instrumental in establishing the program.  

“What the Good Neighbor Authority has done is just provide some extra flexibility for the Forest Service to get important work done and to meet their timber goals,” he said. “Working through states, it can work well when it’s well managed, but the risk here is that this administration throws open the door to basically privatize most of forest management, and if you let that happen, you’re going to have people and organizations setting up these timber sales that aren’t respecting the wildlife habitat and the soil conservation and the water protection that all needs to be part of any forest management. So the training and the standards and maintaining consistency are some of the most important things that we need to do with Good Neighbor Authority, and it’s got to be well managed or it won’t be successful.”

Help for Wisconsin farmers and small business

The number of small dairy farms in Wisconsin continues to decline as giant operations grow. Clark says the solution to the scourge of farm bankruptcies is to work on returning to supply management, keeping the milk supply at a level that offers attractive prices instead of emphasizing higher production, which suppresses prices and favors larger dairy operations.

“Honestly, as long as the incentives are all toward maximizing production that’s going to continue to keep prices at a place where only the biggest producers are going to survive and we’ll continue to see the erosion of the small farms who simply can’t produce enough milk at a cost above production,” he said. “Other countries that have effective supply management programs are actually able to maintain pricing that allows everybody to stay in business, and I think that’s the conversation among milk producers and folks in Congress that needs to be had.”

Clark is also critical of Trump’s tariffs for undermining efforts in the farming community to establish overseas markets.

“We’re seeing right now the impacts of the tariff war on everything from soybean producers who [lost]  markets in China … to hardwood lumber producers here in Wisconsin, who also have depended on Canadian and other international markets that are losing those markets, to ginseng producers in Marathon County, who have now lost their single biggest customer, China, which purchases the vast majority of American ginseng,” he said.  “All those markets that took years to develop are being essentially kneecapped by this president in this crazy tariff war.”

On his platform for “rebuilding our rural economy” Clark notes the need for “long-overdue tax reform that claws back 40 years of tax giveaways to the wealthiest Americans and our most profitable corporations.”

“We need a much fairer system,” he said. “There are simply way too many gigantic tax benefits that the largest corporations are able to use in order to effectively pay almost no taxes, and in many cases, these are some of the most profitable industries in our nation. You know, the net result of that is that we’ve got a giant amount of national debt. I believe it’s over $37 trillion of national debt. That is not good for America, and we can’t balance that debt on the backs of the people who need the services of the government the most.”

Clark is advocating for targeted subsidies for small- and medium-sized businesses, which he said generate jobs in rural communities. Asked about one notable failure in the district — the millions in federal grant dollars allocated to the Park Falls mill, which failed to keep the plant operational, he said, “When you’re providing incentives to private businesses, there’s always a risk.” 

“So because the business used a subsidy and ended up failing, that doesn’t mean we failed, but it does mean to me, we’ve got to make those investments smartly,” he added. Giving a large grant to a business that might come from outside the state to build a sustainable aviation fuel plant is one plan he says needs more scrutiny.  

“If you’re trying to start a small farm or small forest products business or manufacturing business, and you go to the Small Business Development Corporation, the Small Business Administration for a loan, you’re going to be wading through paperwork tall as your arm on your desk by the time you’re done, hours and hours,” he said.  “I think we can make that easier, and I think we can make those funds more available. And what we know is that even though big employers get a lot of the attention, if you add up the scope of small businesses, that’s actually where most of the jobs are, and those owners are the people who are committed and rooted in those communities.”

One of the things Clark doesn’t directly cover in his platform is the affordable  housing crisis. 

Clark said housing may be more important in tourist areas, like the 7th District, where so many seasonal homes are used as short-term rentals (STRs) instead of long-term family housing.

“We need communities that have the ability to zone and regulate that (STRs) more effectively, and then we need to go back and figure out how to make housing affordable, which is the availability of financing,” he said.

Immigration reform

Clark acknowledges that many voters in the 7th CD supported Trump’s promise to beef up border security and deport immigrants who commit crimes, but he is critical of how the U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) law enforcement agents are operating in communities.

“We need to have a secure border and immigrants who are here illegally, and most especially immigrants associated with criminal activity — we absolutely need enforcement on that,” he said. “And those people should be deported. What we have going on right now, however, is it’s essentially a war of fear in American cities. And ICE is an agency that is really one of the only federal agencies that’s seen its budget dramatically increased. They’re hiring new ICE agents as fast as they can, with a minimal amount of training, and it’s already clear that many of these people simply don’t have the experience and the training to be doing what they’re doing. And I don’t care what party you belong to, seeing people in masks who aren’t even identifying themselves, calling citizens and legal residents out of their homes without judicial warrants, many of whom will never see a court or a judge — it’s wrong and it’s unconstitutional, and it’s not making American communities safer.”

Clark also wants Congress to fully flex its constitutional authority to “curb the abuse of emergency powers” exercised by Trump. Democrats would be able to provide that check if they win the majority of the House in 2026. He also said Democrats should hold town hall meetings, “taking the case to voters.”

“Republicans in Congress have been completely afraid to do that,” he said of in-person town hall meetings. “Congressman Tiffany hasn’t done it. And that’s talking to the people that you represent. You know that’s No. 1.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

People wait in line at a security checkpoint at Charlotte-Douglas International Airport  on Nov. 9, 2025 in Charlotte, North Carolina. The FAA has targeted 40 "high-volume" airports, including Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, for flight cuts amid the government shutdown. (Photo by Grant Baldwin/Getty Images)

This report has been updated.

WASHINGTON — Seven U.S. Senate Democrats and one independent joined Republicans on Sunday night in advancing legislation to reopen the government and temporarily keep it afloat until the end of January, after a record-breaking shutdown that began Oct. 1.

Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois, John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Tim Kaine of Virginia, and Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen of Nevada voted with most of the GOP to advance the stopgap measure through a 60-40 procedural vote. 

Sen. Angus King of Maine, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, also voted in support.  

Fetterman, King and Cortez Masto had already voted with Republicans on the previous 14 votes to reopen the government. Until Sunday, Republicans who control the chamber did not have the 60 votes needed to clear the filibuster threshold.

GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who has consistently voted against the temporary funding measure, again cast a “no” vote.

The deal would also unlock full-year funding for a vital food aid program that serves 42 million Americans and bring back federal workers fired by President Donald Trump when the government was closed.

It does not include language addressing skyrocketing premiums for those enrolled in individual health insurance plans in the Affordable Care Act marketplace, a major sticking point for Democrats. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said late Sunday on the Senate floor that he commits to holding a separate vote on health insurance subsidies no later than the second week of December.

In a press conference following the vote, Rosen said Democrats have “an opportunity also to put Republicans on the record on the ACA.”

“Are they committed to doing this? Are they committed leaders who said, ‘You can come to the table on health care once the government was open’? And now he must follow through. If Republicans want to join us in lowering costs for working families, they have the perfect opportunity to show the American public,” Rosen said.

