A farmhouse sits along a gravel road near Elgin, Iowa. For at least the next dozen years, rural areas will continue to have only about two-thirds of the primary care physicians they need, according to a new report. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

For at least the next dozen years, rural areas will continue to have only about two-thirds of the primary care physicians they need, according to a report released Monday.

The nonprofit Commonwealth Fund based its analysis on federal health workforce data. Its report comes just days after states applied for portions of a $50 billion rural health fund included in the broad tax and spending law President Donald Trump signed in July. Some states want to use the federal money to expand their rural residency programs, as physicians who complete their residencies in rural areas are more likely to practice in one.

About 43 million people live in rural areas without enough primary care physicians, according to the report. Across the country, nearly all — 92% — of rural counties are considered primary care professional shortage areas, compared to 83% of nonrural counties. Forty-five percent of rural counties had five or fewer primary care doctors in 2023. Roughly 200 rural counties lacked one altogether.

Nationally, the report found there was an average of one physician per 2,881 rural residents. States in the South had 3,411 patients per physician, whereas states in the Northeast had 1,979 residents per physician.

Rural residents are less likely to use telehealth for primary care, largely because of limited broadband internet access. About 19% of rural respondents said they received health care from a primary care physician via telehealth over the past year, compared with the national average of 29%.

The report also took the pulse of states’ participation in national programs for rural areas, such as a federal loan repayment and scholarship program for physicians working in areas with a shortage of health care providers. In 2023, 40% of rural counties had at least one primary care clinician participating in the program — compared to 60% of nonrural counties.

While the demand for primary care physicians will surpass the supply, the study estimates that the supply of rural nurse practitioners will exceed demand over time, as nurse practitioners are the fastest-growing type of clinician in the U.S., regardless of geography, the authors wrote.

Stateline reporter Nada Hassanein can be reached at nhassanein@stateline.org.

 

New EPA draft rules seek to narrow the scope of the Clean Water Act by further defining the Waters of the United States. Pictured here is Little Walnut Creek in Waukee, Iowa on May 5, 2025. (Photo by Cami Koons/Iowa Capital Dispatch)

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed Monday new rules to define the waters of the United States, or WOTUS, protected under the Clean Water Act. 

The move was celebrated by farm groups that oppose a broad interpretation of the law, while environmental groups said the rule change would end protections for millions of acres of wetlands and small streams. 

Waters of the United States defines the scope of the Clean Water Act and which waters can be regulated with federal water quality standards. The WOTUS definition, which is not laid out in the Clean Water Act, has been the source of several U.S. Supreme Court cases in recent decades, most recently in Sackett v. EPA. 

The high court ruled in May 2023 that wetlands without a “continuous surface connection” to navigable waters did not qualify for Clean Water Act protections. This was upheld by EPA final rules issued in August 2023, that not only applied to wetlands, but also removed the requirement that waters have a “significant nexus” to a navigable water. 

Some conservative groups and lawmakers argued the 2023 EPA interpretation did not go far enough to adhere to the court’s decision in the Sackett case. 

EPA’s new rules, made in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, would “fully implement”  the Sackett decision, “accelerate economic prosperity” and support the role of states and tribes in regulating their land, according to the agency’s news release. 

“When finalized, the rule will cut red tape and provide predictability, consistency, and clarity for American industry, energy producers, the technology sector, farmers, ranchers, developers, businesses, and landowners for permitting under the Clean Water Act,” the EPA release said.

The proposed rules would further define terms like: relatively permanent, continuous surface connection and tributary. The rules also establish that tributaries must connect to navigable waters via features that have “consistent” and “predictable flow.” 

The rules say wetlands must be “indistinguishable” from jurisdictional waters, with a “continuous surface connection.” The rules will also limit permafrost wetlands from the scope of the definition, include guidance on “wet season” water bodies, and offer exclusions on ditches, prior converted cropland, and waste treatment systems.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said the proposed rules will protect navigable waters, advance cooperative federalism and result in economic growth. 

“Democrat Administrations have weaponized the definition of navigable waters to seize more power from American farmers, landowners, entrepreneurs, and families,” Zeldin said in a statement. “We heard from Americans across the country who want clean water and a clear rule. No longer should America’s landowners be forced to spend precious money hiring an attorney or consultant just to tell them whether a Water of the United States is on their property.” 

According to the release, the proposed rules were formed around feedback from states, tribal nations, local governments and listening sessions. 

American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall said, in the release with EPA, the farm organization was “pleased” with the new rules. 

“The Supreme Court clearly ruled several years ago that the government overreached in its interpretation of what fell under federal guidelines,” Duvall said. “We are still reviewing the entire rule, but we are pleased that it finally addresses those concerns and takes steps to provide much-needed clarity.” 

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association similarly celebrated the draft rules Monday. The association’s president and Nebraska cattleman Buck Wehrbein said the previous interpretations of the rule have meant things like “prairie potholes or dry ditches” fall under federal regulation. 

“Waters of the U.S. has been a longstanding and frustrating issue for family farmers and ranchers,” he said in a statement. “Every few years, the definition of a ‘water of the U.S.’ has changed … We appreciate the EPA finally fixing previous WOTUS rules and supporting America’s family farmers and ranchers.”

Environmental groups said the newly proposed rules put habitat, drinking water and structures at greater risk. 

Environmental Defense Fund’s Vice President Will McDow said EPA’s proposed rules were “not based in science, difficult to implement in practice and will create a dangerous lack of clarity.”

“This rule brings tremendous uncertainty and risk to our nation’s drinking water, flood protections and critical habitats,” McDow said in a statement. 

The environmental group Food & Water Watch said the draft rules eliminate “bedrock” protections for rivers, streams, and wetlands. The group said in a news release the rules would “compound the damage” of the Sackett decision that “eliminated protections for tens of millions of acres of sensitive wetlands and small streams.” 

Food & Water Watch Legal Director Tarah Heinzen said the rule “flies in the face of science and commonsense” and will lead to more pollution downstream. Wetlands, Heinzen said, offer “critical functions” in providing habitat, protecting clean water and reducing flooding. 

“Clean water is under attack in America, as polluting profiteers plunder our waters — Trump’s EPA is openly aiding and abetting this destruction,” Heinzen said. “This proposed rule weakens the bedrock Clean Water Act, making it easier to fill, drain, and pollute sensitive waterways from coast to coast.” 

The proposed rules will be published in the Federal Register and open for public comment for 45 days. EPA and the Army will hold two public meetings before developing final rules.

The Palmyra public safety building. (Photo via Palmyra Fire Rescue Facebook page)

The Village of Palmyra in southeastern Wisconsin announced Friday that the village board and police department have decided not to move forward with a controversial agreement with U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE). 

“We deeply value the feedback we have received from our community — on all sides of the discussion,” Village Board President Tim Gorsegner and Interim Police Chief Paul Blount said in a statement on the village’s website. 

“After careful consideration of those voices, along with additional research and review, we believe that at this time, the best course forward for Palmyra is to take no further action on the proposed agreement,” the village officials said. 

Blount previously said that the department’s application to ICE’s task force model was pending review by the village board. 

ICE’s task force model allows officers to “enforce limited immigration authority while performing routine police duties, such as identifying an alien at a DUI checkpoint and sharing information directly with ICE,” and it lays out when officers can make immigration arrests. Officers may also exercise limited authority on ICE-led task forces.  

In September, Blount said Palmyra police would work with ICE when someone was involved in criminal activity, wanted on a warrant or facing criminal charges. He said they would not go door to door to check peoples’ documentation or profile people who they think may lack documentation.

The immigrant rights organization Voces de la Frontera celebrated Palmyra’s decision not to work with ICE. Executive Director Christine Neumann-Ortiz said in a statement, “when we push back together, we stop policies that harm immigrant families and undermine public safety.” 

The village’s statement said the original intent in exploring the agreement was to collaborate with federal law enforcement partners in ways that could strengthen their ability to reduce crime and keep Palmyra safe. The village said it also sought to prevent human trafficking and narcotics trafficking. 

Blount said in September that the program would allow for access to databases and resources that enhance investigations and help combat serious crimes such as narcotics trafficking and human trafficking. He also said the program would come with significant financial incentives from the federal government. 

On Monday afternoon, ICE removed Palmyra from a list of departments with which it cooperates on its website.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Former FBI Director James Comey testifies before the Senate Intelligence Committee in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on June 8, 2017 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey has been granted access to all grand jury materials in his case after a federal judge found “profound investigative missteps” that could result in the dismissal of Comey’s indictment.

Eastern District of Virginia Federal Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick wrote Monday that issues with evidence, testimony and statements to the grand jury outweigh the usual heavily guarded secrecy of proceedings.

The government filed a motion for an emergency stay hours after the order.

In the 24-page order, Fitzpatrick delivered a scathing account of the government’s mishandling, and possibly illegal access to, evidence presented to grand jurors, including a potential Fourth Amendment violation. 

Additionally, the single person to testify before the grand jury was an FBI agent who knew that the evidence he reviewed may have been attorney-client privileged or confidential information, according to the order.

Fitzpatrick also found that the entirety of the grand jury proceedings was not provided to the court, and that two statements to jurors by interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan “could reasonably form the basis for the defense to challenge whether the grand jury proceedings were infected with constitutional error.”

“(A)s the Court has found, these materials are essential if Mr. Comey is to fully and fairly defend himself in the face of the irregularities that have characterized this investigation from its inception,” Fitzpatrick wrote.

Fitzpatrick concluded “the record points to a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps, missteps that led an FBI agent and a prosecutor to potentially undermine the integrity of the grand jury proceeding.”

The order stemmed from Comey’s motion to access the grand jury proceedings. 

District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff, a President Joe Biden appointee who is overseeing the Comey case, ordered the materials be turned over, but the process was halted when the government challenged the order. 

Nachmanoff then remanded the case to Fitzpatrick, who in 2022 was selected on merit by a panel of U.S. District judges in the Eastern District of Virginia to hold the magistrate position for eight years.

A federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, indicted Comey in September on one charge of making false statements to Congress during testimony in 2020 and another of obstructing a proceeding of Congress. 

Prosecutors had sought an additional charge of making false statements, but the grand jury returned only the two charges. 

Trump, who publicly urged U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute Comey, ousted the then-U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Erik S. Siebert. 

Trump replaced the office’s top prosecutor with former personal lawyer Lindsey Halligan, who swiftly obtained an indictment.

Comey pleaded not guilty on Oct. 8.

Comey’s legal team is simultaneously fighting Halligan’s appointment as unlawful.

Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel speaks with reporters after an event Feb. 26. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

Former state Attorney General and conservative state Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel has been appointed as the interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. 

Schimel, who was also previously a Waukesha County Circuit Court judge and the Waukesha County district attorney, will now be the highest ranking federal prosecutor in the district that covers the eastern part of the state, including Milwaukee. 

Usually, U.S. attorneys are first recommended for the office by the two U.S. senators in a state and then nominated by the president before being confirmed by the Senate. In Wisconsin, Sens. Tammy Baldwin and Ron Johnson operate a joint commission responsible for finding candidates. 

Schimel told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel that the commission was unable to reach a consensus for the job — which has been empty since February when former U.S. attorney Gregory Haanstad, a Biden appointee, left the role as part of the normal transition when a new party enters the White House. 

In a statement, Baldwin accused Trump of “blowing up Wisconsin’s bipartisan judicial nominating process” and “ignoring Wisconsinites of all stripes” by choosing Schimel, whom voters rejected twice, in his races for state attorney general and Supreme Court.

Once the commission failed to find a candidate, Schimel said he reached out to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, whom he knows from their time as state attorneys general. 

Interim U.S. Attorneys are allowed to hold that role for 120 days, though the Trump administration has tried in other states to extend that period. 

Schimel will now take over the office as it manages increased federal immigration enforcement happening in the state and heads into the highly political trial of Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan, who federal prosecutors have alleged obstructed the work of federal agents attempting to apprehend a migrant in the county courthouse. Dugan’s trial is set for Dec. 15, Schimel told the Journal-Sentinel the prosecution team on the case will remain the same. 

Schimel ran for the state Supreme Court earlier this year in what became the most expensive judicial election in U.S. history — largely due to the involvement of Elon Musk, who was at the time a part of the Trump administration through his DOGE office. 

Schimel lost by more than 10 percentage points to Justice Susan Crawford. In his campaign, he touted his prosecutorial experience but was unable to separate himself from criticism that he was too closely tied to Trump and Musk.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The Federal Emergency Management Agency building in Washington, D.C., is pictured on Nov. 25, 2024. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — David Richardson, the senior official performing the duties of the administrator at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has resigned and moved to the “private sector,” a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security said Monday. 

Karen Evans, the agency’s chief of staff, is expected to take on the role of acting administrator starting Dec. 1. 

“Mr. Richardson led FEMA through the 2025 hurricane season, delivering historic funding to North Carolina, Texas, Florida, New Mexico and Alaska, and overseeing a comprehensive review that identified and eliminated serious governmental waste and inefficiency, while refocusing the agency to deliver swift resources to Americans in crisis,” the spokesperson said.

Previous FEMA acting head ousted in May

President Donald Trump has yet to send the Senate a nominee for FEMA administrator, opting instead to have a string of officials serve as acting leaders of the agency that he hopes to overhaul in the months ahead. 

Cam Hamilton worked as the senior official performing the duties of the administrator until May, when he was let go one day after he testified before a House committee that he did “not believe it is in the best interest of the American people to eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency.”

Richardson, who was working as the assistant secretary of the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office at the Department of Homeland Security, was then named as the senior official performing the duties of the administrator at FEMA. 

Richardson testified before a House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee in July that FEMA’s response to the catastrophic Fourth of July floods in Texas was well managed.

“Texas got what they needed when they needed it,” he said at the time.

The Washington Post reported in September that “key staff members could not reach” Richardson for “about 24 hours in the early aftermath” of those floods, which killed more than 130 people. 

Trump review council misses deadline

The White House deferred questions about Richardson’s resignation to the Department of Homeland Security, opting not to say whether Trump would eventually send a FEMA administrator nominee to the Senate for confirmation. 

Trump has long criticized FEMA and created a review council earlier this year to assess how the agency performed during the last few years and suggest ways to rework its structure. 

The review council was supposed to send Trump its recommendations before Monday but missed the deadline. 

The Homeland Security spokesperson who confirmed Richardson’s resignation to States Newsroom said the administration expects the report to be released in the near future. 

“We anticipate the forthcoming release of the FEMA Review Council’s final report, which will inform this Administration’s ongoing efforts to fundamentally restructure FEMA, transforming it from its current form into a streamlined, mission-focused disaster-response force,” said the spokesperson.

A sign is seen outside the FEMA Disaster Recovery Center at Weaverville Town Hall on March 29, 2025 in Weaverville, North Carolina. (Photo by Allison Joyce/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The review council that President Donald Trump tasked with overhauling the Federal Emergency Management Agency was supposed to release its recommendations before Monday but missed the deadline. 

A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security declined to say when the report would be published, but wrote in a statement that it would “inform this Administration’s ongoing efforts to fundamentally restructure FEMA, transforming it from its current form into a streamlined, mission-focused disaster-response force.” 

A congressional staffer, not authorized to speak publicly, said the report could be published as soon as mid-December.  A spokesperson for Virginia Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a council member, said the review council will vote to finalize the report at an upcoming public meeting. 

Trump established the 12-person council through an executive order he signed back in January and tasked the group with releasing the report within 180 days of its first meeting, which it held on May 20. 

That should have meant a release this past weekend, though it’s possible staff writing the report were furloughed or tasked with other work during the 43-day government shutdown. 

Hegseth, Noem are co-chairs

The council, co-chaired by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, held three public meetings earlier this year, where members spoke about possible ways to restructure FEMA but didn’t preview what recommendations they would actually put in the report. 

Trump said in June “the FEMA thing has not been a very successful experiment” and that he would like states to shoulder more of the responsibility for natural disaster response and recovery. 

“When you have a tornado or a hurricane, or you have a problem of any kind in a state, that’s what you have governors for,” Trump said. “They’re supposed to fix those problems. And it’s much more local. And they’ll develop a system. And I think it will be a great system.”

The FEMA Review Council’s report is supposed to include an 

• “assessment of the adequacy of FEMA’s response to disasters during the previous 4 years,”
• “comparison of the FEMA responses with State, local, and private sector responses” and
• “analysis of the principal arguments in the public debate for and against FEMA reform, including an appraisal of the merits and legality of particular reform proposals,” among several other elements. 

FEMA action underway in Congress

Any major changes to FEMA would likely need to move through Congress before they could take effect. But a bipartisan group of lawmakers hasn’t waited for the review council’s suggestions to get started. 

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee voted 57-3 in September to send a bill to the floor that would make significant changes to FEMA, including making it a Cabinet-level agency. 

House GOP leaders have yet to schedule the legislation for a vote. If passed, it would need Senate approval and Trump’s signature to become law.

Women who say they were abused by disgraced financier and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein raise their hands as attorney Bradley Edwards speaks at a news conference outside the U.S. Capitol on Sept. 3, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Sunday night abruptly changed his tune, telling House Republicans to vote on a bill to compel the Department of Justice to release all files related to its investigation into sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who died in jail in 2019 awaiting federal trial.

In a post on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump wrote “House Republicans should vote to release the Epstein files, because we have nothing to hide, and it’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax perpetrated by Radical Left Lunatics in order to deflect from the Great Success of the Republican Party, including our recent Victory on the Democrat ‘Shutdown.’”

Trump continued in his signature style of arbitrary capital letters: “The Department of Justice has already turned over tens of thousands of pages to the Public on “Epstein,” are looking at various Democrat operatives (Bill Clinton, Reid Hoffman, Larry Summers, etc.) and their relationship to Epstein, and the House Oversight Committee can have whatever they are legally entitled to, I DON’T CARE!” 

The House is expected to vote Tuesday after a bipartisan discharge petition garnered 218 signatures last week, forcing House Speaker Mike Johnson, of Louisiana, to bring a bill to the floor that would compel the DOJ to release Epstein investigation materials. 

It’s unclear whether Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., would bring the legislation to a floor vote in the GOP-controlled chamber.

Kentucky’s Thomas Massie co-sponsored the petition with Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif. Three other House Republicans, Georgia’s Marjorie Taylor Greene, South Carolina’s Nancy Mace and Colorado’s Lauren Boebert, joined all Democrats in signing. 

The House’s newest Democrat, Arizona’s Adelita Grijalva, became the 218th signature after she was sworn in Wednesday by Johnson, following weeks in which the chamber was out of session. Johnson refused to swear in Grijalva until after the government shutdown, breaking a precedent of swearing in new members when the chamber is out.

Johnson has not been in favor of a vote, and rather has pointed to the ongoing House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform’s investigation into the Epstein documents.

Committee Republicans released more than 20,000 pages of Epstein’s emails on Wednesday, many of which contained Trump’s name. 

The committee, led by Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., revealed the massive trove of emails from Epstein’s estate after the panel’s Democrats released a selection of the correspondence that included the allegation that Trump “knew about the girls because he asked ghislaine to stop.”

Epstein was referring to Ghislaine Maxwell, his co-conspirator, who would later be convicted on federal sex trafficking charges.

Emails and subpoenas

Trump denies any involvement with Epstein’s alleged crimes, and has said that he kicked Epstein out of his private Florida club, Mar-a-Lago, because Epstein had poached young female staffers from the club. Epstein was convicted in Florida of soliciting minors for sex in 2008. 

Trump had a well-documented friendship with Epstein, who surrounded himself with the rich and powerful.

Committee Republicans did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment Wednesday on how long the committee has had possession of the emails and their timing of the data dump.

