The Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development has found more than 1,600 violations of state child labor laws by the owner of 100 Burger King outlets in Wisconsin. In this picture from April 2024, Gov. Tony Evers vetoes a bill that would have eliminated Wisconsin's work permit requirements for 14- and 15-year-olds. (Governor's Facebook page photo)

The owner of more than 100 Wisconsin Burger King franchises will be required to pay the state more than $1 million after Wisconsin’s labor department found more than 1,600 violations of state child labor and wage laws, officials said Friday.

The violations took place during a two-year period ending in January 2025, the state Department of Workforce Development reported. The case involves the largest number of child labor and wage payment violations identified by the department “in modern Wisconsin history,” according to the office of Gov. Tony Evers.

“We have a responsibility to make sure kids who are working are protected from exploitation, predatory employer practices, and being subjected to hazardous or illegal working conditions, and that’s a responsibility we must take seriously,” Evers said in a statement released Friday.

The franchise owner, Chicago-based Cave Enterprises, operates Burger King locations in eight states, according to the Cave Enterprises website. Wisconsin has 100 of those restaurants currently — more than any of the other states.

On Thursday, DWD informed Cave that investigators reviewed records from the company from January 2023 to January 2025.

A  letter from DWD to Cave states that the company:

• Employed 593 14- and 15-year-olds who started work without required work permits;
• Failed to provide a required 30-minute meal break for 627 minors who worked at least one shift of six hours or longer without a break;
• Failed to pay required overtime to 67 workers who were 16 or 17 and who worked at least one shift longer than 10 hours — after which state law requires payment at time and a half;
• Violated state requirements on permitted work hours for 369 minors. 

DWD “counted violations of Wisconsin’s Employment of Minors laws by counting only one violation per child per type of violation found,” the department stated in a cover letter accompanying the notification of violations. By that count, “Employer violated Wisconsin’s Employment of Minors laws and related regulations at least 1,656 times during the investigative period.”

DWD told Cave the company owes the employees a total of $3,498 in back wages, $1,994 in unpaid overtime wages, and $231,944 in wage penalties.

Cave also must “immediately change its business practices to ensure that it is no longer in violation of Wisconsin’s Employment of Minors laws and related regulations which were found to be violated,” the investigation report states.

The cover letter states Cave also must pay DWD a direct penalty of $828,000 — $500 for each of the 1,656 violations, according to the department.

In 2024, Evers vetoed a bill passed by Republicans in the Legislature that would have eliminated a requirement that 14- and 15-year-olds in Wisconsin have a work permit approved by their parents in order to take a job.

The legislation was supported by Wisconsin Independent Business and the National Federation of Independent Businesses, according to lobbying records posted by the Wisconsin Ethics Commission.

It was also promoted by the Opportunity Solutions Project, the lobbying arm of the Florida-based Foundation for Government Accountability, which Wisconsin Watch reported had gotten “attention for its successful drive to relax child labor restrictions in Iowa and Arkansas.”

“After years of Republican lawmakers working to get rid of Wisconsin’s basic child labor law protections, I’m proud my administration is working to do the opposite by making sure bad actors are held accountable for taking advantage of kids in the workplace,” Evers said Friday.

The DWD letters to the company state that both the payments for the employees, which must be made with individual checks for each worker, and the penalty that is owed to the state must be sent to DWD’s Equal Rights Division, which investigates child labor and other workplace violations.

According to the investigation report, DWD launched the investigation after receiving several complaints in 2024 and subsequently reviewing department records, which produced 33 previous complaints against the business for wage payment and child labor violations from 2020 through 2023.

On Jan. 23, 2025, DWD requested records from Cave on the company’s employment of minors younger than 18 going back to Jan. 1, 2023. The records started coming in on March 4, 2025, with the last batch received Nov. 11, 2025, according to DWD.

Cave was founded in 1999 by Adam Velarde with a Burger King outlet in Lemont, Illinois, and grew to be the largest group of Burger King franchises with a single owner, according to the company website.

“The majority of Cave’s growth has been through purchasing distressed restaurants and improving the value of the location and brand through hard work, smart decisions and dedication to the guests,” the company states. “We pride ourselves on being leaders in the Burger King Brand in traffic and profit growth.”

While the investigation found minors employed at 104 Wisconsin locations that Cave owned, the company’s current list of 100 locations would appear to suggest that Cave closed or divested at least four restaurants sometime in the last three years.

Cave also operates four locations in Iowa, 28 in Illinois, one in Indiana, eight in  Michigan, 13 in Minnesota, one in Nebraska and 22 in South Dakota. 

This is a developing story and will be updated.

In Port Washington, Wisconsin, many residents oppose a $15 billion data center campus that’s currently under construction for end-users Oracle and OpenAI. (No Data Centers in Ozaukee County Facebook group)

Big Tech is here in Wisconsin, looking to make Wisconsin families and small businesses pay for data centers. The Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC) is about to make a decision that will affect all of us: We Energies has proposed a new rate structure on data centers that, as drafted, favors profits and protections for Big Tech companies and We Energies executives themselves, but putting Wisconsinites at risk to subsidize the costs. Here’s what’s going on and how you can do something about it. 

What’s at stake?

We Energies, the largest and most profitable utility in the state, is preparing to spend $19.3 billion on electric generation due to data center proposals from Microsoft, Oracle, Vantage, and OpenAI.4. This is largely to build new gas plants in order to power the massive energy needs of Big Tech’s data centers. Here’s the problem: If sufficient protections aren’t in place now, the costs of these expensive gas plants may be forced onto families and small businesses, driving up people’s bills to keep the lights on and heat their homes in the winter.

We Energies’ proposals put us at risk for higher utility bills without fully ensuring that Big Tech is paying their fair share. As it currently stands, more expensive data centers likely means higher costs for all of us. Tech companies should be responsible for covering the cost of service needed to power their data centers, including the cost of building out power to service these high energy demands.

In addition to their problematic proposal, We Energies is proposing to add huge volumes of natural gas plants to feed these power-hungry data centers, which are expensive to build and take decades to pay off. These so-called “stranded assets” end up costing us more money for many years down the line, at times even when they are no longer in service. With rapidly changing AI technology, there is a very real risk that Big Tech does not move forward with planned data centers because they’re no longer profitable or needed. In short, data centers create short-term gains for Big Tech and We Energies with long-term consequences for Wisconsinites. 

What’s going on behind Big Tech’s closed doors?

We Energies’ proposal encourages Big Tech to make decisions behind closed doors, without considering Wisconsinites or how their decisions will impact Wisconsin lands, waters and natural resources. We should all be suspicious of this. What’s happening in these meetings that We Energies and Big Tech don’t want us to know about? If Big Tech builds data centers in Wisconsin communities, Wisconsin communities deserve to know what deals are being made with the utilities. 

Transparency and accountability are crucial. Big Tech and utilities like We Energies must make their data center reporting, planning and financials publicly available, so that regulators like the PSC can implement protections and ensure Wisconsinites aren’t being taken advantage of. We deserve to always know how and why our electric and gas bills are being affected.

The time to take action is now.

If We Energies builds new gas plants to power Big Tech’s data centers, all of us will live with greater risks of rising gas and electricity prices as well as environmental impacts to our communities. If Big Tech wants to come into our state and use our state resources, they shouldn’t be putting us in jeopardy, they should be the ones taking on the risks. 

As we prepare for the PSC to make a decision on data centers, we need to make our voices heard to decision makers: Big Tech and We Energies don’t get to decide what’s best for Wisconsin. You have a role to play in shaping the policies that affect you. Attend the virtual public hearing on Feb. 10 or by submitting a comment by Feb. 17.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Rep. Lisa Subeck (D-Madison) is proposing that Wisconsin require crisis pregnancy centers to get express written permission before releasing a person’s private health information. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Rep. Lisa Subeck (D-Madison) is proposing that Wisconsin require crisis pregnancy centers to get express written permission before releasing a person’s private health information. Those who have given permission would also be able to withdraw their permission at any time under the bill. 

“Many people assume that when they seek care for pregnancy or other reproductive health services that that information is protected, just like any other medical records under HIPAA, and while that is true at your doctor’s office or at the hospital, it’s not always true when you visit other providers,” Subeck said at a press conference Thursday.

Concerns about information being gathered about women’s reproductive health, including by crisis pregnancy centers, have surged in the years since Roe v. Wade was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, especially in states where abortion has been criminalized. 

A 2022 TIME Magazine report found that crisis pregnancy centers have been collecting information including sexual and reproductive histories, test results, ultrasound photos, and information shared during consultations, parenting classes, or counseling sessions, from women they interact with through telephone and online chats. They are not required to follow federal health data privacy laws. The report led to U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren requesting an examination of the practices by crisis pregnancy centers.

The bill, coauthored by Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee), would also require centers to disclose in “plain language” that they are not a HIPAA-covered entity for the purpose of federal privacy regulations as well as disclosing any data breach that exposes individual digital health information.

Subeck said the centers can “look and feel an awful lot like a traditional medical clinic,” noting that they might offer ultrasounds, pregnancy tests and claim to have counselors on staff. However, she said “many of these centers are not licensed medical providers, and therefore they are not covered by HIPAA privacy protections.”

Subeck said that changes in reproductive health laws have raised concerns about the misuse of health related information and data. She said the bill would not close unregulated pregnancy centers, limit the services they can provide or limit speech. Rather, she said, it “simply sets some basic privacy expectations and protections for unsuspecting individuals.”

Subeck noted that lawmakers in other states, including Pennsylvania, have introduced similar measures, though none have become law.

Subeck said the violations of the provisions in the bill would be treated as “unfair and deceptive practices” under existing state law.

Laura Hanks, an OB-GYN and legislative chair for American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said at the press conference that the bill shouldn’t be political.

“It’s about privacy, honesty and safe, medically accurate care. Unregulated pregnancy centers often look like clinics, but they aren’t held to the basic medical privacy rules,” Hanks said. “This means they lack regulation, medical oversight or standard confidentiality rules. Too many people are walking in and assuming their health care information is protected when it isn’t. This bill sets commonsense guardrails.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A demonstrator waves a red cloth as hundreds gather after ICE agent Jonathan Ross shot and killed Renee Good through her car window Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2026 near Portland Avenue and 34th Street. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

Despite the high-profile U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions in Minnesota, ICE arrests were down slightly in January compared to December, according to new data. 

Immigrant detention nationwide also reached a new high in January, and a growing percentage — nearly three-quarters — of people in detention have no criminal convictions.

ICE arrested 36,579 people in  January compared with December (37,842); the numbers haven’t changed much since October (36,621), according to new estimates from a Syracuse University professor.

The number of people in immigration detention reached 70,766 as of Jan. 24, a new high, according to a different report by Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, also at Syracuse University.  