New text of a temporary stopgap funding deal released Sunday night proposes to keep the government open until Jan. 30. The bill would also reinstate all federal employees who were fired after the shutdown began, restoring their jobs with back pay, and prohibit any further layoffs until the temporary funding expires.

As part of the agreement, three fiscal year 2026 funding bills will ride along with the package, including the appropriations bills for agriculture programs, veterans benefits, military construction and Congress.

Divided Democrats

Several Senate Democrats left a lengthy closed-door meeting earlier Sunday night upset that the deal does not include anything to address rising health care premiums, on which the party has staked the 40-day shutdown. 

Subsidies for those who buy insurance on the Affordable Care Act insurance marketplace expire at the end of this year.

“So far as I’m concerned, health care isn’t included, so I’ll be a no,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.

Sens. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland and Wisconsin’s Tammy Baldwin also issued statements following the caucus meeting declaring they would vote no. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer also told reporters on his way out of the meeting that he’s opposed to the deal.

Sen. Andy Kim of New Jersey said on social media he would oppose it. ”I’ve been clear that we need real action to stop the devastating health care cost increases that are hurting millions of families,” he said.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., issued a statement expressing support for the agreement, highlighting that Senate Republicans have promised a vote on extending the health care subsidies.

“This deal guarantees a vote to extend Affordable Care Act premium tax credits, which Republicans weren’t willing to do. Lawmakers know their constituents expect them to vote for it, and if they don’t, they could very well be replaced at the ballot box by someone who will,” Kaine said.

Government reopening will take time

The Sunday night vote does not mean the government will reopen right away.

The legislation must make its way through Senate procedural steps and then gain approval from the U.S. House, which hasn’t been in session since Sept. 19. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, attended the Washington Commanders football game with Trump Sunday night in Landover, Maryland.

Trump briefly spoke to reporters upon news of the deal after leaving the NFL game, telling them, “It looks like we’re getting very close to the shutdown ending.”

Nearly a million federal workers have missed paychecks during the shutdown, and food benefits for the poorest Americans stopped flowing at the beginning of November. 

Air travel has also become snarled as the shutdown has dragged on, and air traffic controllers are under pressure without pay. The Federal Aviation Administration began cutting flights Friday at 40 major airports across the U.S. The cuts are set to ramp up to a 10% decrease in air traffic.

SNAP funding

The deal includes provisions that Democrats say the Trump administration sought to shrink or cut altogether, including fresh fruit and vegetable subsidies for mothers with children and monthly food boxes for low-income seniors.

The legislation would direct $8.2 billion to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, otherwise known as WIC, a roughly $600 million increase over last year’s program amount.

During the shutdown, the administration used $150 million from a U.S. Department of Agriculture rainy day fund to keep the program going. The bill would replenish the contingency money.

The bill also fully funds the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, and children’s nutrition programs, including subsidized school breakfast and lunch, and the availability of food during summer school breaks.

Democrats on the Senate Committee on Appropriations say it included “key funding for SNAP and other critical nutrition programs as President Trump fights in court during the government shutdown to cut off benefits for 42 million Americans who rely on SNAP to feed their families,” according to a bill summary. 

The USDA directed states to begin releasing the November SNAP benefits onto recipients’ benefits debit cards after a Rhode Island federal district judge and circuit court ordered the Trump administration to do so last week. 

Trump appealed the order to the Supreme Court, which stayed the decision. A department memo Saturday told states that released the full benefits to take back a portion of them.

The bill would also direct money to the SNAP emergency contingency fund.

Hemp ban

Hemp farmers are sounding the alarm about a provision in the bill that they say would “effectively eliminate the legal hemp industry built under the 2018 farm bill,” according to a Sunday statement from the Hemp Industry and Farmers of America.

Lawmakers are “slamming the door on 325,000 American jobs and forcing consumers back to dangerous black markets,” the industry group’s executive director Brian Swensen said. 

Swensen also added: “The hemp industry has been ready and willing to work on responsible regulations – age restrictions, testing requirements, proper labeling — but instead of collaboration, the industry is getting a misguided prohibition through backdoor appropriations deals.” 

House trepidation

Several House Democrats, including a top appropriator, criticized the deal.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries blamed Republicans for the proposal Sunday night in a statement, saying House and Senate Democrats have “waged a valiant fight” for the last seven weeks.

“It now appears that Senate Republicans will send the House of Representatives a spending bill that fails to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits. As a result of the Republicans refusal to address the healthcare crisis that they have created, tens of millions of everyday Americans are going to see their costs skyrocket,” Jeffries said.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top House Democratic appropriator, said she did not agree to the release of the veterans and military construction bill as an attachment to the deal.

“Congress must invest in veterans, address the health care crisis that is raising costs on more than 20 million Americans, and prevent President Trump from not spending appropriated dollars in our communities,” DeLauro, D-Conn., said in a statement.

Rep. Angie Craig joined other House Democrats in slamming the Senate negotiations on social media.

“If people believe this is a ‘deal,’ I have a bridge to sell you. I’m not going to put 24 million Americans at risk of losing their health care. I’m a no,” said Craig, of Minnesota.

The Saturday Morning Market, in St. Petersburg, Florida, on April 14, 2012. (Photo by Lance Cheung/USDA)

Following a late Friday emergency ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Trump administration has instructed states that authorized full November nutrition assistance benefits to return a portion, another unprecedented reversal for a program that helps 42 million people afford groceries.

A Saturday memo from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service said states should fund 65% of benefits for users of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, often called food stamps. 

Those that had authorized full payments in line with earlier administration guidance should “immediately undo” that action, according to the memo.

“To the extent States sent full SNAP payment files for November 2025, this was unauthorized,” the memo said. “Accordingly, States must immediately undo any steps taken to issue full SNAP benefits for November 2025. Please advise the appropriate FNS Regional Office representative of steps taken to correct any actions taken that do not comply with this memorandum.”

President Donald Trump and top administration officials have said they cannot pay full SNAP benefits during the government shutdown that began Oct. 1 and instead, under court orders, are using a contingency fund to make partial payments.

Shutdown chaos surrounds SNAP

Saturday’s guidance from Patrick A. Penn, the department’s deputy under secretary for food, nutrition and consumer services, marked the latest turnaround in a chaotic few days for the agency, states that administer SNAP and the millions of Americans who depend on it to afford food.

Penn wrote that, in light of the Supreme Court’s order pausing lower court rulings that USDA must pay full November benefits, the administration was returning to its position that SNAP benefits should be funded at 65%. 

States — including Wisconsin and Kansas — that issued full benefits did so under a Friday memo, also signed by Penn, that said states should authorize full payments for SNAP, consistent with a Thursday ruling in federal court.