The committee has subpoenaed several people in relation to the probe, including Maxwell, several former U.S. attorneys general and former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Trump dispatched Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who is also the president’s former personal defense attorney, to interview Maxwell in a Florida prison in July. 

According to transcripts, Maxwell told Blanche that she “never witnessed the president in any inappropriate setting in any way. The president was never inappropriate with anybody. In the times that I was with him, he was a gentleman in all respects.”

Soon after, Maxwell was moved to a minimum-security prison in Texas, and House Democrats claimed this month that a whistleblower revealed the convicted sex offender was being “pampered” by the warden. House Democrats also claimed the whistleblower revealed Maxwell was preparing a commutation application to Trump for release from her 20-year sentence.

FBI memo

The FBI issued a July memo stating the Department of Justice would not be releasing any further information on the government’s sex trafficking investigation into Epstein.

The announcement sparked a firestorm of demands over the summer to release all investigative material, even among Trump’s supporters in Congress and far-right media influencers, including Megyn Kelly and the late Charlie Kirk. 

Trump promised on the campaign trail to release the files.

Since the FBI memo, a magnifying glass has been fixed on Trump’s past relationship with Epstein. 

The president sued The Wall Street Journal for reporting on a 50th birthday card Trump allegedly gave to Epstein. The card featured a cryptic message and a doodle of a naked woman with Trump’s apparent signature mimicking pubic hair. Trump denies that he created and signed the birthday doodle.

The Journal also reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi briefed the president in May that his name appeared in the Epstein case files. The context in which his name appeared is unclear. 

Trump has denied all reports.

A series in the Miami Herald in 2018 by journalist Julie K. Brown drew wide attention to Epstein’s crimes and Trump’s appointment in 2017 of former Miami federal prosecutor Alex Acosta, who cut a deal in 2008 to end a federal investigation into Epstein, as the secretary of Labor.

Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport in Arlington, Virginia. (Photo by Tim Brown/Getty Images)

The Federal Aviation Administration early Monday lifted an order that airlines cut domestic flights to 40 major U.S. airports, as air traffic control staffing levels improve following the six-week government shutdown. 

The move came just before the busiest travel week of the year, though it was unclear how long it would take for airlines to resume normal operations. 

The FAA’s safety team recommended ending the restrictions after seeing only one staffing trigger affect travel Sunday, according to an agency press release. There were 81 staffing triggers on Nov. 8, a few days before the end of the longest shutdown in U.S. history. 

“I want to thank the FAA’s dedicated safety team for keeping our skies secure during the longest government shutdown in our nation’s history and the country’s patience for putting safety first,” Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said in the release. “Thanks to President Trump’s leadership, controllers have returned to their posts and normal operations can resume.”

The government reopened after a 43-day shutdown on Nov. 12. 

Air traffic controllers were required to work without pay during the shutdown, leaving many to pursue second jobs and the workforce overstressed. The order to reduce flights, peaking at 6% at major airports, was meant to reduce that stress.

The banners at the tops of major U.S. airline websites warning of canceled flights disappeared by Monday morning.

One carrier, Southwest, replaced it with a message that its normal schedule would resume Monday. 

“Good news, the US government shutdown has ended,” the message read. “Our full schedule resumes on Nov 17. Book your next trip with confidence today.”

A Kwik Trip station in Mount Horeb, Wisconsin, was among the locations chosen for new charging stations in the first round of Wisconsin's build-out for its charging station network under the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program (NEVI), part of the bipartisan infrastructure law enacted during President Joe Biden's term in office. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

A program to expand electric vehicle charging stations in Wisconsin is getting  a $14 million jolt with plans to build 26 more stations across the state.

Gov. Tony Evers and the Wisconsin Department of Transportation announced the expansion plan Monday.

The announcement recharges the state’s electrical vehicle charging network project, supported by the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program. NEVI, part of the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law signed by  then-President Joe Biden, provides grants to states to build more charging stations.

“Transportation is evolving, and departments of transportation and states have to adapt with that evolution,” said John DesRivieres, WisDOT’s communications director. “As the market and the number of folks who are driving electric vehicles grows, EV infrastructure is needed.”

NEVI funding paused after President Donald Trump took office, and Wisconsin was one of 15 states along with the District of Columbia to sue the Trump administration in May for cutting off money for the program. A federal judge blocked the administration in June from defunding NEVI, and the Wisconsin DOT subsequently restarted its program.

The $14 million in federal funds for Wisconsin’s new round of charging stations will go to projects in communities throughout the state, from Superior in the northwest to East Troy in the southeast. They include 11 locations at Kwik Trip service stations, six locations at hotels or resorts, six locations at other service station brands and a handful of other businesses.

“My administration and I have prioritized ensuring our state’s infrastructure meets the needs of the 21st Century since Day One because expanding our clean energy and electric vehicle infrastructure helps create jobs and bolster our economy, and it’s good for our planet, too,” Evers said. “Thanks to our actions to get the Trump Administration to release this critical funding that they were illegally withholding, we are thrilled to see the NEVI program continue to support these goals and further move us toward the clean energy future Wisconsinites deserve.”

The transportation department chose projects based on their location, their potential for future development, and the business site’s hours. Extended hours were given preference to accommodate longer refueling times, according to WisDOT.

Wisconsin’s plan calls for charging stations along 15 major interstate, U.S. and state highway corridors that cross the state. A WisDOT EV charging station dashboard shows the locations for all planned chargers in the state.

With the round of grants announced Monday, Wisconsin has invested a total of $36.4 million in federal funds for 78 projects.

The first round, announced in May 2024, invested $22.4 million to build 52 stations. Of those, 11 are operational, 16 have been authorized for construction and the rest are in pre-construction phases.

A federal tax credit for electric vehicles that was included in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act abruptly ended, effective Sept. 30, under the Republican tax-cut and spending mega-bill enacted in July.

“There are already 37,000 EVs on the road today, and we saw that number spike as people raced to purchase EVs before the federal tax credit expired,” said Alex Beld, communications director for Renew Wisconsin, a nonprofit that promotes policies and programs to expand solar, wind and hydropower along with building electrification, energy storage and electric vehicles.

“By expanding our network of charging stations, we hope to see that number continue to climb,” Beld said. “Through this transition away from gas-powered vehicles, we can reduce emissions and support our state’s economy.”

An analysis by SRI International published in 2023 for the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. concluded that “there is a tremendous opportunity for Wisconsin to develop a globally competitive cluster centered on the manufacturing of EVs and EV-related equipment, which in turn can help revitalize Wisconsin’s automotive manufacturing industry and drive statewide economic development.”

Beld said that jobs related to clean energy grew four times faster than the rest of Wisconsin’s economy in 2024.

“If this funding had been clawed back permanently, I think we would have still seen progress,” Beld said. “It would have certainly been slower and would have likely cost the state jobs.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A Nov. 14 conference at UW-Madison debated the merits of bringing fusion voting back to Wisconsin (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

Dozens of political scientists, election experts and members of the public gathered in a UW-Madison conference room Friday to debate whether returning to a 19th century election process could empower voters and help turn back the United States’ slide toward authoritarianism. 

The event centered around fusion voting, which is the practice of allowing more than one political party to nominate the same candidate on a ballot. Currently used in Connecticut and New York, the fusion voting system means the candidates on the left can appear on the ballot under both the Democratic Party and the smaller Working Families Party while candidates on the right appear for the Republican Party and the Conservative Party. 

In theory this can give the minor parties enough influence to push for policy changes. A minor party that can swing 4% of a vote total can move the needle. 

Throughout the 1800s, fusion voting was the norm across the country — the Republican Party itself was formed in Wisconsin as a fusion party by voters who felt that the major parties at the time, the Democrats and Whigs, weren’t doing enough to end slavery. Eventually, the two major parties worked together to get the practice banned in most of the country.

Often, minor fusion parties are further from the ideological center than the major parties, but a lawsuit is currently pending in Wisconsin from a group called United Wisconsin aiming to create a fusion party that connects moderate voters who don’t feel like they’re represented by the modern Democrats or Republicans. The effort is being helmed by former state Senate Majority Leader Dale Schultz and former Dane County Sheriff Dave Mahoney. The group is represented in the lawsuit by the voting rights focused firm Law Forward. 

Lawsuits to reinstate fusion voting are also pending in New Jersey and Kansas. 

Lilliana Mason, a political science professor at Johns Hopkins University, said during the conference that the two party system and primary election process have polarized the country’s politics and made our’ “sense of winning or losing” more “existential.”

Looming over the discussions, but without being explicitly mentioned very often, was the Trump administration’s anti-democratic actions — including denying the outcome of the 2020 election, supporting the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection and pardoning Wisconsin’s fake electors —  and the threat of authoritarianism. The debate Friday was often an exchange over how fusion voting fits into broader systemic reforms and if it can be used in tandem with proposals including proportional representation, multi-member congressional districts, ranked choice voting, gerrymandering prohibitions, filibuster reform and others. 

“It makes it possible for people who want to organize and who want to create and claim their own political power, to do so in an effective way,” Beau Tremitiere, an attorney from the non-profit Protect Democracy, said. They’re exactly right. “People are deeply dissatisfied with the system. There’s a lot of energy to do something better and fusion makes that easier.”

Fusion advocates said the system allows politics to be more dynamic. People’s political beliefs don’t always fit neatly in a party system that encourages big tents and the necessity of coalition management in those big tents means that parties aren’t encouraged to distance themselves from their most extreme members. 

“Politics is a complex, dynamic system that is always changing,” said Lee Drutman, who studies political reform at the think tank New America. “And the key is, how do you keep it from spiraling out of control? How do you keep it from a self-reinforcing tumult? And if you have a party system problem, which we do, you need a party system solution.”

But several speakers at the conference also laid out the limits and downsides of fusion voting. It’s not a major structural reform. Fusion parties are usually further from the ideological center, so if the goal is a more moderate politics, it’s not clear fusion will deliver that. Members of the Green Party expressed concern that fusion enables a patronage system of political favor trading. 