The number in detention has gone up steadily from about 40,000 at the start of the second Trump administration, and the latest number is the largest since the organization, known as TRAC, began tracking immigrant detention in 2019. 

Of those detainees 74.2%, or 52,504, had no criminal convictions, up from 70.4% in June.  

“Since the summer, nearly all of the growth in ICE detention has come from people without criminal convictions or charges — an area of tremendous sustained growth that contradicts the Trump administration’s narrative that they are focused on the worst of the worst,” Austin Kocher, a research assistant professor at Syracuse University who researches immigration enforcement, wrote in a substack posting. 

Kocher is a former researcher for TRAC but is no longer associated with the organization and created estimates of monthly arrests based on detention check-ins. 

Detention facilities in Texas had the largest number of detainees, 18,684, followed by Louisiana (8,207), California (6,422), Florida (5,187) and Georgia (4,178) as of Jan. 24. 

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.

Students at a public charter science academy sit at their desks during English class in Warr Acres, Okla., in August 2025. More states are considering joining Oklahoma in legislating strict bell-to-bell cellphone bans. (Photo by Nuria Martinez-Keel/Oklahoma Voice)

The momentum behind cellphone bans in schools has reached more than half the states, as teachers, superintendents and education experts praise these policies as a way to boost student achievement and mental health, and to rebuild a sense of community that many believe has been diminished by students’ addiction to screens.

Now, the question for many states and school districts isn’t whether to remove distracting devices from students each day, but for how long.

States that have passed laws requiring some kind of cellphone policy now are considering going further and mandating daylong bans, even for high schoolers. The idea has gotten some pushback from students, but also from teachers and parents who say strict bell-to-bell bans aren’t necessary. Some say they worry about safety in the event of a school shooting or other emergency.

Education experts say the modern push for school phone bans accelerated after the pandemic reshaped how students use technology and interrupted crucial in-person experiences in a classroom. Kara Stern, director of education and engagement for SchoolStatus, a data-collecting firm that assists K-12 districts with attendance and other school issues, said smartphones shifted from being tools of connection during remote learning to sources of isolation once students returned to classrooms.

“During remote learning, phones became a primary way kids entertained themselves and stayed connected,” Stern said. “But once schools reopened, phones stopped being a connection tool and started creating disconnection.”

Currently, 38 states and Washington, D.C., have enacted some form of statewide restriction or requirement for districts to limit student phone use. Of those, roughly 18 states and the district have full-day bans or comprehensive statewide restrictions (including during classroom and noninstructional time).

Despite widespread adoption of school cellphone restrictions and support for them, compliance remains uneven, according to a 2025 University of Southern California study. Most students continue to use phones during the school day regardless of restrictions, the researchers found.

Still, more than half of teens surveyed said enforcement this school year is stricter than it was the previous year.

“Teaching a class where students are on their phones is like trying to teach at Disney World over a loudspeaker,” Stern said. “The environment just isn’t designed for learning.”

Pushing for broader bans

Georgia is among the states considering a bell-to-bell policy for all public high schools. This comes a year after Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signed a ban for K-8 grades.

Students are paying attention. At East Paulding High School in Dallas, Georgia, students and teachers offered mixed views on cellphone bans. On a student-run news broadcast aired last fall, some students expressed concern over their safety, while some teachers were bullish on the idea that a ban would be effective at the high school level.

Republican state Rep. Scott Hilton, who proposed the new law, told the Georgia Recorder that the ban for younger students helped families get used to a bell-to-bell ban.

“I’ve just been blown away at the positive reaction across the board from all different constituencies, teachers, administrators, parents and even in a lot of cases, students who have experienced a difference and said, ‘Oh, wow, I kind of like this,’” Hilton said.

Several states focus their bans on prohibiting cellphone use “during instructional time,” which wouldn’t necessarily include free time such as lunch. Kansas lawmakers are pushing ahead on a ban on use during instructional time; it would supersede previous action that allowed local district discretion on cellphone use in schools. Michigan legislators passed a similar bill last month; it was sent to Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer on Monday.

Similar instruction time bills passed in Iowa, North Carolina and Wisconsin last year. In Oregon, Democratic Gov. Tina Kotek issued an executive order in July requiring every district to adopt bell-to-bell cellphone bans by Jan. 1. Several districts have said the mandate has gone better than expected, with some superintendents saying they’ve seen more interaction among students.

Bell-to-bell cellphone restrictions are being considered or advanced in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, and were recently enacted in New York. The Massachusetts bill goes further than most, adding smartphones, tablets and Bluetooth devices to its list of banned electronic devices.

Most legislation reviewed by Stateline includes exceptions to the bans for students with special needs and in cases of emergency.

School shootings in 2025 fell to the lowest number since 2020, according to a review by Education Week. Still, there were 18 shootings that left seven people dead last year, the review found.

In Georgia, state Superintendent Richard Woods, a Republican, told reporters he’s heard firsthand from survivors of a shooting there about the importance of having cellphones on hand for safety reasons.

“Do I support this? Absolutely,” Woods said, referring to the cellphone ban. “But I think we have to find a sweet spot and not move to the extremes.”

What works best?

According to a Pew Research Center poll released last summer, 74% of U.S. adults support banning cellphones during class for middle and high school students, up from 68% in fall 2024. Far fewer adults (19%) oppose classroom bans, and 7% are unsure, the poll found.

For advocates of a phone-free education, the gold standard of cellphone policies is a bell-to-bell restriction with inaccessible storage for the device.

A 2025 article in JAMA Pediatrics reported that teens ages 13-18 spend an average of 90 minutes on their phones during school, but that little has been written about what students are doing during that time.

“Although 99.7% of US public school principals report their school has a smartphone policy, few studies have objectively examined smartphone app usage during school,” an abstract of the study reads.

Stern said she saw the effects of a “consistent bell-to-bell” policy firsthand with her own son. When his phone broke in eighth grade, he dreaded going to school without it. But after his first day, he came home and told Stern that he played soccer at recess, met new classmates and had “a really good day” — one he said was better than usual.

Kim Whitman, a co-head of Smartphone Free Childhood US, and other education experts believe cellphone bans will mirror past public health reversals — like banning smoking in schools — and possibly redefine what it means to be in a classroom post-pandemic.

“Today we can’t imagine allowing smoking in schools,” Whitman said. “I think in five to 10 years we’ll say the same thing about cellphones — wondering how we ever allowed them into classrooms.”

Whitman, who has examined and graded states according to the efficacy of their cellphone bans, said that North Dakota and Rhode Island are the only states warranting high marks for their adoption and enforcement of bell-to-bell policies.

Despite claims from adults who love the phone-free policies, students aren’t as convinced. Only 41% of teens support cellphone bans in middle and high school classrooms, according to polling by Pew Research Center released in January.

The largest share of teens who like certain phone-free policies are in schools where the policy allows phones during noninstructional time throughout the day, according to the USC study.

Editor’s note: This story has been edited to correct that it was Kara Stern of SchoolStatus who told Stateline about her son’s experience with a phone-free day. 

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

A sign at a University of Utah health clinic warns visitors about the spread of measles. Under the Trump administration, federal health officials have cut back the number of recommended vaccines, and more states are offering exemptions for parents who don't want to vaccinate children entering public schools. (Photo by McKenzie Romero/Utah News Dispatch)

States that were leaders in childhood vaccination before the pandemic are among those losing ground as exemptions and unfounded skepticism take hold, encouraged by the Trump administration’s stance under U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Expanded exemptions for parents are likely to drop both Mississippi and West Virginia from the top national rankings they held before the pandemic, according to a Stateline analysis of federal data. Other states like Florida, Idaho, Louisiana and Montana also are pushing the envelope on vaccine choice.

At least 33 states were below herd immunity in the 2024-25 school year, compared with 28 states before the pandemic in 2018-2019, the analysis found. Herd immunity refers to the percentage of people who must be vaccinated or otherwise immune from an infectious disease to limit its spread.

Research shows that in the case of measles — a highly contagious disease — states need to maintain at least 95% vaccination rates to protect people who can’t get vaccinated. Other diseases have similar herd immunity rates. People who can’t be vaccinated might include infants too young to receive certain vaccines and those with underlying health conditions.

Misinformation and expressions of distrust from influential leaders have an effect on parents, doctors say, as do new state exemptions making it easier for families to avoid the vaccines.

Some people who never questioned vaccines before notice a national debate and get confused, said Dr. Patricia Tibbs, a pediatrician in rural Mississippi and president of the Mississippi chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. New religious exemptions may already be fueling an increase in pertussis, also known as whooping cough, in Mississippi, she said.

“If they hear something about it in the news, then it must be right, they think,” Tibbs said. “We’re just following the guidelines and informing patients that this is a scientific discussion. Nothing has changed about the science. But people who don’t know science are making decisions.”

Under Kennedy’s leadership, federal support for vaccination has continued to slide, and many states have joined a movement to set their own course by following more science-based recommendations from doctors. On Jan. 26 the Governors Public Health Alliance, a group of 15 Democratic governors, endorsed child and adolescent vaccination standards from the American Academy of Pediatrics rather than the federal government.

Federal health officials in Trump’s administration have cut back the number of recommended vaccines. The chair of a vaccine advisory committee, pediatric cardiologist Kirk Milhoan, suggested in a Jan. 22 podcast that individual freedom was more important than protecting community health with vaccines, even for measles and polio.

New leading states

Before the pandemic, Mississippi and West Virginia had the highest kindergarten vaccination rates in the nation, according to the Stateline analysis. About 99% of kindergartners in each state had their required vaccinations before entering public schools in the 2018-2019 school year.

In the latest statistics for the 2024-25 year, Connecticut gained the No. 1 spot, followed by New York and Maine. Those states have reined in exemptions to school vaccine requirements, while Mississippi and West Virginia have begun to allow more exemptions.

West Virginia didn’t report vaccinations to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the 2024-25 school year. The state department of health told Stateline the data wouldn’t be available until later this year.

But the state is likely to be pushed out of the top 10. Republican Gov. Patrick Morrisey issued an executive order a year ago giving parents the right to ask for religious exemptions. To date, the state has approved 693 such requests for the current school year, spokesperson Gailyn Markham wrote in an email. That alone is enough to shift the state’s ranking significantly.

Stateline computed an average of required kindergarten vaccination rates to compare states. The analysis uses 2018-19 as a pre-pandemic baseline because a large number of states did not report the information in 2019-20 in the chaos that followed the early COVID-19 spikes and school closings.

A January study published by JAMA Pediatrics found increased vaccination rates among kindergartners in states that had repealed nonmedical exemptions, suggesting the repeals “played a role in maintaining vaccination coverage in repeal states during a period of heightened vaccine hesitancy.”