Kansas, Wisconsin, Oregon govs express dismay

Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, a Democrat, in a late Friday statement expressed disappointment with the administration’s appeal to the Supreme Court and noted the state had authorized full payments earlier in the day for all eligible Kansans.

“These Kansans, most of them children, seniors or people with disabilities, were struggling to put food on their plates,” she said. “Why the President would petition the highest court to deny food to hungry children is beyond me. It does nothing to advance his political agenda. It does not hurt his perceived enemies. It only hurts our most vulnerable and our reputation around the globe.”

In a Sunday statement, Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, flatly refused to try to claw back any authorized benefits. The state acted in compliance with a court order, he said.

“After we did so, the Trump Administration assured Wisconsin and other states that they were actively working to implement full SNAP benefits for November and would ‘complete the processes necessary to make funds available,’” he said. “They have failed to do so to date.”

Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek said her state will not comply.

“Oregon acted lawfully, given the federal court’s directive and the communications with the USDA, and my decision to ensure SNAP benefits went out quickly was in direct alignment with my food emergency declaration,” said Kotek, a Democrat. “I am disgusted that President Trump has the audacity to take taxpayers’ money away from them when they are in crisis. I have a question for the President: What would he prefer to spend the money on over groceries for people in need? This is ridiculous, immoral, and Oregon will fight this every step of the way.”

U.S. Rep. Angie Craig of Minnesota, the top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, said in a statement: “Let’s be clear about what this is —  the Trump administration is demanding that food assistance be taken away from the households that have already received it. They would rather go door to door, taking away people’s food, than do the right thing and fully fund SNAP for November so that struggling veterans, seniors, and children can keep food on the table. It is incomprehensible, incompetent and inconsistent with our values as Americans.” 

Court action

The earlier order, from U.S. District Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. in Rhode Island, told the department to use sources outside the contingency fund to make full November payments by Friday. The order was appealed to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

But Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, acting on behalf of the high court, granted the administration’s request for an emergency stay on Friday night, speeding up the process for what Jackson said would then be an “expeditious” decision by the appeals court but also changing things yet again.

No longer, for the moment, required by a court order to pay full November benefits, the administration instructed states in the Saturday memo to have the vendors that process payments to the electronic benefit transfer cards withhold part of the month’s allotment.

“States must not transmit full benefit issuance files to EBT processors,” Penn wrote. “Instead, States must continue to process and load the partial issuance files that reflect the 35 percent reduction of maximum allotments detailed in the November 5 guidance.”

Shutdown negotiations

SNAP funding has been a key issue during the shutdown. 

In a plan published Sept. 30, the USDA said it would continue to pay for the roughly $9 billion per month program through its contingency fund. The administration reversed itself 10 days later, telling states there would be no SNAP available for November.

A bipartisan U.S. Senate bill filed Sunday would end the shutdown. It includes provisions to fully fund SNAP, the contingency fund and the $23 billion children nutrition programs fund that may be a source of emergency funding for SNAP if the shutdown persists.

Kansas Reflector Editor in Chief Sherman Smith, Wisconsin Examiner Editor in Chief Ruth Conniff and Oregon Capital Chronicle Editor in Chief Julia Shumway  contributed to this report.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 9, 2024. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily blocked Friday night a lower court’s order that the Trump administration pay for a full month of food benefits, hours after some states began loading nutrition assistance funds on payment cards held by the 42 million Americans who use the program.

In a two-page filing, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson accepted the government’s request to pause a Thursday order from Rhode Island Chief U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell while a lower appeals court hears the case. 

His order Thursday compelled the U.S. Department of Agriculture to transfer funds from other programs to fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, for November. The Trump administration had said the ongoing government shutdown meant it could not pay November SNAP benefits.

“The applicants assert that, without intervention from this Court, they will have to ‘transfer an estimated $4 billion by tonight’ to fund SNAP benefits through November,” Jackson, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, wrote. 

A stay is needed to reach an “expeditious resolution,” she wrote.

Jackson’s order froze SNAP payments to states that the USDA had appeared to authorize earlier Friday before the administration appealed to the high court.

It was unclear Friday night what effect that might have on individual recipients’ electronic benefit transfer, or EBT, cards. A press release earlier Friday from California Gov. Gavin Newsom said some Californians had begun to see full benefits on their cards, following an order from a lower court.

High court challenge 

In a Friday evening brief to the Supreme Court that followed a day of conflicting messages from the administration, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the high court should step in to protect the executive branch’s power from what he characterized as unprecedented overreach by McConnell.

By demanding that the USDA transfer money from a $23 billion fund for child nutrition programs to pay for November SNAP benefits, McConnell substituted his judgment for the agency’s, a violation of the constitutional separation-of-powers doctrine, Sauer argued. 

The department’s decision to pay for partial November benefits, by using the roughly $5 billion remaining in a contingency fund, rather than by paying about $9 billion for a full month of benefits, was its decision to make and not reviewable by courts, Sauer said.

“USDA reasonably determined that the best course was to combine partial SNAP payments with stable funding for Child Nutrition Programs—versus jeopardize the latter to guarantee full payments with the former,” Sauer wrote. “The district court would have done otherwise. But it had no legal basis to ‘substitute its own policy judgment for that of the agency.’”

Confusion in states 

The lower court order — as well a midday Friday letter from the USDA to state SNAP administrators — had also led to confusion among states who started to demand SNAP funds in a way Sauer compared to a bank run.

Several states announced full funding would be available and began sending money to beneficiaries.

Immediately after McConnell’s order was published, Wisconsin demanded “100% of SNAP benefits,” Sauer wrote. Even though the USDA system rejected the file, the private-sector processor of the payment “moved forward, resulting in Wisconsin currently overdrawing its letter of credit by $20 million,” he said.

Kansas made a similar move. And some California SNAP users received their full benefits, according to Sauer’s brief.

16 million children on SNAP

McConnell on Thursday had ruled the department’s decision to withhold SNAP benefits arbitrary and capricious — the standard for judicial review of an executive branch action. 

The $23 billion fund could spare the $4 billion needed to make November SNAP benefits whole and still maintain its intended purpose well beyond the month, so there was no need to maintain that fund at that level, he wrote.

Instead, the decision “predictably magnifies harm and undermines the very purpose of the program it administers,” McConnell wrote.

While federal agencies are due discretion from courts, such a “poor” use of decision-making power must be remedied, he said.

“Contrary to what the Defendants claim, 29 million children who participate in the Child Nutrition Program are not at risk of immediately going hungry in the event of a transfer,” he said. “Instead, SNAP recipients—16 million of whom are children—will go hungry if they do not receive their SNAP benefits this month.”

‘Starve Peter to feed Paul’

But Sauer responded that was not McConnell’s call to make. 

The trial judge’s ruling improperly assumed that Congress would eventually replenish the child nutrition program fund, but the USDA was within its right to take a more cautious approach toward protecting the child nutrition funding, said the solicitor general.