Overall though, the conference often returned to the idea that the country is in a democracy crisis and experimentation is a good thing in the effort to turn it around. 

“I’m supportive of experimentation,” Derek Muller, a law professor at Notre Dame, said. “It seems to me, we should see more real world experiments.”

Schultz, who was in the Legislature from 1983 to 2015, said he’s trying to establish a fusion party in Wisconsin to get more “humanity” in the state’s politics. 

“Why fusion voting? Why does it matter? Because of agency, the fact that suddenly people get a chance to sit at the table, to be a part of the discussions that matter to them,” he said. “Yes, fusion voting is not the be- and end-all political reform, but it is, in my opinion, an essential part of our future if we’re going to get back to having a healthy democracy.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Protesters march outside of a new ICE facility being constructed in Milwaukee. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Activist groups and community members gathered Saturday morning to denounce the construction of a new federal immigration enforcement detention facility on Milwaukee’s Northwest Side. Renovations at the property, located at 11900 W Lake Park Drive, were clearly underway, with construction equipment sitting behind new fencing, piles of dirt and stacks of building materials visible through the building’s dark windows. Outside, protesters marched in the street and delivered speeches. 

The 36,000-square-foot detention and processing center is planned to serve as a central hub for southeastern Wisconsin, holding people before deportation or transfer to other detention centers.

“You may be here, but you are not welcome here,” said Ald. Larresa Taylor — who represents the district where the facility will be located. Although the city cannot prevent ICE from taking over the facility, Taylor said that this “doesn’t mean that we are going to accept it laying down.” 

Activists from Voces de la Frontera, Comité Sin Fronteras, the Milwaukee Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, Never Again Action–Wisconsin, the Party for Socialism & Liberation, and the Wisconsin Coalition for Justice in Palestine picketed outside the building for close to two hours. Towards the end of the event, a drone was seen flying overhead, which was not operated by any of the activist groups who held the rally. In a empty parking lot nearby, several deputies appeared to be packing away equipment in the trunk a Milwaukee County Sheriff’s vehicle. The Sheriff’s office didn’t respond to requests for comment on whether its drone team was flying over the Saturday protest. 

Opponents of the facility say that its opening moved forward without community input or consent, and that it will perpetuate troubling uses of force and arrests in cities nationwide including Chicago. The facility will be used to  process ICE detainees, as well as immigrants who must come in for regular check-ins.

Christine Neumann-Ortiz, executive director of Voces de la Frontera, applauded Taylor, calling her “the first person to sound the alarm months ago about the expansion of this detention center, and to call attention and condemn what was happening in our city.”  The building is privately owned by Milwaukee Governmental LLC, which originally requested modifications to the property (something Taylor learned about in December). The LLC is linked to the Illinois-based WD Schorsch LLC, which owns properties leased to federal government agencies. 

“It’s not an accident what is happening, where this facility is being chosen to be built,” said Neumann-Ortiz. “It’s part of a long-term pattern of discrimination and marginalization, and criminalization of working class people of color.” Neumann-Oritz said that instead of spending “millions” on the facility, “that money should be used to pay for FoodShare, BadgerCare, and our public schools.” 

 Angela Lang, executive director of Black Leaders Organizing Communities (BLOC), said, “We are not free, until we are all free.” Lang added that Black communities “know what it’s like to be ripped away from our families and locked away,” and that people are concerned about federal agents’ behavior in cities like Chicago. “And we have been worried for months, if not years, ‘is this going to happen to Milwaukee?’” 

Over recent months months, videos have suggested an escalating patter of force from federal agents including shooting people in the head with pepper balls, placing protesters in chokeholds, deploying tear gas in crowded neighborhoods in broad daylight, arresting and attacking journalists, arresting parents in front of their children, and having unprofessional verbal exchanges with citizens. 

Although Milwaukee hasn’t seen protest-related clashes, ICE stirred anxiety and condemnation earlier this year after arresting members of families with mixed-immigration status at the Milwaukee County Courthouse as they attended court hearings. Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan was also arrested and criminally charged after the federal government accused her of attempting to hide a person sought by ICE who’d attended a hearing in her courtroom. Dugan is expected to go to trial in federal court in December. Other high profile arrests and deportations of community members have also occurred in Milwaukee during the first six months of the second  Trump administration. 

Conor Mika, a student activist at the Milwaukee School of Engineering (MSOE) condemned what he said is a lack of transparency and accountability for his  school’s relationship with ICE, which has been using a university building for operations in Milwaukee. “It’s time MSOE takes a stand. It’s on MSOE to slow down ICE’s operations, and protect its students by removing ICE from this building, and refusing any future collaborations with these agencies conducting mass deportations in our city.”

Leah Janke and Tanya Brown both attended the rally Saturday, and told the Wisconsin Examiner that it was important to make their voices heard. “I think it’s important that people here know that we don’t want this,” said Brown. “It’s not just a small community that doesn’t want it, it’s everybody. We don’t want it.” Janke said. “It’s 2025, and this is completely unacceptable to be running an ICE facility like this, and be deporting people illegally, without due process. This is insanity. It doesn’t feel right in any way.” Janke added, “I’ve seen a lot happening in Chicago, and that’s my fear…that’s my biggest fear.”

Besides attending rallies, Janke has been making “whistle kits” filled with whistles and information about reporting ICE, or alerting the community if an arrest is happening. “Be safe out there,” said Janke. “Because honestly, it’s scary and people are getting  hurt.”

Raúl Ríos, an activist with both Comité Sin Fronteras and Party for Socialism and Liberation, said it was important to rally people on Saturday both on the North and South Sides of Milwaukee, especially since the city is one of the most segregated in America. “Most people that I’ve heard, not only today but previously, had said that they had no idea that this was even being constructed, and that it’s going to be used as the main facility for southeast Wisconsin,” Rios told the Examiner. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

 

Maryland Democratic Gov. Wes Moore spent a few minutes sorting donated food before signing an executive order in late October declaring a state of emergency to allow for distribution of food aid. As the federal government reopens, questions remain about how states will be reimbursed for the costs they incurred. (Photo by Bryan P. Sears/Maryland Matters)

Though Congress ended the record-setting federal government shutdown, many questions remain for states that were already wading through seismic federal changes.

One major uncertainty: whether and how states will be reimbursed for the costs they incurred, as they have been in previous shutdowns. And for the longer term, the shutdown offered a glimpse into the funding challenges facing states. They’ll have to rely more on their own money and staff to keep federal programs going even at a time when many face their own budget problems.

That’s a top concern for the federal food stamp program, known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. Amid conflicting federal guidance during the shutdown, states reacted in different ways: Some issued partial benefit payments, others sent aid to food banks to keep people from going hungry.

But even after the government reopening restores SNAP aid, other challenges loom. The major tax and spending law enacted this summer tied SNAP funding to state error rates, which measure the accuracy of benefit payments. Advocates fear the shutdown will increase error rates because of conflicting federal guidance.

Air travel, SNAP benefits, back pay at issue as federal government slowly reopens

“States are really worried,” said Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research & Action Center, a nonprofit working to address poverty-related hunger.

And states have been rushing to inform rural residents, veterans and older adults that they will soon be forced to meet work requirements or lose SNAP benefits. It’s just the first in a wave of cutbacks to the nation’s largest food assistance program required under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that President Donald Trump signed in July.

FitzSimons said the shutdown highlighted the importance of SNAP and how “untenable” many of the upcoming changes will prove for states. For now, states are working to get benefits to people immediately, and then will focus more on questions of reimbursement and ongoing changes to SNAP.

“The hope is that states will be able to move quickly and then turn their attention to all the changes,” she said.

While public attention has centered on the shutdown chaos in recent weeks, more fundamental changes are occurring outside the spotlight, said Eric Schnurer, founder and president of Public Works, a consulting firm specializing in government performance and efficiency.

“The ground is shifting under their [states’] feet even as this goes on,” he said. “Even if the Trump administration and his policies were to pass on in another three years, there are serious structural changes in the relationship between state and federal government.”

Since taking office, the Trump administration has stripped states and cities of billions of dollars that Congress approved for education, infrastructure and energy projects. And the president’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act mandates deep cuts to social service programs, including Medicaid and food stamps.

Under the law, states will be required to pay a greater share of administering SNAP in the coming years. That requirement, along with eligibility changes, could result in millions of Americans losing benefits.

“I think the public in general got a taste of what that might look like over the past month,” Schnurer said, referencing the shutdown’s first-ever disruption to SNAP benefits.

State-federal strain

The legislation to reopen the government approved by Congress and signed by the president this week says that states shall be reimbursed for expenses “that would have been paid” by the federal government during the shutdown.

“So that sounds promising for states,” said Marcia Howard, executive director of Federal Funds Information for States, which analyzes how federal policymaking impacts states.

But it’s unclear how that language will be interpreted. For example, states that sent money to food banks for emergency food assistance are less likely to be made whole compared with states that sent funds through existing federal programs like SNAP, she said.

California dedicated $80 million in state funds and deployed the National Guard to food banks across the state. But Virginia launched a temporary state-level version of the federal food stamp program.

Previous administrations have been more flexible with federal funds, making it easier for states to receive funding or reimbursement, Howard said.

“This administration is really more holding states’ feet to the fire perhaps than other administrations have. So I think they’ll be less permissive in who and how they reimburse,” she said.

It could take weeks or months before states know the full fallout from the shutdown, especially with food assistance.

“[States] did such different things, and I think there’s going to be a fair bit of back-and-forth: should this be covered? Should this not be covered?” Howard said.

The shutdown and its aftermath underscore the ongoing strain between state and federal governments, said Lisa Parshall, a professor of political science at Daemen University in New York.

Federal uncertainty can cause state leaders to be more cautious about their own budgets — similar to how an economic downturn can decrease consumer spending, she said.