Requirements and exemptions

All 50 states and the District of Columbia require students to have certain vaccines before attending public school. They also all allow exemptions for children who cannot receive vaccinations for medical reasons, and most states allow nonmedical exemptions, often for religious or sometimes personal reasons. But Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’ administration has proposed dropping all requirements, and Idaho enacted a 2025 law allowing vaccination exemptions for any reason. Idaho had the lowest rate of kindergarten vaccination, about 80% in the 2024-25 school year before the law took effect in July last year.

Louisiana in 2024 enacted a law dropping COVID-19 vaccine requirements for public schools, and the state has opted to halt publicity about flu vaccination and end public vaccine clinics.

A Florida bill that progressed out of committee in January would maintain school vaccine requirements but expand exemptions to include “conscience” as well as medical and religious reasons.

Dr. Jennifer Takagishi, a Tampa pediatrician and vice president of the Florida chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said the organization opposes both the DeSantis administration proposal to revoke vaccine requirements and the bill that would expand exemptions. Florida’s kindergarten vaccination rate fell from 94% before the pandemic to about 90% in 2024-25, according to the Stateline analysis.

“They’re ignoring the 90% of their constituents who want vaccines and want to stay safe,” said Takagishi. “The legislators are listening to the louder voice of those who want to oppose vaccines instead of the majority. We also know that there are teachers in the school system and school nurses who are fighting this because it puts them at risk.”

All states except Montana report kindergarten vaccine statistics to the federal government. Montana enacted a 2021 law making vaccine status private and unavailable for statistical reports, over the objections of medical experts. The law also made medical exemptions easier for families who think their children have been injured by vaccines.

Dr. Lauren Wilson, a pediatrician and then-vice president of the Montana chapter of the American Association of Pediatrics, said in a hearing that the law would make “vaccination information unavailable for responding to and mitigating public health emergencies.”

“Vaccines have saved millions of lives. I personally have seen cases of tetanus, pertussis, measles and meningitis and the tragedies that these mean for families,” Wilson said in her testimony.

A 2023 court order forced Mississippi to accept religious exemptions. West Virginia allows religious exemptions following the governor’s order last year.

Tibbs, who practices pediatrics in rural Jones County, Mississippi, said she has been seeing more pertussis than usual, and thinks vaccine exemptions could be a factor.

In Mississippi, which reported 394 religious exemptions for the 2024-25 school year, overall rates remained high enough that year, at about 97.8%, to ensure “herd immunity” in most cases.

Mississippi has granted 617 religious vaccination exemptions for kindergartners this school year, about 1.8% of the class, according to Amanda Netadj, immunizations director for the state health department. About 96.3% of kindergartners have all required vaccinations this year.

But the state’s whooping cough cases last year were the highest they’d been in at least decade, and in September health officials announced an infant had died of the disease — the state’s first whooping cough death in 13 years.

“We do have a lot of people getting the religious exemption,” Tibbs said. ”But still, on any given day, the majority of my patients will still get their vaccines. We are keeping our fingers crossed that the numbers stay high enough.”

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer speaks to reporters at the U.S. Capitol on June 17, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans blocked a Democratic proposal Thursday to sue the Trump administration over allegations that it did not fully release the Epstein files, as mandated under a law unanimously approved by senators and signed by the president nearly three months ago.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., asked for unanimous consent on a resolution compelling the Republican-led Senate to challenge President Donald Trump in court to release more records from the government’s investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who died in 2019 awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges.

Department of Justice Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump’s former personal defense attorney, said Jan. 30 that the department had finished complying with the new law after a final release of 3 million pages, containing 2,000 videos and 180,000 images. In total, the department released about 3.5 million records since the law’s passage.

The latest tranche revealed a global network of numerous men in powerful positions in communication with Epstein.

Late and redacted

The legal deadline to release the files was Dec. 19.

“Fifty days past the deadline, at best, according to the Department of Justice’s own admissions, maybe half of all the available Epstein files have been released,” Schumer said on the floor Thursday morning.

Schumer said that among the records released, many have been “redacted to an absurd degree.”

“This is not what the law requires. This is a mockery of the truth and an insult to the survivors. What makes this all the more sickening is that in over 1,000 instances, the Justice Department failed to follow the law and leaked the identities of over 100 victims. But do you know who the Justice Department did seem to protect? Epstein’s co-conspirators,” Schumer continued.

The minority leader entered into the congressional record a letter he brought along from roughly 20 Epstein victims decrying the “reckless and dangerous” release of victims’ identities.

Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., blocked the resolution, chalking it up as “another reckless political stunt designed to distract Americans from Democrats’ dangerous plan to shut down the Department of Homeland Security.”

Barrasso was referring to negotiations underway to fund DHS. Democrats have demanded changes to immigration enforcement tactics after two U.S. citizens were fatally shot by federal agents in Minneapolis, and numerous other U.S. citizens were injured by federal agents during Trump’s surge into blue states.

Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., criticized Barrasso’s objection on the floor, calling it “morally wrong.”

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

A DOJ official told States Newsroom in an email that the resolution presented “a tired narrative.”

“Just because you wish something to be true, doesn’t mean it is. This Department produced more than 3.5 million pages in compliance with the law and, in full transparency, has disclosed to the public and to Congress what items were not responsive. I assume all members of Congress read the actual language before voting on it, but if not, our press release and letter to Congress clearly spells this out,” the official wrote, including a link to the department’s Jan. 30 press release.

‘Hunger or thirst for information’

Blanche told reporters on Jan. 30, “There’s a hunger or a thirst for information that I do not think will be satisfied by the review of these documents. There’s nothing I can do about that.” 

He said no information uncovered in the files warranted new prosecutions.

The new law, dubbed by lawmakers as the Epstein Files Transparency Act, required the DOJ to make publicly available “all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in DOJ’s possession that relate to the investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein,” including materials related to Epstein’s accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell. 

Epstein avoided federal charges in 2008 when he pleaded guilty to Florida state prostitution charges, including for the solicitation of a minor. 

A 2007 draft of a federal indictment that laid out more robust charges was among the files released by the DOJ on Jan. 30.

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

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Education reinforced the right to prayer in public schools in guidance issued Thursday.

Under the guidance to state and local education agencies, students, teachers and school officials have “a right to pray in school as an expression of individual faith, as long as they’re not doing so on behalf of the school,” the department said. 

President Donald Trump’s administration has sought to protect religious liberty in public schools and beyond, and a growing number of GOP state legislators have tried to infuse Christianity in public education. 

Trump announced the guidance during remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, calling the move a “big deal.” 

The president predicted that Democrats would sue over the guidance, but said he was confident his administration would win any legal challenge. 

The guidance also makes clear that “public schools may not sponsor prayer nor coerce or pressure students to pray.”

In 1962, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school-sponsored prayer in public schools violates the Constitution. 

The new guidance calls on school officials to “allow the individuals who make up a public school community to act and speak in accordance with their faith, provided they do not invade the rights of others, the school does not itself participate in religious action or speech as an institution, and the school does not favor secular over religious views or one religious view over another.” 

The guidance leans on a handful of recent Supreme Court rulings surrounding religious expression and religious freedom in public schools, such as Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, which found that the actions of a Washington state high school football coach who prayed at the 50-yard line after games were constitutionally protected. 

The Education Department is required by law to periodically reissue guidance on prayer in schools, according to the department.

Trump had previewed Thursday’s guidance while speaking in September 2025 at a Religious Liberty Commission hearing. 

The president established that commission in May 2025 in an effort to “safeguard and promote America’s founding principle of religious freedom.”

Education Secretary Linda McMahon said the administration is “proud to stand with students, parents, and faculty who wish to exercise their First Amendment rights in schools across our great nation,” in a statement alongside the announcement.

“Our Constitution safeguards the free exercise of religion as one of the guiding principles of our republic, and we will vigorously protect that right in America’s public schools,” she said. 

The funding package President Donald Trump signed Feb. 3, 2026, includes $79 billion for the U.S. Education Department, representing a rejection by Congress of the president's plan to close the department. (Photo by kali9/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s attempts to dramatically slash funding for the U.S. Department of Education amid a broader push to dismantle the agency hit a major roadblock this week in the form of bipartisan approval of a spending law that gives the department a small raise. 

The president signed a measure that funds the department at $79 billion this fiscal year — roughly $217 million more than the agency’s fiscal year 2025 funding levels and a whopping $12 billion above what Trump wanted. 

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, wrote in a social media post after the signing that the law was a direct rebuke of several Trump priorities, including eliminating the department.

“Our funding bills send a message to Trump,” she wrote. “Congress will NOT abolish the Department of Education.”

The measure also rejects efforts to dramatically reduce or fully slash funding for a host of programs administered by the department for low-income and disadvantaged students. 

Trump and his administration have sought over the past year to take an axe to the 46-year-old agency as part of a quest to send education “back to the states.” Much of the funding and oversight of schools already occurs at the state and local levels. 

Those dismantling efforts included six interagency agreements with four other departments in November that would shift several Education responsibilities to those Cabinet-level agencies. 

The department also saw mass layoffs initiated in March 2025 and a plan to dramatically downsize the agency ordered that same month — efforts that the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily greenlit in July. 

The spending package also holds full-year funding for the departments of Defense, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, State and Treasury. The measure includes a two-week stopgap measure for the Department of Homeland Security. 

‘Inefficiencies’ 

The measure does not offer ironclad language to prevent the outsourcing of the Education Department’s responsibilities to other agencies — despite efforts from Senate Democrats to block such transfers. 

However, in a joint explanatory statement alongside the measure, lawmakers expressed alarm over the “assignment of such programmatic responsibilities to agencies that do not have experience, expertise, or capacity to carry out these programs and activities and lack developed relationships and communications with relevant stakeholders, including States.”

Lawmakers added they were “concerned that fragmenting responsibilities for education programs across multiple agencies will create inefficiencies, result in additional costs to the American taxpayer, and cause delays and administrative challenges in Federal funding reaching States, school districts, and schools.”

Due to those concerns, the funding measure directs the Education Department and the agencies that are part of the transfers to provide biweekly briefings to lawmakers on the implementation of any interagency agreements.

The briefings are supposed to include information on “staffing transfers, implementation costs, metrics on the delivery of services” and the “availability of technical support for programs to grantees,” among other matters. 

The Education Department clarified when announcing the interagency agreements in November with the departments of Labor, Interior, Health and Human Services and State that it would “maintain all statutory responsibilities and will continue its oversight of these programs.” 

‘Necessary’ staffing levels 

The funding agreement also mandates that the department “support staffing levels necessary to fulfill its statutory responsibilities including carrying out programs, projects, and activities funded in (the law) in a timely manner.” 

The department took heat last summer when it froze $6.8 billion in funds for K-12 schools and informed states just a day before the money is typically sent out. 