“It obviously was not unlawful for the agency to see things differently—and refuse to starve Peter to feed Paul, by gambling school lunches tomorrow in exchange for more SNAP money today,” he wrote. “Indeed, that sort of hard tradeoff is precisely the sort of decision that Congress committed to agency discretion and placed beyond the reach of judges.”

While the USDA had not denied that it was able to move money to different priorities after Congress had appropriated it, the government did not have to do so, Sauer said.

Allowing McConnell’s ruling to stand would invite a stampede to litigation, the government maintained.

“If allowed to stand, this decision will metastasize and sow further shutdown chaos,” Sauer said. “Every beneficiary of a federal program could run into court, point to an agency’s general discretion to prioritize funding, and claim that failing to prioritize their chosen program was arbitrary and capricious.”

Trump social media post

Sauer also said McConnell read too much into Trump’s social media post this week that threatened to withhold SNAP funding for the duration of the shutdowns.

McConnell cited in his order the post, in which Trump said SNAP benefits would “be given only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before!” showed the true purpose of the USDA move was political leverage.

Sauer said that was improper.

“The court below had no basis to transfer of billions of dollars from school lunches to its preferred program based on its tendentious view of ‘the administration’s true motivations.’”

In a statement, Skye Perryman, the president and CEO of Democracy Forward, an advocacy group that is leading the litigation to force SNAP payments, said the group would continue to work to “secure benefits for the American people”

“The Trump-Vance administration continues to attempt — over and over — to take food out of the hands of families, seniors, workers, and children,” Perryman said. “And every time they tried, the courts told them what the law already makes clear: they cannot. American families should not be used as political props in a shutdown that this White House manufactured.”

Canceled flights are displayed on an arrivals board at San Francisco International Airport on Nov. 7, 2025 in San Francisco, California. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

The first flights affected by a new Federal Aviation Administration directive led to widespread delays and cancellations Friday.

The FAA will ramp up to a 10% reduction in flights at 40 of the nation’s busiest airports by Nov. 14, starting with a 4% reduction Friday. 

More than 1,000 flights had been canceled by 5 p.m. Eastern  Friday, according to the flight tracker FlightAware.com, compared with just more than 200 on Thursday. 

U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford announced the plan Wednesday. The reductions would help ease the strain on air traffic controllers, who have been working without pay during the government shutdown that began Oct. 1. 

Duffy said controllers were taking second jobs to make ends meet and were experiencing fatigue and stress, leading to safety concerns. 

Shutdown delays in D.C., Chicago, Atlanta and more

Seven airports on the list of 40 had ground delays Friday, with staffing shortages at 18 air traffic control towers triggering delays at others, according to an FAA advisory. 

Departures at Washington Reagan National Airport, just outside the nation’s capital in Northern Virginia, were averaging a four-hour delay Friday afternoon, according to FAA data. 

The airport led the nation with 73 cancellations Friday, according to FlightAware. Chicago O’Hare, Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson, Denver International and Dallas/Fort Worth airports were also in the top five for cancellations.

Duffy visited Washington Reagan National earlier in the day to check in with travelers and brief reporters. He said he couldn’t give an exact figure on the number of affected flights, but said he hoped the reduction in flights would help controllers miss less work.

“I don’t want to see the disruption,” he said. “I don’t want to see the delays. Now, there could be a benefit if I can get the controllers to come back to work.”

Duffy recommended Friday that travelers continue to book flights now, rather than waiting for the shutdown to end. He said in an ABC News interview that waiting to book a flight could put fliers in the position of paying higher prices.

Regional carriers 

Nate Vallier, a partner at Alaska Travel Desk, a travel agency, said in a Friday press release the cancellations appeared to mostly hit smaller regional carriers. 

“We’re seeing a lot of randomness in the cancellations, as a way to spread the pain per se,”  Vallier said. “But the majority of canceled flights so far are with regional jets, such as those flown by SkyWest, Horizon, and American Eagle’s Envoy Divisions.” 

Alaska Beacon reporter James Brooks contributed to this report.

Furloughed federal workers stand in line for hours ahead of a special food distribution by the Capital Area Food Bank and No Limits Outreach Ministries on Barlowe Road in Hyattsville, Maryland, on Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2025. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Senators on Friday said they plan to remain in town for the weekend, a sign negotiations may be picking up to approve a stopgap spending measure and end the government shutdown, now at day 38.

A vote on a package of spending bills could come either Saturday or Sunday that would partially fund the government, Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters.

“Our members are going to be advised to be available if there’s a need to vote,” Thune said. “We will see what happens and whether or not, over the course of the next couple of days, the Democrats can find a way to reengage again.”

Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer offered a proposal from Democrats to agree to reopen the government if health care tax subsidies are continued for a year. 

As open enrollment begins, people who buy their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act Marketplace are seeing a drastic increase in premium costs.

“We’d like to offer a simple proposal,” the New York Democrat said. “To reopen the government and extend the (Affordable Care Act) tax credits simultaneously.” 

Republicans have maintained that any discussion on extending the health care tax credits set to expire at the end of the year will only happen after government funding resumes. House Speaker Mike Johnson this week said he would not promise a vote on the GOP-controlled House floor regarding the issue. 

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office in September found that if lawmakers permanently extend the enhanced tax credits for certain people who buy their health insurance through the ACA Marketplace, it would cost the government $350 billion over 10 years and increase the number of those with health insurance by 3.8 million.

But it was unclear how much traction Schumer would get. Several Republicans called the proposal a “non-starter,” such as Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota. 

Rounds also questioned if the stopgap spending bill that Democrats agreed to support is the House-passed version that would extend government funding only to Nov. 21 or another that would run longer. 

“It’s good that they’re recognizing that we have to open up the government,” Rounds said of Democrats. 

Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin called the proposal from Democrats “absurd,” and said there was no way senators could negotiate a deal on health care quickly.

He added that Trump also wants to be part of the negotiations on health care.

“Whatever we do as Republicans, we’ve got to really work close with the president,” Mullin said. “The President wants to be involved in this negotiation.”

Separately, senators failed Friday in a 53-43 vote to move forward on a bill from Wisconsin GOP Sen. Ron Johnson to pay federal workers who Friday missed their second paycheck. Georgia’s Democratic Sens. Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock voted with Republicans. Sixty votes were needed.

President Donald Trump on social media said, “The United States Senate should not leave town until they have a Deal to end the Democrat Shutdown. If they can’t reach a Deal, the Republicans should terminate the Filibuster, IMMEDIATELY, and take care of our Great American Workers!”

Flight cutbacks, food aid disruption

The Senate has failed 14 times to move forward on approving a stopgap spending measure to fund the government until Nov. 21. 

As the government shutdown has dragged on for nearly seven weeks, major airports have been hit as they struggle to maintain flight schedules, with air traffic controllers now more than a month without pay.

Meanwhile, federal courts have forced the Trump administration to release billions in emergency funds to provide critical food assistance to 42 million people. On Friday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said it would issue full November benefits for food assistance in compliance with a court order.