“There’s a delay of services, there’s a diminishment of capacity and partnership, and those things might be harder to quantify when you’re talking about what is the cost of the shutdown,” she said. “But I think those are real costs.”

And the end of the shutdown does not extinguish those tensions.

“In some ways, even though the shutdown is over, things are not going to go back to ‘normal,’” she said.

More changes coming

Aside from spending cuts and new administrative costs, Trump’s July law made major tax code changes poised to cost many states, said William Glasgall, public finance adviser at the Volcker Alliance, a nonprofit that supports public sector workers.

Most states use the federal tax code as a basis for their own income tax structures, so changes at the federal level can trickle down to state tax systems or states can choose a different structure to avoid those changes.

Last month, a Massachusetts budget official said federal tax changes would cost the state $650 million in revenue this budget year.

So even with the government back open, states have to plan for some level of unpredictability, Glasgall said. And the future of entire agencies like the Department of Education remain up in the air, he noted.

“So there’s still a lot of uncertainty, even with this bill,” he said.

On Wednesday, state budget analysts briefed Maryland lawmakers on the $1.4 billion budget gap they could face as they head into the 2026 legislative session.

That figure does not include the fallout from the federal government shutdown, which may not be known for months, according to Maryland Matters.

In late October, Democratic Gov. Wes Moore declared an emergency and directed $10 million in state funds toward food banks and pantries. Earlier this month, he announced $62 million in state funds would be deployed directly to SNAP recipients.

Rhyan Lake, a Moore spokesperson, told Stateline that Maryland expects the federal government to reimburse the state for its SNAP expenditures during the shutdown.

But lawmakers are still gearing up for a hit from major federal changes.

In addition to cuts from Trump’s domestic tax and spending law, Maryland has lost about 15,000 federal jobs, budget officials said. But many federal workers who took buyouts were paid through September. And the shutdown caused a pause in federal employment data, potentially concealing the true impact.

State Sen. James Rosapepe, Democratic chair of the joint Spending Affordability Committee, said he’s worried the state has only seen the beginning of its federally induced fiscal challenges. He also noted that this week’s shutdown-ending legislation only assures the government remains open through January, meaning another shutdown could be just a couple months away.

“We’re less than a year into the administration, and the effects of things they’ve already done don’t seem to have flowed through yet to the data that we have, which leads me to believe that the worst is yet to come,” he said.

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

State Rep. Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee) questions a witness at Thursday's hearing of the Assembly labor committee about the unemployment insurance bill produced by the Unemployment Insurance Advisory Council. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

A business lobbyist Thursday sought to salvage a new unemployment insurance bill that has sparked opposition from some Democrats and advocates for people with disabilities.

The bill came from the joint labor-management Unemployment Insurance Advisory Council. The council is historically a source of consensus legislation to update Wisconsin’s laws on jobless pay, but its 2025 proposal includes provisions Democrats have strongly opposed.

The senior Democrat on the Assembly’s labor committee has disavowed the bill because it includes a financial penalty for people who receive federal disability pay if they apply for unemployment insurance when they’re laid off from a job.

The council bill also contains several other changes that Democratic lawmakers have unanimously opposed and Gov. Tony Evers has vetoed in the past.

At a public hearing Thursday on the legislation, AB 652, Scott Manley of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce emphasized that the measure had the unanimous support of both the management and labor members of the advisory council.

Manley chairs the council’s management caucus. Representatives from the council’s labor caucus did not take part in the hearing.

“There’s a reason we have a council,” Manley told the Assembly Committee on Workforce Development, Labor and Integrated Employment. “It’s a process we believe in. We think it’s a process that works. And we would ask everybody in the community to respect that process.”

WMC and other business groups have repeatedly backed Republican legislators’ bills to change the state’s unemployment laws when they bypassed the joint advisory council.  Evers has regularly vetoed such bills.

Manley said that it would be unprecedented for an advisory council bill to split the Legislature on party lines, however.

“My fear is that if the Legislature decides to turn this into a partisan issue, despite the fact that it was unanimously supported by labor and management, that Gov. Evers would consider vetoing the bill,” Manley said.

If that happens, he said, the bill’s $25 bump in the state’s maximum weekly jobless pay — the first increase in more than a decade — would likely be put off until 2027.

Victor Forberger, a lawyer who specializes in unemployment law, said even that increase, bringing the maximum benefit to $395 a week, was inadequate compared with surrounding states.

Minnesota tops out at $914 a week, Forberger testified. Iowa’s maximum is $602 and Michigan’s is $446, with an increase to $530 in 2026.

“We’re not keeping pace with the states around us,” Forberger told the committee. “We’re not even coming close to that

The disability-jobless pay conflict

The advisory council bill’s highest-profile point of contention applies to people who receive Social Security Disability Income.

Since 2013, Wisconsin law has automatically disqualified SSDI recipients from collecting jobless pay, even if they get laid off from a job and otherwise meet the requirements for unemployment compensation.

A federal judge ruled in 2024 that the SSDI jobless pay ban violated federal law. After an additional court order this summer, the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development is now reviewing the cases of people denied unemployment compensation in the last 10 years due to the SSDI ban, and is issuing payments to those who qualify.

The joint advisory council unemployment bill repeals the ban on unemployment insurance for SSDI recipients. But it would also cut their jobless pay by 50% of their SSDI pay.

That provision led Rep. Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee), the ranking Democrat on the labor committee, to keep her name off the list of sponsors for the advisory council bill.

“I simply cannot support taking benefits from those who are disabled,” Sinicki said when she, along with the committee’s other two Democrats, voted against the bill’s formal introduction Thursday. “They receive very little money to begin with. And now to reduce their benefits to me is unconscionable.”

Manley defended the 2013 law that excluded SSDI recipients from the unemployment insurance program.

“SSDI is intended to compensate somebody for their loss of earning capacity based on a disability,” he said. “And unemployment is supposed to compensate somebody through the loss of their earnings because they were laid off or their job was eliminated or some other reason that’s no fault of their own. So, that’s why the policy decision was made in the first place that we wouldn’t allow people to have both benefits.”

While the court ruled against a blanket exclusion from unemployment compensation for people getting SSDI, Manley argued that offsetting their jobless pay by a portion of their disability income is comparable to existing provisions that offset unemployment benefits based on other wage income.

But SSDI is not like a wage, said Forberger, whose lawsuit overturned Wisconsin’s SSDI jobless pay ban.

“SSDI is essentially getting your Social Security benefits early,” Forberger testified. While Social Security payments are based on lifetime earnings at retirement age, he said, unemployment is based on a recent job loss, and unemployment benefits are based on earnings in the last year and a half.

The average SSDI benefit in Wisconsin as of December 2023 was about $1,400 per month, he said. SSDI recipients take part-time jobs because their disability income “is not enough to support themselves,” Forberger said. “They need additional money to make ends meet.”

The federal Social Security Administration, which administers the disability program, encourages recipients to work so they might make a transition back to the workforce and no longer need benefits. “Essentially, what Wisconsin is saying to disabled folks here is . . . ‘We don’t want you working anymore,’” Forberger said.

Other provisions

Several other items in the advisory council bill previously were part of Republican bills that Evers vetoed in the past when they reached his desk.

One would require DWD to establish a website where employers could report unemployment compensation recipients who “ghosted” job interviews or didn’t show up for the first day on the job after an offer.

Another would require audits of 50% of all work searches by people collecting jobless pay. In 41% of work search audits that DWD conducted, “claimants failed to fulfill weekly work search requirements,” said Brian Dake of Wisconsin Independent Businesses. “We believe this data justifies the need for more audits.”

 A third provision stipulates specific checks that DWD should make to ensure that a person who makes an unemployment claim isn’t stealing another person’s identity or engaged in some other fraudulent activity.

The bill also would mandate electronic filing of payroll information for business owners with fewer than 25 employees.

Forberger, in his testimony, rejected all those provisions as ineffectual or unnecessary.

“Ghosting interviews is already illegal in this state,” he said, with stiffer penalties than outlined in the bill. Employers, he added, are unlikely to go to the trouble of filing a report and take the time for the hearings that would follow.

Forberger observed that the department already consults a wide range of databases in checking out claims. And he said small employers have sought his help after making mistakes and getting in trouble with the department in filing required payroll documentation.

“To mandate online-only filing is just going to make it that much harder for these employers,” Forberger said.

(According to DWD communications director Haley McCoy, in 2024 about 97% of taxable employers with fewer than 25 employees submitted their wage reports electronically. “Fewer and fewer employers file on paper every quarter with current figures showing less than 3% filing by paper,” McCoy told the Wisconsin Examiner.)

Forberger said the bill’s work search audit requirement was redundant, because DWD already conducts work search audits of every person who is approved for benefits. He said he’s heard from many people who don’t understand what constitutes a work search and how to report it.

“When they’re getting audited, they’re getting disqualified,” Forberger said. “If you really want to improve the system, DWD needs to start doing some training and helping people how to navigate the system.”

This report has been updated to clarify that work search audits are conducted for people who are approved for  unemployment benefits. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Planes line up on the tarmac at LaGuardia Airport on Nov. 10, 2025 in New York City. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The record 43-day government shutdown that ended Wednesday night scrambled air travel, interrupted food assistance and forced federal workers to go without a paycheck for weeks.

It also cost the U.S. economy about $15 billion per week, White House Council of Economic Advisers Director Kevin Hassett told reporters Thursday.  

As the government began to reopen Thursday, officials were working to untangle those issues and others.

But in some areas, the processes for getting things back to normal after such a lengthy shutdown will also take time. 

President Donald Trump on Wednesday night signed a package passed by Congress reopening the government, which closed on Oct. 1 after lawmakers failed to pass a stopgap spending bill.

Flights back on schedule by Thanksgiving?

The Federal Aviation Administration’s shutdown plan, announced last week by Administrator Bryan Bedford and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, was to reduce flights to 40 major airports by 10%. 