The funds were eventually unfrozen, following bipartisan pushback in Congress.  

Pell Grant spared 

The measure also maintains the total maximum annual award for the Pell Grant from the prior fiscal year at $7,395, according to a summary from Democrats on the Senate Appropriations Committee. The government subsidy helps low-income students pay for college. 

Trump’s budget request called for cutting nearly $1,700 from the maximum award for the 2026-2027 award year, a proposal that stoked alarm last year from leading House and Senate appropriators in both parties overseeing Education Department funding. 

Funding levels maintained for TRIO, GEAR UP 

The administration also called for defunding the Federal TRIO programs and the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, or GEAR UP, in fiscal 2026 — a move rejected in the measure.

The Federal TRIO Programs include federal outreach and student services programs to help support students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, and GEAR UP aims to prepare low-income students for college.

Appropriators maintained funding for the programs at fiscal 2025 levels — with $1.191 billion for TRIO and $388 million for GEAR UP, per the Senate Democrats’ summary.

The administration also sought to axe funding for the Child Care Access Means Parents in School Program, which, according to the Education Department, “supports the participation of low-income parents in postsecondary education through the provision of campus-based child care services.” 

Instead, the measure allocates $75 million for the program. 

The Education Department did not respond to a request for comment on the funding package.

The administration expressed its support for the entire, multi-bill package, in a Jan. 29 statement of administration policy that barely mentioned the education provisions.

An empty high school classroom. (Dan Forer | Getty Images)

The Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee has delayed the release of $2 million for the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) operating budget following a report on the cost of a meeting held at a water park resort in 2024. The agency says continued delays in the release of the funds could lead to layoffs and other cuts.

The powerful budget committee’s agenda for Tuesday, Feb. 2 included a DPI request, originally submitted in September, for the release of $2 million over the biennium. However, at the start of the meeting, committee co-chair Rep. Mark Born (R-Beaver Dam) said the vote on the money would be delayed. 

Born cited a report from the Dairyland Sentinel, a nonprofit publication published by Brian Fraley who is a longtime GOP strategist, that found through open records requests that the agency spent over $368,000 on its standard setting meeting in 2024. 

“We are not going to take up the DPI agenda item today. Within the last couple of hours a media report came out, Dairyland Sentinel report, regarding taxpayer use of funds at a resort for a conference,” Born said during the meeting. “Since it’s so new, we just want the opportunity to at least review what’s going on there with this questionable use of funds at least according to that report that’s very new, so just want to hit pause on that.”

The records request had been submitted about a year ago and was released after the Institute for Reforming Government (IRG), a conservative think tank, issued a demand letter on Jan. 21 on behalf of Dairyland Sentinel. The records were subsequently released. 

The report noted that the four-day event that included 88 educators and DPI staff was held in June 2024 at Chula Vista, a water park resort in the Wisconsin Dells. 

The Dairyland Sentinel report noted that Chula Vista is “a premier destination known for luxury amenities, including massive indoor and outdoor water parks, spa services, and multiple bars” and that “the agency did not provide receipts for staff time, food, travel, or lodging,” leaving taxpayers to “wonder how much of that $368,885 was spent on resort amenities, alcohol, or water park access for the 88 educators and various staff in attendance.” 

Chris Bucher, director of communications for DPI, told the Examiner in an email that the number cited by Dairyland Sentinel included all costs related to the standards setting meeting. Bucher said the agency works with its vendor for the Forward Exam, Data Recognition Corporation, each year to update the assessment and the work includes review of test questions at offsite, secure locations. 

“The department uses federal and state money directed to support the exam to pay for these events. The funding cited in the blog post includes salaries, hotel costs and vendor costs to perform the work – it is not all directed to Chula Vista,” Bucher said. “We conduct these meetings in Wisconsin to support our local tourism community and to cut down on associated travel costs for all involved. This is a common approach used by at least 24 other states who also contract with the DRC.”

Dairyland Sentinel emphasized that the fulfillment of the open records request did not include an itemized list associated with the overall cost.

Bucher said the Data Recognition Corporation provides the facilitation of the Forward Exam for more than 400,000 public and private school students as well as the standard setting workshop. Bucher said in response to why a breakdown of the costs wasn’t available that as the facilitator, Data Recognition Corporation plans and maintains the information related to costs and the agency is “working with them as we speak.”

Born said JFC expects to meet several times in the next four to six weeks as the end of the legislative session approaches and there “should be an opportunity to look at this again down the road, but we just wanted to make sure we had all the information necessary as we’re considering this request.” 

The $2 million, which makes up 10% of the DPI operating budget, was placed in a supplemental fund as a part of a deal negotiated between lawmakers and Gov. Tony Evers. Republican lawmakers on the Joint Finance Committee initially wanted to cut those funds from the agency’s budget. Since it is in a supplemental fund, it must be released by lawmakers on the JFC. 

Bucher said the agency is “deeply disappointed” by the delay. He said the agency had been in contact with committee members and staff leading up to yesterday’s meeting and lawmakers indicated that the committee was going to approve the request.

“The department was singled out for a set aside of 10% of its operating budget and without that money, will need to consider layoffs which will impact our ability to investigate educator wrongdoing, license teachers, pay choice schools and operate the agency,” Bucher said.

U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, who is running for governor, also weighed in — calling for an audit of the agency. 

“Their priorities are completely misplaced if they can waste nearly $400,000 on a water park junket to lower standards while claiming they need more funding. It took them over a year to respond to an open records request, and taxpayers should never have to wait that long for basic transparency,” Tiffany said in a statement.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

President Trump's statements that Republicans should take over and run elections in many states, the domestic deployment of armed agents who are shooting people in nearby cities, along with Wisconsin's long struggle over fair voting rules, makes for a tense election season. But voters still have the power to defend their rights. | Photo of an anti-gerrymandering sign in the Wisconsin State Capitol by the Wisconsin Examiner

Wisconsin was almost certainly on President Donald Trump’s mind when he said this week, “We should take over the voting, the voting in at least many — 15 places. The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.”

Our swing state was Ground Zero for the fake electors plot to overturn the results of the 2020 election after Trump narrowly lost here. Wisconsin U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson’s office was involved in the effort to pass off fraudulent Electoral College ballots cast by state Republicans for Trump. Our state Legislature hosted countless hearings spotlighting election deniers and wasted $2.5 million in taxpayer dollars on a fruitless “investigation” of the 2020 presidential results, led by disgraced former Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman, who threatened to arrest the mayors of Madison and Green Bay.

So how worried should we be about Trump’s election takeover threats?

“I wouldn’t be overly concerned that the president could get anything done that’s directly contrary to the Constitution,” says John Vaudreuil, a former U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Wisconsin and a member of the nonpartisan group Keep Our Republic, which works to promote trust in elections.

Not only does Article I of the U.S. Constitution expressly delegate elections administration to the states, Wisconsin has one of the most decentralized elections systems in the country, with about 1,800 local clerks running elections in counties, municipalities and townships throughout the state. “And they are Republicans, they are Democrats, they are independent,” Vaudreuil says. “Most fundamentally, they’re our neighbors, they’re our friends.” 

Trump’s threats of a federal takeover would be both legally and practically hard to pull off in Wisconsin.

But there is still reason to worry. Sowing distrust in elections takes a toll on clerks and poll workers, who have become less willing to put up with the threats and hostility generated by Trump’s attacks. Vaudreuil urges people to support their local elections officials and poll workers and spread the word that the work they do is important and that elections are secure.

Then there’s the danger that Trump could use his own false claims about election fraud to send federal immigration agents to the polls on the pretext that it’s necessary to address the nonexistent problem of noncitizen voting.

Doug Poland, director of litigation at the voting rights focused firm Law Forward, has been involved in election-related litigation in Wisconsin for years, including a lawsuit to block the Trump administration from forcing the state to turn over sensitive voter information. 

Poland sees Trump’s threats to “nationalize” elections as part of a pivot from Republican efforts to make in-person voting harder — on the dubious theory that there’s a huge problem with voter impersonation at the polls — to a new focus on stopping absentee voting after many people began using mail-in ballots during the pandemic. But really, it’s all about trying to make sure fewer people vote.

Under former Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Wisconsin passed a strict voter ID law, which one Republican former staffer testified made Republican legislators “giddy” as they discussed how it would make it more difficult for students and people of color to vote. 

Like Vaudreuil, Poland sees the current threat from the Trump administration not as an actual takeover of election administration by the federal government, but as an escalation of intimidation tactics.

“Noncitizens generally don’t vote. So it’s a lie,” Poland says. “But it’s, of course, the lie that they’re going to use as a premise to send, whether it’s ICE or whomever it may be, to polling places, probably in locations with Black and brown populations, and that is purely for the purpose of intimidation. And at the same time, they’re pushing back very hard on absentee voting by mail.”

If the Trump administration is preparing to send armed federal agents to the polls to intimidate voters, absentee voting will be more important than ever in the upcoming elections.

Yet, U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson recently told constituents that while he doesn’t think the federal government should take over elections administration, “I think we need to tighten up the requirements for absentee voting. I’m opposed to mail in register or mail in balloting.”

And as Erik Gunn reports, Wisconsin U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil’s Make Elections Great Again Act would restrict absentee voting, along with adding new layers of citizen verification steps while threatening to defund elections administrators who fail to comply with the bill’s onerous requirements.

“They’re going to do everything they can to try to make it harder to vote absentee by mail, to make it harder to vote absentee in person,” Poland says, adding, “They’re going to try to do it so they can put ICE agents around polling places and just try to intimidate people, to keep them away.”

So what can be done?

Voter intimidation is a crime, and specific instances can be addressed through lawsuits, Poland says. Still, he acknowledges (and Law Forward has argued in court) that once someone is deprived of the right to cast a ballot, there’s no remedy that can adequately compensate for that loss. That’s why it was so appalling when the city of Madison asserted that absentee voting is a “privilege” in response to a lawsuit brought by Poland’s organization over 200 lost ballots in the 2024 election.

Of course, in addition to worries about possible violations of individuals’ right to vote, there’s the fear that Trump could manage to subvert elections through heavy-handed tactics like the recent FBI raid to seize 2020 ballots from Fulton County. Both Vaudreuil and Poland think judges would step in to prevent such a seizure in the middle of an election, before the ballots were counted.

Meanwhile, in Wisconsin, absentee voting remains legal and many municipalities are using secure ballot drop boxes. We need to keep on making use of our right (not our privilege) to vote, using all the tools we have in place.

As for the intimidating effect of armed ICE agents at polling places, local officials and perhaps local law enforcement could have a role in protecting the polls and reassuring voters it’s safe to cast their ballots. Neighbors who have been organizing to warn people of ICE raids, bring food to immigrants who are afraid to leave their homes, and form a protective shield around schools could become self-appointed polling place protectors.