As the debate in Congress goes on, Democrats have refused to back the House-passed version of the GOP stopgap measure over their concerns about the expiration of health care subsidies.

Democrats also want to see federal workers laid off by the Trump administration amid the shutdown rehired. Major wins across the country for Democrats in Tuesday elections in the states bolstered their resolve to reject efforts to end the government shutdown that do not include certain policy wins.  

Historically, lawmakers who have forced shutdowns over policy preferences have not been successful. 

In 2013, the GOP tried to repeal or delay the Affordable Care Act, which did not happen, and in the 2018-2019 shutdown, Trump, in his first term, insisted on additional funding for a border wall. But that shutdown — which set a record exceeded only by the ongoing shutdown — concluded 35 days later with the same amount of money included in the original appropriations bill. 

Thune lament

Thune told reporters Friday that he thought progress was being made on striking a deal to resume government funding, but he said after Democrats’ Thursday caucus meeting, their tune changed. 

“Right now, we’ve got to get the Democrats kind of back engaged,” Thune said.

Following Thursday’s meeting, Democrats remained tight-lipped and did not seem any closer to an internal agreement on how to move forward with resolving the government shutdown.

“I thought we were on a track,” Thune, a South Dakota Republican said. “We’d give them everything they wanted or had asked for.”

Senate Republicans have agreed to allow a floor vote on the Affordable Care Act subsidies and have opened the door to rehiring federal workers, but have not gone further.

“At some point … they have to take yes for an answer, and they were trending in that direction,” Thune said. “And then yesterday, everything kind of, the wheels came off, so to speak, but it’s up to them.”

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut told reporters Thursday that voters this week made a strong showing in rebuking the Trump administration and that Democrats need to continue their fight amid the government shutdown.

“On Tuesday, all of us in the caucus heard that loud and clear,” Murphy said. “We want to stay together and unified. I think everybody understands the importance of what happened on Tuesday, and wants us to move forward in a way that honors that.”

Bill to pay federal workers

Federal workers going without salaries for more than a month now remains a concern, and Johnson tried to pass his bill through unanimous consent that would send them paychecks. Employees are paid after the end of a shutdown, under the law.

Michigan’s Gary Peters objected to Johnson’s bill over concerns that the Trump administration would not use the funds to pay federal workers, and the measure would not prevent the firing of federal workers. 

Peters pointed to how the Trump administration initially appealed a federal court order that compelled the U.S. Department of Agriculture to pay $9 billion in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, benefits. 

Peters offered his own bill to set “guardrails” on the president’s authority to ensure that the funds are used to pay federal workers and not moved around. The Trump administration has moved around billions in multi-year research funds within the Defense Department to ensure that troops are paid. 

“He walks over Congress all the time,” Peters said of the president while on the Senate floor. 

Johnson objected to Peters’ bill. He argued that his bill does not expand presidential powers.

“We were very careful that it wouldn’t do that,” Johnson told reporters of his bill.

The American Federation of Government Employees, a union that represents 800,000 federal workers, urged Democrats Friday to support Johnson’s bill.

AFGE National President Everett Kelley said in a letter to senators Friday that with Thanksgiving in less than three weeks, Congress needs to come to an agreement on funding the government. 

“Every missed paycheck deepens the financial hole in which federal workers and their families find themselves,” Kelley said. “By the time Congress reaches a compromise, the damage will have been done to their bank accounts, their credit ratings, their health, and their dignity.”

A sign in a convenience store in Hyattsville, Maryland, advertises that it accepts SNAP benefits. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

According to Gov. Tony Evers’ administration, over 330,000 Wisconsin households were paid their November Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits by Friday morning. 

The release of the funds comes as the federal government shutdown entered day 38 on Friday; it’s the longest shutdown in American history.

The lapse in federal funding for SNAP, known as FoodShare in Wisconsin, took effect on Nov. 1 — leaving nearly 700,000 Wisconsinites, including 270,000 kids, without access to food assistance. Two court orders last week directed the Trump administration to pay SNAP benefits by a Wednesday deadline.

This week food banks across the state, including in Milwaukee, have seen a spike in need.

Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr., a federal judge in Rhode Island, ordered the Trump administration Thursday to pay the full month of food assistance benefits for November. McConnell said the Trump administration missed its chance to make partial payments after it failed to release funds by the deadline.

Shortly after the court decision was released, the Evers administration announced it was taking steps to get the funds out the door as soon as possible.

“My administration worked quickly to ensure these benefits could be released as soon as possible so that our kids, families, and seniors have access to basic food and groceries without one more day of delay,” Evers said in a statement Thursday evening. “But let’s be clear — it never should’ve come to this. Wisconsinites should’ve never been without food assistance, period, and they wouldn’t have been if President Trump and the Trump Administration had listened to me and so many who urged them to use all legal funds and levers to prevent millions of Americans from losing access to food and groceries.” 

The Evers administration said Friday morning that it used the same process it typically uses to process benefits, submitting information to its SNAP payment vendor, which processes payments to QUEST cards, a few hours after the court decision to ensure payments would go out as soon as possible. 

The funds became available to households at midnight. According to the administration, a total of about $104.4 million was issued for 337,137 households. It said the payments went out before the Trump administration requested that a federal appeals court block the order from McConnell on Friday morning. The emergency stay has not been granted as of Friday afternoon. 

The administration received notification from the federal Food and Nutrition Service on Friday morning that it was working to implement November benefits in accordance with the Thursday court order.

The Evers administration said it is still monitoring the situation for any issues that may arise related to processing last night’s payments. 

Evers said the actions of the Trump administration are “contemptible” and called on federal Republicans to work with Democrats to end the government shutdown. Last week, Evers had also declared a state of emergency due to the lapse in funding for food assistance, directing state agencies to do everything they could to support Wisconsinites.

“Wisconsinites simply cannot afford another month of Republican dysfunction in Washington,” Evers said. “It’s time for Republicans to get back to work and do the right thing by working across the aisle to end the federal government shutdown to ensure Wisconsinites continue to have access to basic needs, including affordable healthcare and food assistance, moving forward.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Democratic and Republican candidates for governor are working to build their name recognition and campaign throughout the state and had their first opportunity to appear on the same platform at a forum Thursday. Shown are, from left, Matt Smith of WISN-12, Francesca Hong, Sara Rodriguez, Kelda Roys, David Crowley and Missy Hughes, all Democrats, and Josh Schoemann, a Republican. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

The primaries for Wisconsin’s open gubernatorial election are about nine months away and the 2026 general election is still a year out, but Democratic and Republican candidates had their first opportunity to speak at a group forum Thursday. 

The forum, moderated by WISN-12 News Political Director Matt Smith, was hosted at the Wisconsin Technology Council’s annual symposium and focused mostly on the economy, especially the technology sector. 