As of Thursday afternoon, the FAA had not lifted the order restricting flights. But the agency did stop ramping up the percentage of those affected. 

The FAA started by asking airlines to cancel 4% of flights Nov. 7. A Wednesday order halted the rate at 6%.

That was enough to cause major disruptions to travel, and it remained unclear Thursday how long it would take to resume normal operations. 

In a statement, Airlines for America, the trade group representing the nation’s commercial air carriers, welcomed the end of the shutdown but was vague about how much longer air travelers would see disruptions. The statement noted the upcoming holiday as a possible milestone. 

“When the FAA gives airlines clearance to return to full capacity, our crews will work quickly to ramp up operations especially with Thanksgiving holiday travel beginning next week,” the group’s statement said. 

The FAA and Transportation Department did not return messages seeking updates Thursday.

The reduction in flights was meant to ease pressure on air traffic controllers, who worked through the shutdown without pay. 

Many missed work as they pursued short-term jobs in other industries. Duffy said that left the controllers on the job overstressed and possibly prone to costly mistakes.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem sought to reward other federal workers at airports, those employed by her department’s Transportation Security Administration, with $10,000 bonuses if they maintained high attendance records during the shutdown.

Noem handed out checks to TSA workers in Houston on Thursday and said more could come. 

Federal workers return, with back pay on the way

Hundreds of thousands of federal workers who had been furloughed returned to the office Thursday and those who had been working without pay will continue their duties knowing their next paycheck should be on time. 

All workers will receive back pay for the shutdown, in accordance with a 2019 law that states employees “shall be paid for such work, at the employee’s standard rate of pay, at the earliest date possible after the lapse in appropriations, regardless of scheduled pay dates.”

A spokesperson for the Office of Management and Budget said the White House has urged agencies to get back pay to employees “expeditiously and accurately.”

Agencies will need to submit time and attendance files, and payroll processors can then issue checks. According to the spokesperson, agencies have different pay schedules and payroll processors, and “discrepancies in timing and pay periods are a result of that.”

The office estimates that workers will receive a “supercheck” for the pay period from Oct. 1 to Nov. 1 on the following dates:

Nov. 15

• General Services Administration
• Office of Personnel Management

Nov. 16

• Departments of Energy, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs and Defense

Nov. 17

• Departments of Education, State, Interior and Transportation
• Environmental Protection Agency
• NASA
• National Science Foundation
• Nuclear Regulatory Commission
• Social Security Administration

Nov. 19

• Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor and Treasury
• Small Business Administration

Doreen Greenwald, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, said in a statement Wednesday that federal workers across all agencies “should not have to wait another minute longer for the paychecks they lost during the longest government shutdown in history.” 

“The anxiety has been devastating as they cut back on spending, ran up credit card debt, took out emergency loans, filed for unemployment, found temporary side jobs, stood in line for food assistance, skipped filling prescriptions and worried about the future. Federal employees should receive the six weeks of back pay they are owed immediately upon the reopening of the federal government,” said Greenwald. 

The union represents workers at 38 federal agencies and offices.

States Newsroom spoke to several furloughed federal workers who attended a special food distribution event during the shutdown.

The American Federation of Government Employees, one of multiple unions that sued the Trump administration over layoffs during the shutdown, said its members were used “as leverage to advance political priorities,” according to a statement issued Tuesday by the union’s national president, Everett Kelley.

The AFGE, which according to the union represents roughly 820,000 federal workers, did not immediately respond for comment Thursday.

The shutdown-ending deal reinstated jobs for fired federal employees and prohibits any reductions in force by the administration until Jan. 30.

Federal workers speak out

A statement released Thursday by a group of federal workers across agencies struck a different tone on the shutdown and praised the 40 senators and 209 representatives who voted against the temporary spending bill deal.

“The fight mattered. It changed the conversation. More members of the American public now understand that Trump is shredding the Constitution,” according to the statement issued by the Civil Servants Coalition.

The coalition also noted, “Even though the government is reopening, none of us will be able to fully deliver our agency’s missions. Our work has been exploited and dismantled since January through harmful policies and illegal purges of critical staff.”

The group emailed the statement as a PDF document to an unknown number of government workers and urged them to “channel that frustration toward action” by contacting their representatives.

SNAP saga concludes

The government reopening ended a drawn-out saga over the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which helps 42 million people afford groceries. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture told states in a Thursday memo they “must take immediate steps to ensure households receive their full November allotments promptly.”

The guidance also noted that states should prepare for another shutdown as soon as next October by upgrading systems so that they could allow for partial payments. 

A key point of dispute between the administration and those seeking SNAP benefits was the lengthy time the administration said it would take to fund partial benefits. 

A Wednesday evening statement from a department spokesperson said full benefits would be disbursed in most states by Thursday night. 

Lauren Kallins, a senior legislative director for the National Conference of State Legislatures, said Thursday “states are all working hard to resume full benefits.”

 “But there will likely be logistical challenges, depending on a state’s system’s capabilities and whether the state had already issued partial benefits, that may impact how quickly a state is able to push out” benefits, she wrote. 

The program, which is funded by the federal government and administered by states, sends monthly payments on a rolling basis. 

That means that the day of the month each household receives its allotment varies. Households that usually receive benefits mid-month or later should see no interruption. 

But many of the program’s beneficiaries receive their payments earlier in the month, meaning that, depending on their state, they may have missed their November payments. 

Some states, including Democrat-run Wisconsin, Oregon and Michigan, began paying full benefits last week after a Rhode Island federal judge ordered the administration to release full November payments and the department issued guidance to states to do so.

The administration then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to pause enforcement of the Rhode Island judge’s order and reversed its guidance to states, telling them to “immediately undo” efforts to pay out full November benefits.

The Department of Justice dropped its Supreme Court case Thursday. 

“Because the underlying dispute here is now moot, the government withdraws its November 7 stay application in this Court,” U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote to the high court.

In the trial court, the administration cited the USDA guidance and said it would discuss the future of the litigation with the coalition of cities and nonprofit groups that brought the suit. 

Capital area tourist attractions reopen

Tourists in the nation’s capital have been shut out of the Smithsonian Institution’s 17 free museums and zoo for most of the federal shutdown.

The institution on Friday will open the National Museum of American History, the National Air and Space Museum and the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center, an annex of the Air and Space Museum located at Dulles International Airport in Virginia, according to a message posted on the Smithsonian’s website.

All other museums and the National Zoo will open on a “rolling basis” by Nov. 17.

Multiple public-facing agencies, including the National Park Service and Internal Revenue Service, did not respond to States Newsroom’s requests for reopening information.

National parks were closed or partially closed during the shutdown.

Several IRS services were reduced or altogether cut as the funding lapse dragged on. Those disruptions included limited IRS telephone customer service operations and the closure of in-person Taxpayer Assistance Centers.

An aerial view shows an Amazon data center last year in Ashburn, Va. A new study found that most states offering subsidies for data centers do not disclose the recipients of those tax benefits. (Photo by Nathan Howard/Getty Images)

Most states offering incentives to data centers don’t disclose which companies benefit, according to a new report.

At least 36 states have crafted subsidies specifically for data center projects, according to Good Jobs First, a nonprofit watchdog group that tracks economic development incentives. But only 11 of those states — Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin — disclose which companies receive those incentives.

In a new study, the organization examined a lack of transparency in data center deals, which are proliferating across the country as technology demands increase.  

Despite data centers’ significant energy requirements, states frequently compete heavily to land the projects, which invest millions or even billions into new construction. But the study noted those projects often employ nondisclosure agreements, project code names and subsidiary names that hide the firms behind the new server farms.

“Only when governments disclose information on which companies get public money and what they do with it can there be meaningful analysis, greater public participation, and wiser use of public financial resources,” the report says.

Good Jobs First specifically examined sales and use tax exemptions that benefit data centers. The study does not account for local property tax abatements, corporate income tax credits and discounts on electricity and water rates.

Virginia, the largest data center market in the world, forgoes nearly $1 billion in state and local sales and use tax revenue each year without telling the public which companies benefit or how much they receive, the study said.

Good Jobs First underscored state calculations that show data center subsidies do not provide a return on taxpayer investments. It recommends states eliminate or curtail data center subsidies. “At the very least, states should practice full transparency,” the report said.

Good Jobs First says states must reassess their investments in data centers with federal cuts looming that will strain state finances.

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

A sign acknowledging Stewardship program support at Firemen's Park in Verona. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

A Wisconsin Assembly committee deadlocked 6-6 Wednesday on a Republican-authored bill to prevent the broadly popular Knowles-Nelson Stewardship program from lapsing next year. 

The program, which allows the state Department of Natural Resources to purchase, conserve and maintain public land enjoys bipartisan support among Wisconsin residents. However a subset of Republican legislators have soured on the program’s intentions, arguing too much land has been pulled off local property tax rolls in northern Wisconsin. Republicans have also complained that a state Supreme Court decision removed their authority to conduct oversight of the program. 

Previously, members of the Joint Committee on Finance had the ability to anonymously hold up stewardship projects. 

Republicans in the Legislature stripped money to re-authorize the program out of the state budget earlier this year and both parties have proposed competing pieces of legislation to keep it running beyond 2026. 

On Wednesday, the Assembly Committee on Forestry, Parks and Outdoor Recreation took up the Republican bill, authored by Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc). Democrats and environmental groups have been unsupportive of the Kurtz bill since its initial release because it requires that any attempt by the DNR to acquire land at a cost of more than $1 million be approved by the full Legislature through standalone legislation. 

Critics have argued the full legislative process is the opposite of what the Court intended when it took the anonymous hold power away from JFC, that the Legislature could never move quickly enough for the speed at which real estate transactions must sometimes take place and the public nature of legislation could scare off potential sellers. 

Earlier this week, Kurtz released a proposed amendment to his bill that would lower the threshold requiring legislative approval from $1 million to $250,000. 