If we are going to defend the core tenets of our democracy against an administration that has demonstrated over and over again its contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law, it’s going to take massive public resistance and a flat refusal to give up our rights.

“What is it that will make them stand down from what they’re doing to break the law?” asks Poland. “I think the people of Minnesota have answered that for us better than anybody else can, which is that you have to stand up, you have to exercise your rights, First Amendment rights, the right to vote.”

Exercising our rights is the only way to make sure they are not taken away. Courage and collective action are the best protection we’ve got.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Julie Prokes hands out donated hand warmers and food for protesters and anyone else nearby in a parking lot at the Henry Whipple Federal Building Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2026. Any supplies not needed for protesters, he gives to the veteran's shelter just behind him. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

About 20 protesters stood behind the barricades on Federal Drive heckling federal agents about American values as they exited the Whipple Federal Building gates and sped off Tuesday afternoon when a bald eagle flew over the road. 

The Whipple building, which sits near the airport south of Minneapolis, has seen weeks of sustained protest since it has become the base of federal operations in the area and the site where people arrested by immigration agents — both immigrants and activists — have been detained. 

People at the facility this week said the number of protesters has begun to decline — even before the Trump administration announced Wednesday it would be pulling 700 agents out of the state. Despite the lower energy, the group outside of Whipple still included people who had been at the scene every day for weeks, as well as those there for the first time. 

Natalie Paquet said she’s an independent voter who was attending a protest for the first time because of the “constant rage” she’s been feeling about the actions of federal agents in her community. 

“The absolute destruction, the ignoring of the Constitution,” she said, calling the federal forces secret police. “What country do we live in?” 

As agents in SUVs cycled in and out of the facility, protesters blew whistles and used megaphones to trash talk the agents about their education levels, sexual proclivities and morals. The agents, often ignoring the stop signs at the intersection, occasionally responded with waves and blown kisses from behind their masks. 

A common refrain from citizens behind the fencing was that the building is serving as a concentration camp. That status was connected more than once to the violent history at nearby Fort Snelling. 

“I came to see the horror for myself,” said an area resident who only gave name as Sam. 

The Star Tribune recently reported the conditions inside of the building have been deteriorating, with one woman saying she was shackled by her ankles in a bathroom with three men for 24 hours. 

Julie Prokes said that prior to the operation in Minnesota he’d only ever been to large scale protests like the No Kings marches last year. Now, he’s been posted up at a table across the street from Whipple distributing food and warm drinks for 12 days straight to protesters and people released from custody — often with inadequate clothes for the winter weather. 

Joking that the hot tomato soup someone had dropped off had become a cold gazpacho, Prokes said he’s never done this kind of organizing. 

“I’m just a normal person,” he said, adding that despite the bad reputation Whipple has gotten as the site of clashes between protesters and federal agents, it’s become a safe place for new people to come express their frustration with the federal presence. 

The protests at Whipple have also attracted people coming from out of state, including Cindy Leonard, who has been driving about 45 minutes to Whipple every day from Somerset, Wisconsin. 

“I feel like I need to be here showing strength in numbers,” said Leonard. “They are violating Amendments one and four — so far.” 

Leonard said she’s taking training to help with legal observation of ICE activities across the St. Croix River, but she’ll be coming to Whipple “until ICE is out.” 

Richie Mead said he’s been at Whipple every day for more than two weeks. Off for the winter from his Massachusetts flower farm, he said he’s in Minnesota “fighting fascism.” 

“There’s people caring for each other on this side of the fence,” he said before pointing to an SUV turning out of the gates. “There’s a city that hates them.” 

Tom Edwards, a West St. Paul resident, stood by one of the stop signs on Federal Drive shaking his cane at each passing SUV, yelling that the agents inside were “cowards.” In late December, Edwards was arrested for allegedly brandishing a firearm at ICE agents, though he disputes the federal narrative, saying he never pointed the legally owned gun at anyone. 

Retired from the U.S. Navy and U.S. Postal Service, Edwards said he continued to come out despite the scrutiny he’s been under because “you don’t get to steal people.” 

“You can’t stand by and watch,” he said. “This is the groundwork for fascism.”

 

GOP lawmakers said they needed to reimplement checks on the executive branch. Gov. Tony Evers delivers his 2025 state budget address. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Republican lawmakers on Wednesday argued for a constitutional amendment proposal and a set of bills that would allow them greater say over the administrative rulemaking process.

The effort follows Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions in recent years that have limited lawmakers’ ability to restrict administrative rulemaking. The proposals are the result of a task force on administrative rulemaking organized by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester). 

Rep. Brent Jacobson (R-Mosinee), who chaired the task force, cited the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Evers v. Marklein II decision issued on July 8, 2025 that found unconstitutional statutes that allowed the 10-member Joint Committee on the Review of Administrative Rules’ to review and suspend administrative rules.

Jacobson’s constitutional amendment proposal, AJR 133, would allow state lawmakers to suspend indefinitely or temporarily administrative rules that are promulgated by state agencies with a vote of the full Senate and Assembly.

Jacobson said the proposal would “ensure that the Legislature remains an effective check on the administrative state and that our constituents can still look to us to be a voice in the rulemaking and regulatory process.” 

As a constitutional amendment, the proposal would need to pass the Legislature in two consecutive sessions before it would go to voters for a final vote. It would not require approval from the governor. This is the proposal’s first consideration. 

AB 955, coauthored by Jacobson, would repeal the current state statute that includes language allowing agencies to promulgate rules interpreting the provisions of any statute enforced or administered by the agency if it is necessary to enforce the statute. The bill would replace the language to prohibit agencies from promulgating rules interpreting the provisions of any statute without explicit and specific statutory authority.

Jacobson said the proposals are not about giving Republicans an advantage, but rather are about “ensuring good governance and our democratic system of checks and balances are in effect, regardless of which parties are in control of which branch of our state government.” 

Rep. Mike Bare (D-Verona)  expressed concerns about whether the bill would implement some “real tight constraints” on what agencies are able to do. 

“We trust our executive branch with some discretion over making things happen, implementing the policies and the statutes that we’re trying to have happen,” Bare said. “I’m wondering if that creates scenarios in the future [that]… limit too much what they’re able to do.”

“The key is that that statute should specifically and explicitly say, you have authority to promulgate rules around implementing the statute that we in the Legislature have passed,” Jacobson said in response. “That still gives them considerable discretion… Now if they go beyond what our intent was, that’s why we have the backstop of the constitutional amendment to say that rule that has taken effect now by joint resolution, we’re gonna suspend it, maybe temporarily.” 

Rep. Dan Knodl (R-Germantown) said he was glad the issue was in front of the committee. 

“The Legislature has been ceding authority for decades, and it probably goes back to the legislators not wanting to make tough decisions or take tough votes, but over time, a lot of authorities have been given to the executive branch. The agencies have absorbed a lot of that,” Knodl said. “Now we have a Supreme Court that is dialing back even more of our authority.” 

“Quite frankly, we’re on a path of irrelevance as a Legislature,” he added.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Democratic lawmakers gathered with a handful of veterans after the meeting to criticize the delay and call for Republican lawmakers to advance the bill. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

A bill that would provide funding to a program that helps identify the remains of missing-in-action service members is in limbo after an Assembly committee put off a vote Wednesday due to concerns by Republican lawmakers that Gov. Tony Evers would use his partial veto on the measure.

The University of Wisconsin Missing-In-Action (MIA) Recovery and Identification project, which was started in 2015 at the state’s flagship campus, works to further the recovery and identification of missing-in-action American service members. Those working on the project include researchers, students, veterans, alumni and volunteers who conduct research, recovery and biological identification. The program is partnered with the federal Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency (DPAA) on the work and has acted as a model for DPAA, which now partners with more than 50 other academic and nonprofit institutions to work on MIA identifications. 

AB 641, coauthored by Rep. Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee) and Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton), would appropriate $500,000 in each year of the 2025-27 fiscal biennium for the UW MIA Recovery Project. The purpose of the funds would be to allow the program to prioritize recovering and identifying service members from Wisconsin, according to written testimony from Hesselbein. 

According to the program, there are around 82,000 missing-in-action American service members with 1,500 of those coming from Wisconsin. According to the UW MIA program, of those from Wisconsin, approximately 1,300 were lost during World War II, over 160 were lost in the Korean War, 26 are missing from the Vietnam War and one service member is missing as the result of other Cold War-era operations.

The Assembly Veterans and Military Affairs committee was scheduled to vote Wednesday on the bill, setting it up for a vote on the Assembly floor. However, committee chair Rep. William Penterman (R-Hustisford) announced at the start of the committee that it had been removed from the calendar.

Sinicki thanked Penterman for his efforts but said she was disappointed with the entire Assembly Republican caucus because the bill is not being taken up.

“Many of you on this committee have come to me praising this program and tell me it’s got to get done, but once again that is so disingenuous — you are showing these military families just how disingenuous your support of this bill is,” Sinicki said during the committee meeting.

Sinicki said lawmakers were choosing once again to not “give these families the closure that they’re so desperately seeking” and that the “money requested is a drop in the bucket compared to the return that these families are going to get.” Wisconsin currently has a projected budget surplus of over $2 billion.

Penterman told the Wisconsin Examiner after the meeting the bill “just wasn’t ready for primetime” and said there are concerns in the Assembly Republican caucus related to what would happen if it makes it to Gov. Tony Evers’ desk.

“I mean, it spends money, so it gives the governor the option to line-item veto things, so he’s shown time to time again that he’s willing to take that to the extreme, so there’s concerns there,” Penterman said. 

Penterman said the pause on the vote Wednesday “doesn’t mean it’s not going anywhere for the rest of the session.”

Penterman also brushed off Sinicki’s accusation that the bill was removed from the calendar at the request of Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester).

“There’s been concerns. My job as chair is to listen to concerns of members on both sides… I’d rather give it more time than rush it,” Penterman said.

Republican lawmakers have worked hard to try to get around Evers’ partial veto powers for the last several years, taking additional steps to try to prevent such action including passing bills without funding attached during the budget cycle. Under Wisconsin state law, the executive partial veto power, which is one of the strongest in the nation, can only be used on appropriation bills. 

Evers proposed dedicating the same amount to the program that is specified in the current bill in his 2025-27 state budget, but Republican lawmakers rejected that proposal.

Evers’ spokesperson Britt Cudaback said in an email to the Examiner that there is “virtually no basis for such a concern” and it’s “an absolutely bogus excuse.” She noted Evers’ previous support for the effort as well as email exchanges between Penterman’s office and Evers’ office, which were shared with the Examiner.