Democratic candidates at the forum included Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez, state Sen. Kelda Roys, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, state Rep. Francesca Hong and former Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (WEDC) CEO Missy Hughes. 

Washington County Executive Josh Schoemann was the lone Republican candidate at the forum. U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, who is seen as the frontrunner on the GOP side, was not present.

All are competing to replace Democratic Gov. Tony Evers, who won’t seek reelection, in the first open Wisconsin governor’s race in 15 years.

Threats to the economy

Smith asked the candidates what they see as the greatest threat to Wisconsin’s economy.  In her answer, Roys elicited the first — and biggest — round of applause from the audience.

“Wisconsin needs three key things to survive and thrive economically. We need higher wages for our workers — we lag behind our midwestern peers — we need lower costs on everything from housing to health care, and we need more freedom,” Roys said. “The biggest threat to all three of these things is the Trump regime.”

Roys said Trump’s tariffs are driving up prices for many products including appliances, building materials and groceries. She also said cuts to health care are going to have a disproportionate impact on rural parts of the state and that targeting immigrants is hurting the state’s agriculture industry. Entrepreneurship and capitalism, she added, also rely on the rule of law. 

“We need to have a free society that obeys democratic norms, and right now, Trump and his regime are our biggest threat,” Roys said. 

Hong said “authoritarianism” is the biggest threat to the economy, adding that disparities are growing in part because of actions being taken at the federal level, such as cutting food assistance. 

“When you have essentially a federal government that is taking away rights of states and our communities, that is going to threaten the economy,” Hong said. “It is workers that power the economy.”

Schoemann said “affordability” is the greatest threat and expressed concerns about young people and retirees leaving the state to live elsewhere. He said the state should work to deregulate industry and lower utility rates and cut taxes to address the threat. 

“The average price of a home in Wisconsin right now is almost $350,000… A brand new teacher and a brand new cop who are married with a dual income can’t afford to qualify for the mortgage for that one. If they have a child, they’re trying to pay for child care, and they have utility bills that are going through the roof, and Verizon just had another increase in prices, and not to mention Netflix,” Schoemann said to some chuckles from the audience. “I know we laugh, but it’s a problem. It’s a massive problem.”

Rodriguez agreed that affordability is a big concern, saying that she wants her 19-year-old son to be able to build a life in Wisconsin but she is concerned that he won’t be able to afford to live here. 

“He’s not going to be able to do that if he can’t afford a home. He’s not going to be able to do that if, you know, he’s not going to be able to afford child care, so I think affordability is our biggest threat,” Rodriguez said. She added that the state needs to figure out how to ensure that its workforce can grow. 

Crowley said “complacency” is the biggest threat.

“We can’t continue to do the same work that we’ve been doing. We should no longer be defending the status quo because we have to figure out how do we build new institutions … ” Crowley said. “We see that public trust has been destroyed in government.”

Hughes said the state isn’t investing enough in K-12 and higher education. 

“When we start from a place of thinking, ‘No, we don’t want to take a risk. No, we don’t want to have investment in something,’ we end up just staying in the same place and often spiraling downward,” Hughes said. 

Working with the Trump administration

Democratic candidates were asked how they would work with the Trump administration, while Schoemann was asked whether there is anything he would push back on.

Rodriguez said that she would use the “bully pulpit” of the governor’s office to put pressure on the Trump administration to be more consistent. She noted her background as a health care executive, saying that being able to plan is essential. 

“You’re trying to figure out what you’re going to be doing in the next several years. Small businesses do the same thing. With this back and forth on tariffs… it is almost impossible to, so, that’s why it feels like we’re stuck,” Rodriguez said.

Roys called Trump a “bully and an authoritarian” and said Wisconsin needs a governor who will stand up to the administration. She noted governors in other states, including California Gov. Gavin Newsome, Maine Gov. Janet Mills and Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, as examples of governors across the country who are pushing back.

Crowley said that he has worked with the federal government under Trump and President Joe Biden to secure grant funding for Milwaukee County. He also noted that he worked with Republicans at the state level to help pass legislation that overhauled local government funding in Wisconsin. 

“When we go into a restaurant, you’re not having a conversation with a waiter about their relationship with the cook. You want to make sure that your food is coming out hot and ready and delicious,” Crowley said. “We need our government to work the exact same way. Doesn’t matter if we agree on anything or not. We need to be delivering for the people that we represent every single day because it’s about moving our state forward.”

Hughes noted that Trump pushed for a plan operated by FoxConn during his first term, which had promised would create 13,000 jobs, and the state of Wisconsin invested $1.5 billion in infrastructure to make that happen. The original plan was mostly abandoned by the company.  

“I had to come in and clean up that mess,” Hughes said. She was involved in brokering a deal with Microsoft, which launched plans in 2024 for a $3.3 billion data center on the land that was once going to be the site of the FoxConn development. 

“You have to work at every level of the economy from a small business on Main Street all the way to our biggest businesses and supporting them and everywhere in between,” Hughes said. “Donald Trump thinks you can do these big things, and it’s all going to be better, and we’re all ending up paying the price for that.” Instead of taking Trump’s “silver bullet” approach, Hughes said, Wisconsin’s governor must understand the complexity of the state economy and ”keep working hard to create the quality of life that keeps people here here.”

Hong said it would be hard to work with the administration. She added that the lack of funding for SNAP is “disrupting an entire ecosystem,” and said public officials need to fight for the most vulnerable. 

“We have to make sure that people have food, and so, I think working with an administration that has no interest in your constituents is going to be incredibly difficult to be able to ensure that there is an economy that works for everyone,” Hong said. 

Schoemann didn’t say whether he would push back on anything the Trump administration is doing. He said tariffs have been difficult, but he also said the issues are global. 

“I hear from manufacturers and agriculture alike it’s the constant give and take, but let’s face it,… the changes that the world is going through right now — it’s a global thing,” he said. 

Data centers and artificial intelligence regulations

The growing presence of data centers in Wisconsin and the concerns they raise about increased electricity costs and water consumption, as well as the use of  artificial intelligence (AI), was a significant focus of the forum.

According to datacentermap.com, there are currently 47 data centers in Wisconsin. Proposals for more centers in the state are popping up as well, including one for a campus operated by OpenAI, Oracle and Vantage Data Centers in Port Washington. 

A recent Marquette Law School poll asked Wisconsinites about data centers and found that 55% say the costs of large data centers are greater than the benefits they provide, while 44% say the benefits outweigh the costs.

Schoemann, noting his close proximity to Port Washington, said that he thinks there is an “abundance of opportunity” created by data centers, but the state needs to be “very, very strategic and smart about where” data centers are placed. He said he also has concerns that there isn’t enough power in Wisconsin, and expressed hope that there will be a nuclear power “renaissance” in the state.

Crowley said he doesn’t think the government should be picking “winners and losers” when it comes to data centers, but instead should “make sure that this is fertile ground for entrepreneurs and businesses to either stay or move right here to the state of Wisconsin.”