A Democratic proposal, which was introduced as a separate bill this summer and offered as an amendment to the Republican bill this week, would create an independent board, nominated by members of both parties, to oversee the program outside of the legislative process. 

On Wednesday, the committee voted 7-5 in favor of accepting Kurtz’s amendment to his bill. Rep. Paul Melotic (R-Grafton) voted with the committee’s four Democrats against the amendment. 

But on the vote to advance the bill out of committee, Reps. Calvin Callahan (R-Tomahawk) and Rob Swearingen (R-Rhinelander) joined the Democrats to vote no, resulting in the 6-6 tie.

When an Assembly committee votes for a bill, it reports the bill to the full Assembly floor and recommends that it be passed. According to Assembly rules, when a committee ties on a vote, the chair of the committee has the discretion to report the bill to the full Assembly “without recommendation.” 

The bill has already been reported to the full Assembly for a potential vote, according to the office of Rep. Jeff Mursau (R-Crivitz), the committee’s chair.

In a statement, a spokesperson for Rep. Vincent Miresse (D-Stevens Point), a co-author of the Democratic proposal, said “Wisconsin Democrats are united in their support and vision for Knowles-Nelson,” while “Republicans cannot seem to agree on a path forward.”

Charles Carlin, the director of strategic initiatives at the non-profit land trust organization Gathering Waters, told the Wisconsin Examiner that Wednesday’s vote shows the only way to save the program is with a bill that can get support from both parties. 

“Today’s hearing was a missed opportunity for bipartisan cooperation on the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship program,” Carlin said. “There is ample room for compromise across the aisle. But today’s deadlocked committee vote demonstrates that no reauthorization is going to move forward without buy-in from both parties. The hearing should motivate legislators on both sides of the aisle to come together and work out a compromise that keeps Knowles-Nelson working for Wisconsin.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., left, accompanied by Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., points to a poster depicting rising medical costs if Congress allows the Affordable Care Act tax credits to expire in December as he speaks to reporters following a Democratic policy luncheon at the U.S. Capitol on Oct. 15, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Congress has roughly two months to find bipartisan agreement to curb rising health insurance costs if lawmakers want to avoid another government shutdown.

That herculean task would be difficult in the best circumstances, but is much more challenging after lawmakers spent the last 43 days criticizing each other instead of building the types of trust that are usually needed for large deals. Democrats maintained they wanted to address skyrocketing premiums for individual health care plans, while Republicans insisted those talks had to occur when the government was open.

At the same time, congressional leaders will try to wrap up work on the nine full-year government funding bills that were supposed to become law before Oct. 1 and weren’t included in the package that reopened the government. 

Congress must pass all of those bills or another stopgap measure before the new Jan. 30 deadline, regardless of how well or disastrous talks on a health care bill turn out. 

The two-track negotiations will push party leaders to compromise on issues they’d rather not, especially as next year’s November midterm elections inch closer. 

Early signs were not good.

House Speaker Mike Johnson said during a Wednesday night press conference the enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credits set to expire at the end of the year are a “boondoggle” and that “Republicans would demand a lot of reforms” before agreeing to extend those in any way. 

“We currently have 433 members of the House of Representatives. There’s a lot of opinions in this building. And on our side, certainly, a lot of opinions on how to fix health care and make it more affordable. I have to allow that process to play out,” Johnson, R-La., said. 

While Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., made a commitment to hold a vote on a health care bill before the end of December to conclude the shutdown, Johnson has avoided giving a timeline for when he would bring any similar legislation to the floor. 

President Donald Trump, aside from throwing insults at Democrats, largely stayed on the sidelines of the shutdown fight, though he suggested the funds used for the tax credits should in some way go directly to individuals instead of large insurance companies.

Pessimism over progress

The shutdown highlighted the stark differences Republicans and Democrats hold on health care as prices for insurance continue to spike, forcing millions of Americans to choose between taking care of themselves and breaking their budgets, States Newsroom found in interviews with members of Congress. 

GOP leaders held together throughout the funding lapse and didn’t negotiate on the expiring ACA marketplace tax credits, or anything else. 

Now that it’s over, Republicans will need to put something forward.

Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said her sense is that Congress will “probably be in the same place on January 30th that we are now.”

“We have two parties here, two sides,” DeLauro said. “In the past … we’ve had serious negotiation back and forth, and that’s what we need to do, and that’s not happening.”

While Republicans have unified control of government, major legislation needs the support of at least 60 senators to advance in that chamber. Republicans hold 53 seats at the moment, meaning at least some Democrats must support a bill for it to pass. 

DeLauro did not rule out another shutdown, saying Democrats plan to take the next few months “one day at a time,” while closely watching what Republicans are willing to do on the nine full-year appropriations bills and health care costs. 

Maryland Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer, former House majority leader and a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, said Republican leaders keeping that chamber in recess for nearly two months leading up to and during the shutdown significantly delayed work on the full-year government funding bills. 

Hoyer said that scheduling decision was a clear “indication they’re not interested in solving the problem.”

“If they were, they would have had members here working on appropriation bills,” Hoyer said. “And the only way you’re going to ultimately solve this problem is to pass appropriation bills.”

Hoyer said the real question facing Congress now isn’t whether there is time to work out agreement on the remaining nine government spending bills, but whether there’s a will to make the types of compromises needed. 

Untangling spending bills

The spending package that reopened the government included three of the dozen full-year bills, funding the Agriculture Department, Food and Drug Administration, Legislative Branch, military construction projects and Department of Veterans Affairs.

The remaining appropriations bills will be considerably tougher to resolve, especially because the House and Senate have yet to agree on how much they want to spend across the thousands of programs. Trump proposed major cutbacks in multiple programs in his budget request earlier this year that Democrats have strongly resisted.

The Defense, Homeland Security, Labor-HHS-Education and State-Foreign Operations bills will be some of the more difficult to settle. 

Congress could always lean on another stopgap spending bill to keep funding relatively flat for the departments and agencies not covered by a full-year bill before Jan. 30. But lawmakers will need bipartisan support to advance in the Senate.

Washington Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal, former chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said Republicans don’t seem to grasp how much Americans are struggling with the cost of living, including for health insurance and health care. 

“My constituents are already telling me that they’re making that choice between having health insurance or having a house to live in, and they’re going to choose the house,” Jayapal said. 

Whether or not a partial government shutdown begins in early 2026 will likely depend on whether Republican lawmakers from swing districts force bipartisanship on a health care bill. 

“I really don’t know,” Jayapal said. “I think it depends on these vulnerable House Republicans, who are not going to be able to go back to their constituents without telling them that they’ve done something on health care.”

Political juice and a backbone

Democratic Rep. Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico said she wouldn’t be surprised if Congress is unable to strike a deal on government funding and winds up in a partial shutdown by February. 

“Do I think that the Republicans have the political juice to get … the rest of their appropriation bills across the finish line and a health care deal? No,” Stansbury said. 

She added that she hopes a handful of Republicans decide to join Democrats on the discharge petition bill that would force a floor vote on a bill to extend the ACA marketplace subsidies for three years. 

“We gotta find a few brave Republicans who still have a backbone and some guts to stand up to this administration and actually care for their constituents,” Stansbury said. 

But any bipartisan deal to extend those health care tax credits seems fraught, as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries slammed Republicans as having “zero credibility on this issue.”

He pointed to Republicans trying several times to repeal the Affordable Care Act, including their last attempt in 2017, when GOP Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine and the late John McCain of Arizona crossed party lines to vote against repealing the 2010 law.

“There’s no evidence that they’re serious about extending the Affordable Care Act tax credits,” Jeffries, of New York, said. “Republicans have zero interest in fixing the health care crisis that they’ve created.”

‘No point in taking 41 days to cave’

When Democrats controlled both chambers, temporary health care subsidies were originally passed as part of the COVID-19-era American Rescue Plan in 2021 for two years. 

With Democrats still controlling both chambers, lawmakers approved the Inflation Reduction Act, the 2022 signature climate policy bill from the Biden administration, that extended those health care subsidies for three years, expiring at the end of December 2025.

The outcome of the just concluded shutdown is shaping some House Democrats’ views.

Virginia Democratic Rep. Bobby Scott said if there is a new shutdown come February, Senate Democrats will have to decide whether they’re going to “cave again, or at least engage in negotiations.” 

“When the (Senate) Democrats say: ‘Our strategy wasn’t working,’ it wasn’t working because they assume you’re going to cave, which you just proved,” Scott told States Newsroom. “Their strategy worked — trying to get them to negotiate and talk to you doesn’t because they know you’re going to cave.”

Scott said “there’s no point in taking 41 days to cave,” pointing to the eight members of the Senate Democratic Caucus who broke ranks to advance and later approve the package to reopen the government. 

“Why don’t you just cave right at the beginning, on February 2nd?” he said. “If the Republican strategy is: ‘We’re not going to negotiate at all because you’re going to cave,’ you have to show them that you’re not going to cave, then you can have a discussion.”

Scott said the same health care issues will still exist if nothing happens between now and the package’s Jan. 30 government funding deadline.  

“By then, we’ll know that several million people don’t have health insurance, we’ll know that rural hospitals are beginning to suffer,” Scott said. 

Delaware Democratic Rep. Sarah McBride said that “from today through November (2026) and after, we will continue to be talking about health care, to be fighting for health care.”

“I think what you’ve seen over the last several months, you will continue to see from us through November and then, God willing, once we’re in a majority, we’ll do all that we can to reverse these cuts and restore care and expand access to it,” she said. 

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin) speaks Wednesday about the effort to extend enhanced Affordable Care Act insurance premium tax credits that will expire at the end of 2025. Nancy Peske, left, and Julia Harris-Robinson, center also joined the press conference. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

With the loss of enhanced subsidies for the health insurance she has bought on the federal marketplace HealthCare.gov, Nancy Peske’s health plan will cost $1,163.50 a month in 2026.

That’s more than three times what she paid this year — $372 a month, Peske said Wednesday.