On Jan. 29, the day the bill received a public hearing, Penterman emailed Evers’ office asking for assurances that Evers would not use his partial veto power on the bill before he would schedule a committee vote.

On Feb. 2, two days before the committee was to vote, Zach Madden, Evers’ legislative affairs director, confirmed in an email to Penterman that Evers would not use his partial veto power on the bill as long as it remained in its original form.

“As you may recall, the Governor has been extremely supportive of the program and has proposed funding the UW Missing-in-Action Recovery and Identification Project in the last three of his biennial budgets,” Madden wrote. “It has been your Republican colleagues on the Joint Committee on Finance that have removed it each time. We would need to review any amendments to the bill to extend this same commitment if there were to be any changes from what was originally proposed.”

Cudaback said on Wednesday that “it seems Republicans simply don’t want to fund a program that helps identify and recover the remains of Wisconsin veterans who are missing in action, and that’s no one’s fault but their own.”

Democratic lawmakers gathered with a handful of veterans after the meeting to criticize the delay and call for Republican lawmakers to advance the bill. They stood in front of the POW/MIA Chair of Honor, a permanently empty, dedicated seat to represent service members who never returned, in the rotunda of the Wisconsin State Capitol.

Sinicki said at the press conference that Vos is to blame for the bill being pulled from the calendar. She called for people who live in districts represented by Republicans to call their legislators and “tell them to stand up to Robin Vos.”

“[Vos] is the one and only person holding up this bill, and it’s because of his crazy hatred for our UW system. That is the only reason why he’s holding this bill,” Sinicki said. “It is time for him to put that hatred aside and do what’s right for our military families.”

Republican lawmakers have criticized the UW system for an array of reasons, including its spending, and sought to cut the UW budget in recent years. Vos, the state’s longest-serving Assembly speaker, has also been at the center of a number of bipartisan bills being blocked this session, including one to provide Medicaid coverage to postpartum mothers and to expand health insurance coverage of breast cancer screenings for at-risk women. His office did not respond to a request for comment from the Examiner by the time of publication.

Rep. Maureen McCarville (D-DeForest) spoke about her late uncle who died serving in the south Pacific in World War II. She said his remains were identified and returned seven decades after his death.

“I can’t say enough how much this project means to families out there… We need to fund this so that every other family can have that same closure,” McCarville said. “There are no words to express how disappointed I am sitting on the vets committee knowing that the chair of that committee, who is also an active service member, allowed this to be pulled from his agenda.”

Wisconsin VFW Adjutant Adam Wallace quoted the Soldier’s Creed, which says “never leave a fallen comrade,” and said the bill would help ensure this promise is kept. 

“We as a state have the opportunity to advance this piece of legislation, but unfortunately, petty politics and backroom politics has led to this being off the floor, and we are tired of the games,” Wallace said. “These games have real consequences. Every day, every year, every legislative session this does not pass is one next of kin or family member who can’t bring that closure.” 

Sinicki told the Examiner that the concerns about a partial veto are “an excuse they’re using to cover their butts.” She said barring some change, she thinks this is likely the end of the line for the bill this session. 

“I would find it hard to believe that they would do anything at this point,” she said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A demonstrator waves a red cloth as hundreds gather after ICE agent Jonathan Ross shot and killed Renee Good through her car window Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2026 near Portland Avenue South and East 34th Street in Minneapolis. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

WASHINGTON — The top two Democrats in Congress on Wednesday outlined their proposal for restrictions on immigration enforcement, including body cameras and a ban on masks, though they had no details to share about when actual negotiations would begin.

Lawmakers from both political parties have less than two weeks to find a solution before the stopgap law funding the Department of Homeland Security expires Feb. 13, which could force all of its components, including the Coast Guard and Federal Emergency Management Agency, into a shutdown. However, Immigration and Customs Enforcement still has access to $75 billion in funding included in the massive tax cuts and spending package signed into law last year.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said the offer that he and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., were sending to Republicans was the result of “a very productive discussion.”

“Dramatic changes are necessary at the Department of Homeland Security with respect to its enforcement activities so that ICE and other agencies are conducting themselves like every other law enforcement agency in the country, not in so many instances in a rogue or lawless manner,” Jeffries said. 

Democrats will insist that federal immigration agents: 

• Wear body cameras
• Only wear masks to conceal their identities in “extraordinary and unusual circumstances”
• Do not undertake roving patrols
• Do not detain people in certain locations, like houses of worship, schools, or polling places
• Do not engage in racial profiling
• Do not detain or deport American citizens 

Jeffries said that judicial, as opposed to administrative, warrants should be required “before everyday Americans are ripped out of their homes or snatched out of cars violently.

“The Fourth Amendment is not an inconvenience, it’s a requirement embedded in our Constitution that everyone should follow.”

That amendment states the government shall not violate the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” and that warrants can only be issued with probable cause.  

Administrative warrants are not signed by a judge, but approved by ICE officers themselves. Under U.S. immigration law, ICE also has some authority to conduct warrantless arrests if an immigration officer comes across a person suspected to be in the country unlawfully and believes that person will escape before a warrant can be obtained. 

Accountability measures

Democrats will also press Republicans to agree to what Schumer described as “real accountability.”

“There’s got to be outside, independent oversight by state and local governments, by individuals,” Schumer said. “And there’s got to be a right to sue, there’s got to be a right to go to court and stop this.” 

Schumer criticized Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., for saying that immigration agents should be able to wear masks, referring to them as “secret police” who need “to be identified more than any other group.”

“I would bet when Speaker Johnson goes down to Louisiana, the sheriffs and the police deputies are well identified, as they are in almost every city,” he said. 

When pressed about Johnson saying Republicans wouldn’t agree to require judicial warrants, Jeffries said the speaker had “articulated unreasonable positions.”

“He’s actually supporting the notion that masked and lawless ICE agents should be deployed in communities throughout America,” Jeffries said. “Mike Johnson called the Fourth Amendment an inconvenience. It’s not an inconvenience. It’s part of the fabric and DNA of our country, just like the First Amendment, yes even the Second Amendment, the 10th Amendment, the Fourth Amendment.

“We’re standing up for all of these constitutional privileges that have been part of who we are since the very beginning.” 

Negotiation timeline

Schumer said during the press conference that Democrats from the House and Senate were prepared to begin negotiations with Republicans, but would insist on changes “to rein in ICE in very serious ways.”

“If they’re not serious and they don’t put in real reform, they shouldn’t expect our votes, plain and simple,” he said.

Schumer appeared somewhat skeptical that Alabama Republican Sen. Katie Britt, whom Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., put forward as their top negotiator, was truly empowered to cut a deal on behalf of every GOP senator. 

Britt, chairwoman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, told reporters Wednesday that she expects lawmakers will need to approve another stopgap spending bill for the department, signaling she doesn’t expect a deal within the next two weeks. 

“We need a little more time, so hopefully (Democrats) see the good effort that we’ve made … and we’ll have another CR,” she said, referring to the technical name for a short-term funding bill, a continuing resolution. 

Britt did not say how long that temporary funding measure for the Department of Homeland Security would last.

Any spending bill, whether short or long, will need Democratic support to move through procedural votes in the Senate. 

Congress has approved 11 of the 12 annual funding bills, so DHS would be the only part of the federal government to shut down if lawmakers cannot approve its full-year bill or another stopgap measure before its funding expires.

WisconsinEye Board of Directors Chair Mark O’Connell called WisconsinEye “a worthy, appropriate use of state funds” for people to know how their elected officials are “controlling and charting the course of our future.” (Screenshot via WisconsinEye)

An Assembly committee voted Tuesday to advance a bill to provide long-term support to WisconsinEye, the state’s nonprofit news organization that livestreams and archives government meetings and legislative sessions.

WisconsinEye resumed its coverage in February — after more than  a month offline — with the help of a $50,000 cash infusion approved by the Joint Committee on Legislative Organization Monday.

Mark O’Connell, chair of the WisconsinEye Board of Directors, explained the organization’s financial difficulties to lawmakers during the Assembly State Affairs committee hearing. 

After going off air, O’Connell told lawmakers on the committee that WisconsinEye had reduced some salaries and cut back on expenses as much as possible. It also turned to state lawmakers, who had already set aside $10 million to be used for an endowment for the organization, but with match requirements that WisconsinEye could not meet. The organization also started to boost its fundraising efforts among small-dollar donors. A GoFundMe has raised over $56,000 as of Tuesday.

“While you allocated $10 million to WisconsinEye and said, ‘If you can raise $10 million, we’ll give you matching dollars up to $10 million,’ — that was incredibly gracious of you — but that was hard, hard to the point where it couldn’t be done in a very difficult fundraising environment,” O’Connell said. “That has resulted in where we are today.” 

O’Connell called WisconsinEye “a worthy, appropriate use of state funds” for people to know how their elected officials are “controlling and charting the course of our future.”

Under the Assembly proposal, which was first announced by Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine) and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) last month, the match requirements for the $10 million would be eliminated and the money would go to establishing an endowment fund for WisconsinEye.

“WisconsinEye will still have to put in quite a bit of work and raise the remainder of their operating budget each year,” Neubauer told lawmakers Tuesday. “If we assume a rate of return of about 4 to 7% on the endowment, WisconsinEye will still have to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to be able to maintain something close to their current budget, which is $950,000 annually.” 

Neubauer said the organization has said that maintaining that budget is necessary to operate at its current level and to meet its contractually obligated services. She added that she hopes that one day WisconsinEye would be able to cover every committee meeting and hearing in the state Capitol, though that would “require strong private fundraising from them.”

“If we… bring in about $600,000 from the endowment each year, they would need to raise about $350,000. They have communicated that they think that that’s possible,” Neubauer said. “They would live off the interest. The endowment stays with the state of Wisconsin.”

O’Connell told lawmakers that approving the bill would help secure additional funding from donors. 

“We are going to continue to raise funds as best we can. We currently have seven entities that contribute $25,000 per year. We have one entity that contributes $50,000 per year. We have a handful of folks that, to the tune of about $175,000, that are waiting to see if this commitment from the state is solid, and if it is, then we’re going to see those funds come in,” O’Connell said. “I am very optimistic that if we can come to a resolution on this piece of legislation, that we are going to be in a relatively strong position to have a solid base with the partnership with the state as we continue to do fundraising in the private sector.” 

The proposal would require WisconsinEye to add four additional members to its board of directors who would be appointed by each legislative caucus leader, focus its coverage primarily on official state government meetings and business, provide free online public access to its live broadcasts and digital archives as well as submit an annual financial report to the Legislature and the Joint Finance Committee. The board appointees would not be allowed to be current legislators.

The bill also states that if WisconsinEye ceases operations and divests its assets, then it must pay back the grants and transfer its archives to the Wisconsin Historical Society.

O’Connell said there are some other details that need to be worked out with the bill. He said WisconsinEye will need “bridge financing” to help the organization function until interest from the trust fund begins to come in. 

“We’ve got to operate between now and whenever that return comes in, so we’ll need some kind of bridge. We’ll work with the Legislature on that,” O’Connell said. “We will need to work on the trust fund language. We would like the state of Wisconsin investment board to be aggressive… There are some issues we’ll have to address, but we are incredibly appreciative of the state of Wisconsin… saying [to] the citizens of Wisconsin, it is important for us in the Legislature for you to know what we are doing.”

The committee approved the bill unanimously immediately following the public hearing, setting it up for a vote in the full Assembly in the near future.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Oak Bluff Natural Area in Door County, which was protected by the Door County Land Trust using Knowles-Nelson Stewardship funds in 2023. (Photo by Kay McKinley)

A pair of Republican lawmakers, desperate to advance a Knowles-Nelson stewardship program bill that can garner GOP support, urged Senate lawmakers and members of advocacy organizations to get on board with pausing land acquisition for two years.

“I think we’ve landed it in a good spot now. Is it perfect? I’ll be the first to admit this is not a perfect bill,” Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point) said during the Senate Financial Institutions and Sporting Heritage committee meeting Tuesday. “If we simply allow the clock to run out, this program goes away, and I certainly don’t want to be behind the wheel when the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship program phases out.”

Since 1990, the Warren Knowles-Gaylord Nelson Stewardship Program has preserved wildlife habitat and expanded outdoor recreation opportunities throughout Wisconsin by authorizing state borrowing and spending for the purchase of land and by giving grants to local governments and nonprofit conservation organizations.

The program will run out of money on June 30, 2026 without legislative action. Reaching an agreement to continue the program has been difficult, however, with Testin telling the committee that legislators  have faced “buzzsaws” from all sides as they have worked to put together their plan. 

The Assembly passed a pair of amended bills on a 53-44 party line vote last month.

“A lot of my colleagues said ‘Oh, you’ll never get a hearing in the Senate,’” Kurtz said. “Thanks to Chairman Stafsholts, we’re having a hearing in the Senate, so it’s baby steps. It’s like chopping wood. Sen.  Testin and I are committed to keep working on this.” 

“It’s not done, so time hasn’t ran out,” Kurtz added.

Under the current proposal, the program would receive funding for another two years. 

The DNR would need to conduct a survey of all of the land that has been acquired under the stewardship program under the bill, as well as listing land acquisition priorities. The survey would need to be submitted to the Legislature in two years.

Kurtz told the committee that recent changes to the bill do “refocus” the program towards maintaining the land that has already been acquired under the program. He said that lawmakers had to make “some tough decisions.”

“It does temporarily change the focus of the program to maintain what we already own and catch up on backlog maintenance, while DNR is doing the study, planning and prioritizing a comprehensive path forward for land acquisition,” Kurtz said. “We’re confident this plan will ensure the long-term legacy of stewardship for generations.”

The lawmakers said there are still some additional changes to the bill to come. 

Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay) expressed concerns about the decreasing funding and scope of the program and questioned how lawmakers got to the point of cutting the land acquisitions portion of the program. 

The Knowles-Nelson program is currently funded at about $33 million annually. Habush Sinykin and Democratic lawmakers proposed a bill that would dedicate $72 million to it and Gov. Tony Evers had called for over $100 million for it in his budget.

The GOP bill in its current state would dedicate $28.25 million.

The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) would be allowed to obligate $13.25 million a year under the bill in its current form. Of that, $1 million would be for land acquisition — a cut from $16 million — that could only be used for the Ice Age Trail. DNR would also be able to obligate $9.25 million for property development and local assistance — a cut from $14.25 million — and $3 million for recreational boating aids. 

Funding for the program includes $7.75 million for DNR property development and grants, $4 million for local assistance grants and $3 million for grants for wildlife habitat restoration. There would also be $250,000 set aside each year to be used for DNR land acquisitions, but acquisitions would be limited to parcels of land that are five acres or less and meant to improve access to hunting, fishing, or trapping opportunities or are contiguous to state-owned land.

“Where we find ourselves now is a situation where we have zero dollars awarded to land acquisition,” Habush Sinykin said, adding, “When does this program stop being the Knowles Nelson stewardship program?” 

Testin said the funding was what was “politically palatable” for the Republican authors’  Assembly and Senate colleagues.

“There are some individuals that have strong feelings both for and against this program,” Testin said. “And where we think we’ve landed is at a point to keep the program going in some form or fashion, continue to put state resources behind it, and then as we do every two years, when we come back in January 2027, regardless of what happens in — shakes out in the November elections, we will begin another state budget process, which then gives us the opportunity once again to take a look at where we are financially as a state, hopefully put more resources into various programs, whether it’s Knowles-Nelson or others.” 

Habush Sinykin said funding acquisitions is necessary to maintain the “vitality” of the program. She also noted that there is strong bipartisan support for the program including from constituents and from conservation and recreation organizations 

“What we’re hearing is we in the Legislature need to put our money where our values are, and this is a program that is valued,” Habush Sinykin said. 

Kurtz shared what he said was the “Assembly perspective” with the committee. 

“It became abundantly clear for the [Republican] caucus I represent that land acquisition was a problem, and that’s why we kind of pivoted to the major land acquisitions, which some people did not like that as well,” Kurtz said. “I’d love to see more money in the program… But I know what the power of our caucuses is, they don’t like borrowing money, and so that’s an issue. They don’t like buying all the land up north. That’s an issue…. Let’s focus for a couple years on maintaining what we have. Let’s do the inventory. Let’s see what the path is for, and in two years, we’re going to be right back here, saying, hey, we need to do this.”

Part of the political problem for the popular Knowles-Nelson stewardship program involves legislative Republicans’ resentment of a 2025 state Supreme Court decision. 

For many years, Wisconsin lawmakers exercised control over the program through the Joint Finance Committee. Members of the committee had the ability to anonymously object to any project and have it held up for an indeterminate time. But last year the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that anonymous objections were unconstitutional, with conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley writing for the majority that the statutes “encroach upon the governor’s constitutional mandate to execute the law.” 

Republican lawmakers on the committee complained that eliminating the anonymous veto had placed them in a difficult position. 

Committee Chair Sen. Rob Stafsholts (R-New Richmond) said he was “a little disappointed” that the committee  had to be there working on the issue at all, noting that the state Supreme Court ruling changed the shape of the program.

Testin said there was not a problem with the way that the program functioned prior to the decision and that the Supreme Court ruling is the reason the program is in trouble. 

“By and large, the vast majority of projects that came before the finance committee were approved and enumerated,” Testin said. “We no longer have that authority and put this entire program in jeopardy.” 

Republican lawmakers on the committee suggested that environmental groups that supported the Supreme Court case overturning the anonymous veto process were responsible for damaging the Knowles-Nelson program. 

Cody Kamrowski, executive director for the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, met a cold reception when he told lawmakers about his organization’s decision to withdraw its support for the bill after the recent amendments.

“Land acquisition is not incidental. It is what makes public access, habitat protection and outdoor opportunity possible in the state of Wisconsin,” Kamrowski said, warning that setting aside more land is particularly important in fast-growing areas where preserving wild land will soon be “gone forever.” 

“Have you thought about where we’re at and the political reality of where this program is at?” Stafsholts replied.

Charles Carlin, director of strategic initiatives for Gathering Waters, an alliance of 40 land trusts around Wisconsin, said his organization is concerned about the elimination of the land acquisition portions of the program and language that would limit habitat management to government-owned land. 

GOP lawmakers on the committee were not receptive to Carlin’s pleas, especially since his  organization was part of the Supreme Court case as a co-plaintiff.

“Do you as an organization regret intervening in that lawsuit knowing where we’re sitting here today?” Sen. John Jagler (R-Watertown) asked.

Carlin said Gathering Waters is “incredibly proud of the work” the group  did on the lawsuit. He noted that there were more than two dozen projects blocked by the committee in the first two years of Evers’ term. 

“I don’t agree with the framing of the question that we are here today because of the Court decision,” Carlin said. “We are here today because of an apparent reluctance to come together and make a bipartisan compromise to keep the program moving forward.”

“I will happily go before the public any day to talk about why projects should always move forward with a democratic process, and that all of our decisions in government should be transparent and open to public scrutiny,” he added.

Stafsholts disagreed. 

“I think that 100% of the reason we’re sitting here today is because of that lawsuit… you can’t sit there silently and watch something dramatically reduce the ability to have stewardship in Wisconsin and then come back here and beg for it.” Stafsholts said. 

Testin said the lawsuit is the reason he and Kurtz had to “bend over backwards” and “move heaven and Earth” to get a bill advanced in the Legislature. 

After the hearing, Carlin told the Examiner he wasn’t expecting to be challenged on his group’s participation in the lawsuit during the hearing. He questioned Republican lawmakers’  characterization of  the “anonymous objector” system as good governance. He also said that Republicans could simply work together with Democrats to pass a bill that continues the program, which has long enjoyed broad, bipartisan support. Instead, Republicans are presenting an ultimatum that they will only consider a bill that has majority Republican support. 

“This is what is politically possible right now, if we only rely on the votes of Republican legislators,” Carlin said, noting that all 60 Democratic legislators signed on as cosponsors to a Democratic proposal and the authors of that proposal, including Habush Sinykin, have said they want to work with Republicans. “Compromise is an absolute necessity in the Senate… If lawmakers were willing to work across the aisle — and they don’t even have to meet in the middle, they just have to make some meaningful progress towards supporting the core functions of the program — then there would be absolutely no problem getting this across the finish line,” he said. “The problem is only there if lawmakers insist on it being a partisan bill.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A border patrol agent stands in front of protestors as people gather near the scene of 26th Street West and Nicollet Avenue, where federal agents shot and killed a 37-year-old man Saturday, Jan. 24, 2026, the third shooting in as many weeks. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

A Border Patrol agent warned Nicole Cleland last month that she’d be arrested if she were again discovered following and observing federal officers. 

Three days later, the 56-year-old Richfield resident received an email saying her expedited airport security screening privileges had been revoked.

Cleland is a frequent traveler and had held Global Entry and TSA PreCheck status without incident since 2014. So the timing of the notice seemed curious, she said in a sworn declaration filed in support of the American Civil Liberties Union’s lawsuit challenging federal law enforcement tactics in Minnesota. The Border Patrol and Transportation Security Administration are both subdivisions of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, as is U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“Given that only three days had passed from the time that I was stopped, I am concerned that the revocation was the result of me following and observing the agents. This is intimidation and retaliation,” Cleland said in the declaration.  

A year into the second Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, Cleland is one of countless U.S. residents and visitors touched by the federal government’s rapidly changing data collection and surveillance apparatus. Some, like an AI-powered social media analyzer and an error-prone facial recognition tool, evoke dystopian sci-fi. Others, like automatic license plate readers, have been around for decades. 

Elected officials, privacy advocates, and ordinary community members working as constitutional observers are increasingly alarmed that the Trump administration could use these tools to chill constitutionally protected expression, while at the same time pressuring tech companies — many of which have cozied up to Trump in his second term — to make it harder for Americans to keep tabs on their government. 

Senior administration officials haven’t done much to dispel those concerns. Tom Homan, the “border czar” who’s now the face of Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota, said on Jan. 15 that he’s pushing to create a “database” of people who “interfere or impede or assault an ICE officer.” 

Such a database wouldn’t outwardly differ much from the numerous information repositories the federal government already maintains. But its purpose — and, in some cases, the tools used to collect and analyze the data — may prove to be a new frontier in the emerging surveillance state.  

Facial recognition software

The Border Patrol agent who warned Cleland told her his unit had “facial recognition,” according to her deposition.

Reporting by 404 Media and other media outlets indicates that ICE and other federal immigration enforcement agencies use multiple AI-powered facial recognition tools, including Mobile Fortify and Clearview AI. Local law enforcement agencies deputized to work with ICE use a different facial recognition app, Mobile Identify, according to NPR.

DHS has used facial recognition software at airports and land border crossings for years, but its use in the field is a more recent development that civil liberties experts say represents a major expansion of government surveillance. 

Using proprietary algorithms, the tools try to match images captured in the field with data already in DHS databases, including names, birthdates, citizenship status and photos taken at U.S. entry points. DHS says it retains “biographic exit data” on U.S. citizens and permanent residents for 15 years, though it’s unclear whether this applies to images collected in the field as well.

Even before Operation Metro Surge began in earnest, lawmakers sounded alarms about the implications.

“This type of on-demand surveillance is harrowing and it should put all of us on guard,” U.S. Sen. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, told NPR in November.

Human analytics apps

ICE also uses AI-powered apps to analyze social media activity and other digital data points to create “life profiles” for people of interest.

The agency has spent at least $5 million on Tangles, a sophisticated tool developed by a company with ties to Israel’s cyber-intelligence community, Forbes reported in September. Tangles mines social media posts, event sign-ups, mobile contacts, location data and more to create nuanced individual portraits and tease out patterns of activity — including organizing and protest — in specific places.

“Our powerful web intelligence solution monitors online activity, collecting and analyzing data of endless digital channels – from the open, deep and dark web, to mobile and social,” Tangles’ Microsoft Marketplace listing says.

The Verge reported in October that ICE has spent a similar amount on another digital monitoring tool called Zignal Labs, which uses AI text and video analysis to process billions of social media posts daily into what it calls “curated detection feeds.” The product includes near real-time alerts. “Sample workflows” featured in a Zignal Labs marketing pamphlet shared with The Lever include “an ongoing operation in Gaza” and a 2023 social media post purporting to show U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh at the Mall of America.

Cellular snooping

Since September 2024, ICE has paid more than $1.6 million to a Maryland company that integrates a type of cell-site simulator popularly known as a “stingray” into government vehicles. 

TechCrunch first reported the purchases, which are a matter of public record. It’s unclear how often ICE uses vehicles equipped with stingrays in its operations, but a Utah judge reportedly authorized the agency to use one to track down a specific individual last summer. 

Stingrays trick nearby cell phones into connecting with them instead of legitimate transmitters, collecting reams of random users’ data in the process. That, plus past instances of warrantless snooping, makes them controversial even among law enforcement agencies. Ars Technica reported in 2015 that the FBI required local law enforcement agencies to drop cases rather than reveal evidence in court that “would potentially or actually compromise the equipment/technology.”

ICE is also interested in using — and may already be using — another cell-snooping tool that requires no external hardware. 

Last summer, the independent national security journalist Jack Poulson reported that the agency had reactivated a $2 million contract with the Israeli spyware developer Paragon Solutions. Once delivered via text message — no link required — Paragon’s spyware gains broad access to a phone’s contents, including encrypted messages.

“It’s an extremely dangerous surveillance tech that really goes against our Fourth Amendment protections,” Jeramie Scott, senior counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, told NPR in November.

“The issue is not whether we remember the past, because we don't have a memory problem, we have a mobilization problem," Pastor Treyvon J. Sinclair of Christ the King Baptist Church said during his keynote address. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Wisconsin’s Legislative Black Caucus kicked off its annual celebration of Black History Month in the Capitol rotunda Tuesday with a ceremony that included the playing of drums by One City School students, a group rendition of  “Lift Every Voice and Sing” — the Black National Anthem — and Rep. Supreme Moore Omokunde (D-Milwaukee) pouring libations to honor ancestors.

Sen. Dora Drake (D-Milwaukee), the chair of the caucus, said the event was a moment to “honor and celebrate the rich tapestry of Black history, a story woven deeply into the fabric of our nation.” 

“Black history is the cornerstone of understanding, empathy and unity. By embracing the full scope of our history, we equip our youth with the knowledge to foster a multicultural, just and informed society,” Drake said. “The words that resonate deeply with me: you don’t truly love America unless she has made you cry. Our love for our nation is not just rooted in its triumphs but also in the lessons learned from its flaws and challenges. It is through acknowledging our past that we pave the way for a more united and equitable future.”

Pastor Treyvon J. Sinclair of Christ the King Baptist Church delivered a keynote address, telling the crowd gathered in the Capitol that Black history did not start in a textbook.

“It started in a courtroom. It started in cotton fields. It started in a jail cell or in church spaces. It started anywhere Black people were told, ‘You don’t belong.’ We said, ‘Well, if you don’t want to make room for us, we’ll build our own.’ We don’t celebrate Black History because life is good. We celebrate it because life was brutal,” Sinclair said. “Memory became our resistance. Education became our rebellion. Faith became our fuel.” 

Sinclair called on Black Wisconsinites to organize to fight for stronger communities and progress.

“Division in our community is intentional… They don’t fear anger, but they fear our agreement. Because history knows that when Black people get organized, systems get nervous. When Black people get united, laws get rewritten. When Black people get strategic, empires get uncomfortable,” Sinclair said. “The issue is not whether we remember the past, because we don’t have a memory problem, we have a mobilization problem. We know the names, we know the dates, we know the quotes, but the question is, can we build something in the future worthy of the blood that was shed in the past?”

“Our ancestors didn’t survive for us to be comfortable. They survived for us to be courageous. They’ve survived for us to be builders. They survived for us to be free enough to fight for somebody else,” Sinclair said.

The Legislative Black Caucus plans to host its “State of Black Wisconsin” later this month in conjunction with its Black advocacy day in the Capitol. The lawmakers plan to unveil their annual policy agenda, which will take into account feedback from a statewide tour the caucus did last year.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

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

President Donald Trump restated a call Tuesday for federal control over election administration across the country, undermining the structure outlined in the Constitution that empowers states to run elections.

For the second time in as many days, Trump indicated he wanted the federal government more involved in elections. The issue renews concerns over Trump’s expansion of presidential power, which critics of his second presidency have labeled authoritarian.

Speaking after a bill signing ceremony in the Oval Office and surrounded by Republican leaders in Congress, he responded to a question about earlier comments on “nationalizing” election administration by indicating the lawmakers standing behind him should “do something about it.” 

“I want to see elections be honest,” he said. “If you think about it, the state is an agent for the federal government in elections. I don’t know why the federal government doesn’t do them anyway.”

Trump repeated debunked claims that he lost the 2020 presidential election only because of election fraud, especially in large Democrat-leaning cities including Atlanta, Philadelphia and Detroit.

“The federal government should not allow that,” he said. “The federal government should get involved. These are agents of the federal government to count the votes. If they can’t count the votes legally and honestly, then somebody else should take over.”

The comments marked the second time in as many days that Trump has floated a federal takeover of election infrastructure and came after Republican leaders in Congress and the White House press secretary had downplayed his earlier remarks.

In a podcast interview released Monday, Trump said his party should “nationalize” elections.

“The Republicans should say, ‘We want to take over,’” he said. “We should take over the voting, the voting in at least many — 15 places. The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.”

Afternoon walkback

Reporters asked U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune at press availabilities Tuesday about Trump’s initial comments. 

Both avoided endorsing the view and sought to tie them to GOP legislation that would create a nationwide requirement that voters show proof of citizenship.

“We have thoughtful debate about our election system every election cycle and sometimes in between,” Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, said. “We know it’s in our system: The states have been in charge of administering their elections. What you’re hearing from the president is his frustration about the lack of some of the blue states, frankly, of enforcing these things and making sure that they are free and fair elections. We need constant improvement on that front.”

“I think the president has clarified what he meant by that, and that is that he supports the SAVE Act,” Thune, a South Dakota Republican, said earlier Tuesday. “There are other views, probably, when it comes to nationalizing or federalizing elections, but I think at least on that narrow issue, which is what the SAVE Act gets at, I think that’s what the president was addressing.”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt also endorsed the GOP elections bill and said states and cities that allow noncitizens to vote in local elections created a system that was rife with fraud. Reports of election fraud are exceedingly rare.

“There are millions of people who have questions about that, as does the president,” she said. “He wants to make it right and the SAVE Act is the solution.”

But Trump on Tuesday evening, with Johnson among those standing behind him, seemed to indicate a broader desire for the federal government to be directly involved with election administration.

2020 election history

Trump has a charged history with claims around election integrity.

His persistent lie that he won the 2020 election, despite dozens of court cases that showed no determinative fraud, sparked the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol as his supporters sought to reverse the election results.

He has continued to make the claim since returning to office and spoke by phone with FBI agents who seized voting machines in Fulton County, Georgia, according to New York Times reporting, raising questions about his use of law enforcement to reinforce his political power.

Trump’s opponents, some of whom have said he is sliding toward authoritarianism in his second term, quickly rebuked his recent comments.

“Donald Trump called for Republican officials to ‘take over’ voting procedures in 15 states,” Sen. Mark Warner, a Virginia Democrat, wrote on social media. “People of all political parties need to be able to stand up and say this can’t happen.”

Walter Olson, a senior fellow with the libertarian Cato Institute, said in a statement that federalization of elections would be a bad idea on the merits, but Trump’s history raised additional concern and called for Americans to be “vigilant against any repeated such attempt before, during or after the approaching midterms.”

“This trial balloon for a federal takeover is not coming from any ordinary official,” Olson said. “It is coming from a man who already once tried to overturn a free and fair election because it went against him, employing a firehose of lies and meritless legal theories, and who repeatedly pressed his underlings, many of whom in those days were willing to say ‘no’ about schemes such as sending in federal troops to seize voting machines.”