“There’s an opportunity for us to really become AI and a data hub not only for the entire country, but for the entire globe and really sets us apart in making sure that we continue to invest in businesses and companies here,” Crowley said. 

Hughes said that Wisconsin has a diverse economy and that she doesn’t see the state  becoming a data center-based economy in the near future, but that data centers do offer an opportunity for communities.

“To have some of these data centers land here in Wisconsin, provide incredible property tax and revenue for the communities that are really determining how to pay their bills, how to build new schools, how to build new fire departments, it’s an opportunity for those communities to access some of that investment and to benefit from it,” she said. 

Hughes also said the state is already involved in conversations with companies seeking to build data centers in Wisconsin and that should continue. She said a project needs to be right for individual communities, noting the example of Microsoft scrapping its plans last month for a data center in Caledonia after major pushback from the local community. The company is now looking for an alternative site.

“We talked to them about their environmental needs, about where they’re building and how to make that happen in a way that has the least impact to the communities and the best benefit for Wisconsin,” Hughes said. “Working directly with the companies and getting to know those companies, acting with them as partners, is critically important for these to be good investments and ultimately beneficial for Wisconsin.”

Hong raised concerns about the environmental impact of data centers and the prospect that they could drive up utility bills. 

“One of the big considerations here is that for the workers and jobs that are created from these AI data centers, let’s make sure that the housing that’s being built, the workers are going to stay in Wisconsin, that we have to make sure that the companies are being held accountable,” Hong said. 

Roys said that “data centers are coming whether people like it or not” and the question for policymakers is whether they can implement “an approach that respects the values that I think all of us share — of democracy and shared decision making that’s transparent, that’s accountable, of fair play… and of protecting all of our resources.” She added that she has been concerned seeing “the biggest and wealthiest” companies seek to force their ways into communities. 

Asked about the role that the state should play in regulating artificial intelligence, most of the candidates appeared open to some regulation of AI but expressed concerns about stifling growth. 

Roys said she wants to see consumer protections and said she has authored legislation to crack down on crypto kiosk scams as well as to regulate on the use of AI to ensure landlords don’t use it to help hike rents.

Hughes compared AI to a hammer, saying it could be used to hurt someone or to build structures.

“Trying to regulate it at this moment could potentially hold back some of the benefits that we might see from it. I think that we need to continue to watch it,” Hughes said. “ … I want to make sure that we preserve the right to use that tool in a way that can really advance our society forward.”

Crowley said he thinks there should be laws in place, but there is no “one-size-fits-all solution for technology.”

“How do you make sure that those who are directly involved in this particular industry are at the table, making sure that there is some predictability when it comes down to starting your company and also making sure they can continue to grow?… But make sure that we’re also protecting our environment, protecting the consumer at the exact same time.” Crowley said. 

Schoemann, meanwhile, said he was concerned about how AI could be a threat to the state’s workforce. He noted that Washington County has studied the potential impacts of AI, finding that many jobs could be automated using AI in the next 15 years or so. 

He said he wanted to see more study of AI’s impact, to answer the question, “How do we prepare the workforce?”

Broadband and marijuana

A question about how to increase broadband access in Wisconsin led the an unexpected answer from Hong: “Legalize weed.”

Wisconsin is one of 11 states that hasn’t legalized recreational or medical marijuana. By some estimates the state is losing out on millions in tax revenue each year due to cannabis prohibition. 

“The revenue that comes in will be able to invest in fiber optic and high-speed internet in many different companies across the state,” Hong said.

The push to legalize marijuana for either recreational and medicinal purposes in Wisconsin has been a fruitless pursuit under split government. Republican lawmakers are working to advance a medical marijuana proposal in the Legislature right now, though it is unclear whether it can garner enough support to become law. 

Rodriguez said she didn’t disagree with Hong, noting that Wisconsin’s midwestern neighbors are able to bring in significant revenue by taxing marijuana.

“Gov. [J.B.] Pritzker thanks us all the time for the amount of tax Wisconsin [consumers pay],” Rodriguez said. 

Rodriguez also added that she wants to build off the Evers administration’s successes expanding broadband.

“It is a requirement for modern day working, for schools. We saw that during COVID,” Rodriguez said. “Making sure that we are able to get that type of connection to every part of Wisconsin is going to be important.” 

Hughes agreed both with marijuana legalization and with Rodriguez on broadband, saying there have been “incredible strides” in installing broadband in rural areas under the Evers administration. 

“I’m all for legalizing weed, and abortion for that matter,” Roys said. 

Roys noted that the state’s progressive tax structure has flattened over the last 16 years and that reversing that trend — taxing higher income residents — could help pay for investments in broadband.

Schoemann started his answer focused on broadband, rather than staking out his position on marijuana legalization, saying broadband it is a massive issue, especially in the Northwoods. He said Washington County was able to make progress using American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding, though he didn’t necessarily support the funding. 

“I took [U.S] Rep. Glenn Grothman’s advice: ‘If they’re dumb enough to give you the money, you should be dumb enough to spend it,’” Schoemann said. “Some of that we did in broadband… I think we have to finish the job on broadband.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Wisconsin voters line up outside of a Milwaukee polling place on Nov. 5, 2024. Wisconsin (Andy Manis | Getty Images)

Democrats are euphoric about Tuesday’s elections, in which voters across the country delivered a resounding rebuke to Republicans and President Donald Trump. “The Democratic Party is back!” Ken Martin, Democratic National Committee chair, declared in a post-election press call with other national party leaders. 

Democratic wins in governors’ races in Virginia and New Jersey, the mayoral race in New York City, state Supreme Court races in Pennsylvania, even a historic victory that broke the Republican supermajority in the Mississippi legislature, along with a bevy of downballot victories in historically Republican districts, showed voters have had enough of the misery inflicted by the MAGA right.

In a scene familiar to Wisconsinites, Pennsylvania voters beat back an effort by a MAGA billionaire to buy their state supreme court. “People don’t want corporate control of the courts,” Pennsylvania Democratic Party Chair Eugene DePasquale said of the millions wasted on that race by TikTok billionaire Jeff Yass — a repeat of Elon Musk’s failed bid to buy a friendly majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. 

The results are a concrete sign that there is a political price associated with the chaos Trump and his GOP enablers have unleashed, sending federal agents to terrorize American cities, driving up health care costs and inflicting unnecessary suffering and hunger on Americans during the longest government shutdown in history.

Young men, Black and Latino voters, working-class people — all the demographic groups that abandoned Democrats in 2024 returned in droves on Tuesday. As the Democrats celebrated their wins, they also seemed to concede that they were benefitting from the mess Republicans have made of governing. People are hurting, their outlook is grim, and they are in the mood to throw out the party in power after just six months.

Democrats need to form an aggressive, unified opposition to champion the will of those voters and not just take their support for granted. And Republicans had better re-examine their unwavering loyalty to Trump.

So far, in Wisconsin, Republican members of Congress have not signaled that they care about the catastrophic effects of Trump’s policies on their constituents.

In an interview with “UpFront” on WISN 12 News on Sunday, Republican U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden wouldn’t say if he supports extending Affordable Care Act subsidies, even as Wisconsinites are receiving the news that without the subsidies their premiums are set to skyrocket by 45% to 800% depending on where in the state they live.

Van Orden, who supports a full repeal of the Affordable Care Act, repeatedly declared on “UpFront” that he “won’t be held hostage” by Democrats who have made preventing a huge spike in health care costs for people who buy insurance on the ACA marketplace — more than 310,000 of them in Wisconsin — a condition of their votes to reopen the government. Nor has he been willing to say whether he supports or opposes the Trump administration’s decision to withhold food assistance from 700,000 Wisconsinites during the shutdown.

U.S. Rep Tom Tiffany, who is running for governor, also supports repealing the Affordable Care Act and this month called on Republicans to “hold firm” against extending ACA tax credits, repeating the lie that Democrats are shutting down the government because they want to give health care to “illegal aliens.”

U.S. Rep Bryan Steil told “UpFront” that the Trump administration is in “a very difficult position” as it makes the decision to fire thousands of federal workers during the shutdown. He also claimed he might support extending ACA subsidies, but only after the shutdown ends, and if there are “significant changes to that program to root out waste, fraud and abuse.” 

Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, took the opportunity, as health care subsidies lapse and insurance premiums spike, to hold a hearing Thursday on the “harms” caused by extending health care coverage to millions of Americans through the Affordable Care Act.

Is it any wonder that voters are not thrilled with how the party that holds complete control in Washington is governing?

What’s significant about Tuesday’s election is that it puts everyone on notice that voters will push back.

Over and over, during the Democrats’ Wednesday press conference, various national leaders eagerly declared that theirs is the party of “affordability.” But Martin acknowledged that his party had lost touch with working class voters worried about making ends meet. He said Democrats “didn’t focus on that anxiety enough over the years.” and that they have to “give working class people the sense that we’re fighting for them.”

It doesn’t take a political genius to see the vulnerability in the wretched excesses of the Trump administration, which is forcing children to go hungry while throwing a lavish “Great Gatsby” party at Mar-a-Lago and building a massive, gilded ballroom at the White House.

If nothing else, Democrats are the populist alternative by default. But there also seems to be a sincere effort underway to build a democratic resistance that will fight for most Americans against the MAGA oligarchs who are liquidating civil society and sucking up the common wealth of the nation to enrich themselves.

Martin and the other Dems on the Wednesday call trumpeted the importance of state-level politics. “The path back to building Democratic power runs through state legislatures,” declared Heather Williams, president of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, adding, “the center of gravity has moved to the states.” 

Martin agreed. “I believe this party has ignored building power at the state level for too long,” he said. “We cannot just build federal power.” 

The stars of this new strategy are Democratic governors — the most popular Democratic politicians in America, according to the panel, which made a passing mention of the importance of the 2026 Wisconsin governor’s race. Certainly Virginia Democrats, who won back both the state legislature and the governor’s mansion, gave hope to Wisconsin Dems who are hoping to do the same.

But how much the national party will engage in Wisconsin and who will emerge from a crowded field of Democratic hopefuls in the first open election for governor here in 15 years is very much up in the air. 

On Thursday, at a gubernatorial candidate forum covered by Baylor Spears, candidates were asked to name the greatest threat to Wisconsin’s economy. Few had a simple, appealing answer that connected to most voters’ most immediate concerns — skyrocketing prices, a shredding safety net and the disappearing prospect of shared prosperity. 

Tuesday’s elections showed that we still have a democracy, that voters have a say in how the government is run, and that they won’t put up with an endless cycle of abuse.

That should embolden everyone who is shocked and appalled by what is happening to our country — including those Wisconsin Republicans who have so far been afraid to criticize Trump, as well as the Democrats who need to point the way to a better future.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A cancer patient’s medical bills are spread on a kitchen table in a home in Salem, Va., in this 2011 file photo. A new Trump administration rule would override more than a dozen state laws that shield consumers’ credit reports from medical debt. (Photo by Don Petersen/Associated Press)

A new Trump administration rule issued late last month would override state laws that prevent consumers’ credit reports from including medical debt, potentially weakening financial protections for millions of Americans.

In recent years, more than a dozen states have taken steps to keep medical debt from hurting residents’ credit scores, passing laws with bipartisan support. But new guidance from the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau repeals a Biden-era rule that allowed states to impose their own bans. The Trump administration has interpreted the 1970 Fair Credit Reporting Act to say that it overrides state laws around reporting debt to credit bureaus.

American consumers had at least $220 billion in unpaid medical bills in 2024, according to an analysis from research nonprofit KFF. About 6% of American adults, or 14 million people, owe more than $1,000 in medical debt.

“Medical debt is a tremendous weight keeping so many families from financial security, and, unlike most other forms of debt, it’s not a choice,” North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein, a Democrat, said last month in a statement announcing that a new state program had wiped out more than $6.5 billion in medical debt for more than 25 million North Carolinians.

People rarely plan to take on debt from medical care, as they do when they borrow money to buy a house or car. A one-time or short-term expense such as a single hospital stay causes about two-thirds of all medical debt, according to a 2022 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau report.

And even though most Americans have health insurance, many get stuck with unexpected medical bills because their policies have high deductibles or don’t fully cover some treatments, procedures or drugs. People in worse health and those living with a disability are more likely to report medical debt, as are middle-aged adults, Black Americans, and people with low and middle incomes, according to KFF.

In the past two years, a dozen states have passed laws forbidding medical debt from appearing on credit reports, bringing the total number of states with such laws to 14: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington.

Another five states — Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Nevada and Utah — limit how and when medical debt can appear on credit reports, according to the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund.

Republican and Democratic legislators in other states, including Michigan, Ohio and South Dakota, have introduced similar bills this year.

Now the new state laws face an uncertain future. In January, while Biden was still in office,  the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau finalized a rule prohibiting credit reporting agencies from reporting medical debt in certain circumstances. Credit bureaus and credit unions sued to stop the rule. The incoming Trump administration agreed with the plaintiffs and declined to defend the rule in court, so a federal judge blocked it.

Maine state Sen. Donna Bailey, a Democrat, said in a September statement that Maine’s new law barring medical debt from appearing on consumer reports was even more important in light of the demise of the federal rule.

“Although Americans no longer have the federal protection, Mainers will continue to have protection here in our state,” she said in September. “When we go to the hospital for medical care, especially for emergencies, any debt that we take on should not hold us back from buying a car, renting a home or taking out a loan.”

But the Trump administration’s latest order would render state laws such as Maine’s moot.

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