But if there’s one thing she wants everyone to know, it’s this: The higher prices for health insurance aren’t just something that she and other people who buy their coverage on the federal marketplace are facing.

Long before the ACA, Peske learned about “the premium death spiral,” she said.

“The more you raise the price, the more people drop out of the pool. This means you have to raise the price, which means more people drop out of the pool. And it goes on and on and on,” Peske said.

“It’s not just my health insurance that’s going to go up. It’s everybody’s — right?” she said. “We’re all in this together.”

Peske was one of two people who have relied on HealthCare.gov, created as part of the Affordable Care Act, who spoke Wednesday at a press conference in Milwaukee with Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin).

Baldwin called the press conference  to draw attention anew to the skyrocketing cost of health insurance — and to the failure of Congress to address it in the stopgap spending bill that passed the U.S. Senate Monday, the U.S. House Wednesday evening and was signed by President Donald Trump.

“This is a health and wellness issue,” Baldwin said. “This is an affordability and cost-of-living issue, and this is a quality of life and dignity issue. And it touches every single one of us right now.”

A success amid ‘a broken system’

Health care in the U.S. is “a broken system that prioritizes profits over patients,” Baldwin said. Despite that, she said, the 2010 Affordable Care Act was an important advance for expanding health care access.

She said that was improved by enhanced federal subsidies enacted in 2021 to offset the cost of health insurance for people who must buy their own policies on the federal HealthCare.gov marketplace that was created by the ACA — making insurance more affordable and drawing record numbers of people to the marketplace to get health coverage.

The enhanced subsidies expire at the end of 2025, however, and until this week a Republican stopgap spending bill that passed the U.S. House in September stalled in the U.S. Senate as Democrats pushed unsuccessfully to extend the subsidies.  

“That is what is at the center of the government shutdown and debate in Washington, D.C.,” Baldwin said. “We know the impact of taking away these tax breaks. For 275,000 Wisconsinites, their health care [insurance] costs will double, triple or even more. For 30,000 Wisconsinites, they predict the price will be too high, and that those Wisconsinites will go without insurance altogether.”

A handful of Democratic Senators changed their votes Monday to advance the spending bill in return for a promise of a future vote on the subsidies, with the House taking up the revised bill Wednesday. Baldwin didn’t join them.

“I said the entire time that a handshake deal with my Republican colleagues to reopen the government and no real action to lower health care costs was simply not good enough,” said Baldwin of her vote against the bill.

She also forced an amendment to extend the tax credits for a year — a compromise, she said, because she wants them extended permanently, but one she offered “to avoid catastrophe for families across Wisconsin and give folks breathing room while we negotiate longer-term solutions.”

The amendment failed on a party-line vote.

“Every single Republican voted no on my amendment,” Baldwin said. “They chose to send a clear, unmistakable message that they are OK with jacking up health care costs on 22 million Americans.”

Early retirement, then sticker shock

HealthCare.gov user Erica Topps also joined Baldwin’s news conference. Topps took early retirement in April and bought a health insurance policy through the federal marketplace for herself and her college-age daughter that started in June.

At the marketplace open enrollment for 2026 that started Nov. 1, that plan’s premium increased by $1,200 a month and the deductible went from $6,700 per person to $10,600 per person, Topps told reporters She found another plan via the marketplace and is enrolling, but she’s concerned about the future beyond that.

“Part of my plan is to go back to work” so she can get health insurance, Topps told the Wisconsin Examiner, because it will be 10 years before she can qualify for Medicare.

Before taking early retirement, “I did my due diligence,” she said. “I feel like the rug was pulled out from under me.”

Peske is a freelance writer, editor and consultant. She is also a cancer survivor, whose diagnosis two years ago was covered thanks to her HealthCare.gov policy. Going without health insurance is unthinkable, but at the age of 63, she must wait another two years before she can go on Medicare, she said.

Peske told the Wisconsin Examiner that she will scrape together the money to afford her new premium. “I’ll not put a dime into my underfunded retirement account,” she said. She expects to “tighten the belt” on household expenses, “and I will probably cut into my savings.”

Freelancers and small businesses account for 40% of the U.S. economy, Peske told reporters.

“Do you want everyone to go out of business?” she asked. “Should I just do what so many people do and get a much lower paying job at a company? Because I’m desperate for health care. I don’t think that’s the solution. I think you want to keep people like me in business, generating money, adding to the economy, and being able to live, to not die of cancer.”

Seeking inroads with GOP lawmakers

Baldwin said she has been talking with Republicans about finding common ground in increased transparency in the health care system, from insurance companies, pharmacy benefit managers and providers.

In addition, she told the Wisconsin Examiner after the press conference, she continues to have conversations with GOP Senate colleagues who have expressed interest in continuing the subsidies to avert the sharp hike in premiums.

None of them were willing to break ranks and vote for her amendment this week, however.

“Those discussions were happening informally, in quiet, not in the public spotlight,” Baldwin said. “But they were afraid to vote on something that they, probably, some of them want, because Donald Trump said you can’t talk about this before the government reopens.”

Baldwin said that the next step will be for the Democrats to settle on the bill that Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune has promised they could bring to the upper chamber for a vote.

As much as she favors a permanent extension of the enhanced credits, if the Democrats go that route, “we know it will go down, and it will be on a pretty much a partisan vote,” Baldwin said.

“I want results, so that probably dictates towards supporting something that conceivably does respond to some of the concerns Republicans have raised,” she said. “I’d like to pick the path most reasonably likely to succeed on behalf of the people who sent me to Washington to fight for them.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The U.S. Capitol on the evening of Tuesday, Sept. 30, 2025, just hours before a federal government shutdown. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

The longest government shutdown in U.S. history is over and all we got was the near-cancellation of food assistance just in time for Thanksgiving and a looming explosion in health care costs.

None of the problems that led to the shutdown have been resolved. Instead, a handful of Democrats abandoned their fight to force Congress to address the health care crisis in exchange for rolling back some of the damage the Trump administration did during the shutdown itself. Federal workers are getting their jobs back — for now — and flight cancellations will end just in time for the holiday travel season. Otherwise, we’re pretty much back where we started. 

Democrats are fuming and Republicans are gloating over the end of this game of chicken, in which the party that showed it doesn’t care at all about the pain and suffering of its own constituents is the apparent winner. Stay tuned to see how long the glow of victory lasts as members of Congress go home to face the voters. 

During the fruitless shutdown battle, a couple of politicians from Wisconsin who are not facing election anytime soon showed real leadership. Their focus on serving the needs of real people, not political posturing, was a breath of fresh air, and a model of the kind of public service we badly need.

Gov. Tony Evers deserves a lot of credit for acting quickly to pay out food assistance funds to nearly 700,000 Wisconsinites last Friday as soon as a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to release the money, which it had been withholding for a week. Evers acted in the nick of time. The Trump administration appealed the decision and, on the strength of an emergency ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, demanded that Wisconsin and other states that had paid out the benefits overnight claw them back. Evers issued a terse response: “No.” 

Thanks to his leadership, hundreds of thousands of Wisconsinites, including 270,000 kids, were spared from going hungry because of the Trump administration’s capricious cruelty. With the shutdown over, the battle over food assistance has ended and the USDA has said full nutrition benefits will begin flowing to states again within 24 hours of the shutdown’s end. But as Evers said when he seized the moment and released the funds, “It never should’ve come to this.” The feds had the money to prevent kids from going hungry all along. Trump made a deliberate decision to cut off aid, and then to demand that states pay only partial benefits, on the theory that doing so would punish Democrats for refusing to reopen the government on Trump’s terms. 

Evers deserves a lot of credit for his decisive action to protect Wisconsinites from harm.

Another Wisconsin politician who has been working overtime to stave off disaster for residents is U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin. 

Baldwin has spent her entire career working to expand health care access, including writing the provision of the Affordable Care Act that allows children to stay on their parents’ health insurance until they reach the age of 26. She has a reputation for doggedly working across the aisle and, during the shutdown, she never gave up trying to get Senate Republicans to agree to extend ACA tax credits. 

This week, when eight Senate Democrats joined the Republicans on a resolution to reopen the government that didn’t include any language about the coming spike in health care costs, Baldwin forced a Senate vote on an amendment to extend the ACA credits for one more year. Many Senate Republicans had told her they knew the expiration of those credits would drive health care costs through the roof in their states.  

In her floor speech introducing her amendment, Baldwin said: 

“My Republican colleagues are refusing to act to stop health care premiums from doubling for over 20 million Americans. I just can’t stand by without a fight.”

Even as people across the country express shock and dismay, “Donald Trump and congressional Republicans have simply refused to address the biggest increase in American premiums they’ll likely ever experience,” Baldwin said.  

“I’m getting calls daily from Wisconsinites begging me to stay in this fight,” she added. She told her Senate colleagues about a couple from Door County who told her their premiums are going up by over $550 per month because of the failure to extend the ACA tax credits. “Everything is already too expensive. So where are they supposed to find 6,500 extra dollars in their budget?” she asked. 

Another couple from Butternut, Wisconsin, told her their premiums are going from $400 per month to more than $5,000 per month — “that’s $55,000 more a year,” she said. “As they wrote to me, ‘health care tax breaks are not just numbers on paper. They are a lifeline that allows us to sleep at night knowing that we won’t lose everything if one of us gets sick.’” 

Baldwin was back in the state Wednesday where, as Erik Gunn reports, she is holding a series of town hall meetings with people affected by rising health care costs. She is holding out hope that some of her Republican colleagues will come around on the issue. She refused to answer questions about whether she thinks Sen. Chuck Schumer should be ousted from his position as Minority Leader because of the end of the shutdown fight. 

Characteristically, she is keeping her head down and working to build bipartisan support — as she did, successfully, when she persuaded enough Republicans to join her to pass the Respect for Marriage Act protecting same-sex and interracial couples — instead of using it to score political points.

As we move past the shutdown power struggle and into the real fight over people’s lives, we need more of that kind of leadership. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE