An advocacy group's report highlights the financial impact Trump administration policies is having on Wisconsin residents. (Getty Images)

Democrats hoping to end GOP control of the state Legislature and Congress are stepping up their argument that the administration of President Donald Trump along with Republican majorities in both the U.S. and Wisconsin capitols have driven up costs for average members of the public.

On Monday, an advocacy group that opposes the Trump administration released a six-page document that focuses on Wisconsin examples of higher costs across the board, from groceries to utilities to health care. The report, from Defend America Action, draws on news reports, government data and polling to argue that federal policies “are ripping away Wisconsinites’ economic security.”

The opening page of the document — signed by five state Senate Democrats and Secretary of State Sarah Godlewski — declares, “Between his massive cuts to government spending, the Trump-GOP Big, Ugly Bill, and his disastrous tariff regime, Trump’s agenda is hurting the local economy in all areas, stoking a dire affordability crisis as food prices, energy bills, health care costs, and housing costs spike.”

“What I am hearing in the district every day is that ‘Everything is getting more expensive. I am working more and I am getting less in return,’” state Sen. Dora Drake (D-Milwaukee), one of the signers, told the Wisconsin Examiner via email.

“The common theme here is who is looking out for them,” Drake said. “Trump and the Republican Party are praising higher stocks, but that investment is not trickling down to working families, and they are paying the price.”

Combining the answers of people who are “very concerned” and “somewhat concerned,” the report cites the finding that 89% of people who answered a Marquette Law School poll released Oct. 29, 2025, were worried about the state of the economy. The poll also found 95% of those surveyed were concerned about inflation.

The same poll found that 80% of Wisconsin voters surveyed were concerned about housing affordability, including 53% who answered that they were “very concerned.”

The October poll was the most recent from Marquette Law School focusing on Wisconsin’s 2026 elections and voter issues. (Two subsequent Marquette poll reports, in early November and late January, surveyed national samples on national issues, focusing on the U.S. Supreme Court.)

The report marshals data from across nearly all sectors of the economy. It cites the persistence of higher grocery prices and increases in health insurance premiums, particularly for people who buy their own coverage through the HealthCare.gov marketplace created by the Affordable Care Act.

Enhanced subsidies to lower the cost of those premiums expired at the end of 2025. A bill to extend them for another three years has passed the U.S. House but has been stalled in the U.S. Senate.

Sen. Brad Pfaff (D-Onalaska), who also signed the report, said in an interview that he recently heard from a farmer in his district whose insurance through the marketplace, which used to cost $50 per month last year, is now $500 per month due to the loss of the subsidies.

“It went from $600 a year, I guess, to $6,000,” Pfaff said. Referring to the federal government’s decision to end enhanced subsidies, he added, “When we are telling the self-employed and those at small businesses that purchase their health insurance though the marketplace that, you know what, we’re not going to do that anymore because of partisan politics, that causes real consternation.”

The report also cites recent data showing a cooling job market and cuts to clean energy projects that had been initiated under President Joe Biden. It blames agricultural economic turmoil on see-sawing tariffs as well as, in some sectors, the Trump administration’s focus on deporting immigrants.

Farmers “are being squeezed on both ends,” Pfaff said, with the rising costs for seed, fertilizer, machinery repairs and other inputs.

“When farmers need certainty, you add on top of that the fact that they continue to struggle to move their crop commodities in the marketplace because of this ping pong that’s being played at the national level by the White House when it comes to trade policy,” Pfaff said. “When you have a situation in which grocery prices are rising, but yet farmers struggle in order to put a crop in the ground, there’s something wrong.”

The Defend America Action report pins responsibility for other impending cost increases on the 2025 federal tax- and spending-cut bill that Republicans in Congress passed and Trump signed in July. The bill rolled back clean energy tax credits enacted in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act and also made changes to Medicaid and to the federal Supplemental Food Assistance Program (SNAP).

A clean energy advocacy organization has estimated that canceling clean energy tax credits will raise utility costs for Wisconsin consumers by 13% to 22%. Gov  Tony Evers has projected Medicaid changes could cost Wisconsin $284 million.

A separate report Feb. 3 from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that overall the megabill — referred to by Trump and Republican authors as  the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” — “will redistribute trillions of dollars upward over the next decade, making it harder for families with modest incomes to meet their basic needs while helping those at the top accumulate more wealth.”

The bill cuts taxes by $4.5 trillion, primarily benefiting the wealthiest households, the CBBP reported. The bottom 20% of households by income “will lose more from the cuts in health coverage, food assistance, and other programs than they will gain in tax cuts,” the CBPP said, citing Congressional Budget Office data. 

For the bottom 10% of earners, average household incomes will fall by $1,200, or 3.1%, the report said, and the top 10% of earners  will see their household incomes rise by $13,600 on average, or 2.7%.

Drake told the Wisconsin Examiner that she believes the Trump administration’s actions attacking democracy and targeting immigrants are aimed at distracting people from policies that redistribute wealth upwards.

“Affordability is the underlying issue affecting everyone regardless of who you are,” said Drake. “Instead of helping people and holding those with the most power accountable, he wants Americans to blame our neighbors and communities of different backgrounds for the reasoning behind their struggles.” 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Alabama state Sen. Matt Woods, a Republican, speaks to a colleague on the floor of the Alabama Senate in January. The Senate passed a bill Woods sponsored that would prohibit civil courts from issuing nondisclosure agreements against survivors of child sexual abuse. (Photo by Brian Lyman/Alabama Reflector)

Editor’s note: If you or someone you know needs help, the national suicide and crisis lifeline in the U.S. is available by calling or texting 988. There is also an online chat at 988lifeline.org.

Cindy Clemishire was 12 years old on Christmas night in 1982 when a traveling evangelist staying with her family first abused her.

According to Clemishire, the sexual abuse continued over the next four years. She eventually told her family and the abuse stopped. But her abuser, Robert Morris, went on to found Gateway Church in Texas, which became one of the largest megachurches in the nation.

When Clemishire sought restitution in 2007, Morris’ attorney offered her $25,000 if she would sign a nondisclosure agreement that would prevent her from speaking publicly about the abuse. She refused.

“Had I agreed to that NDA, Robert would have continued to have power over me,” Clemishire told Texas lawmakers last May, as she urged them to pass a state law that would ban nondisclosure agreements in child sexual abuse civil cases.

“Because I refused to sign that NDA at 37,” she said, “I am able to sit here today at 55 years old and share my story in hopes of helping others.”

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, signed the bill into law last June. Texas joined other states, including California, Missouri and Tennessee, in prohibiting nondisclosure agreements, or NDAs, from being used in civil settlements that involve child — and in some states, adult — sexual abuse.

Morris pleaded guilty to child sex abuse charges in October, publicly admitting what he did to Clemishire.

This year, Clemishire’s home state of Oklahoma, as well as Alabama and Georgia, are considering similar laws.

Oklahoma’s bill was introduced this week. Last month, Alabama lawmakers unanimously passed identical bills in the state House and Senate. If one of the bills passes the other chamber, it will head to the governor’s desk. In Georgia, Republican Gov. Brian Kemp announced during his final State of the State address last month that he would support a version of the law.

Kemp said the bill would “further protect our children, expose abusers, and save lives by preventing the silence imposed on far too many victims.”

Many of the new bills are versions of Trey’s Law, model legislation — first passed in Missouri — named for Trey Carlock, a survivor of child sexual abuse. Carlock died by suicide in 2019 at age 28. Though his abuser was convicted of sexually abusing several boys, Carlock had signed a nondisclosure agreement in a civil settlement that prevented him from speaking about his abuse at Kanakuk, a popular Christian sports camp based in Missouri, and the camp’s role in enabling the abuse.

Elizabeth Phillips, Carlock’s sister, later founded the Trey’s Law movement in his memory. Trey’s Law works to get NDA bans passed at the state and federal levels.

Such bills attempt to address a civil litigation issue that gained increased attention during the #MeToo movement. Organizations such as Kanakuk that are caught up in child abuse allegations sometimes offer financial settlements to abuse survivors in exchange for their signing agreements that legally restrict them from speaking publicly about the abuse or the organization’s role in it.

Critics of these kinds of NDAs say they’re a legal tool — originally intended to protect confidential corporate information — that’s been misused to suppress survivors’ stories and shield organizations that enable abuse.

“NDAs may be presented as legal formalities, but in cases like mine, they are tools that continue the abuse,” Clemishire told Texas lawmakers last year. “They protect the abuser and keep victims in shame. They prevent the children from being protected and they make it harder to stop abuse from happening again.”

State laws vary in their protections. California enacted a law in 2016 banning NDAs for felony sex offenses, child sexual abuse and sexual assault against vulnerable adults, such as older adults and those with disabilities. Tennessee‘s 2018 law voids NDAs in child sexual assault claims. New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania have placed restrictions on NDAs. Various courts have also struck down some NDAs that appeared to be designed to hide misconduct.

There’s not currently a federal law analogous to Trey’s Law, though Congress has tried to address the issue. The 2022 federal Speak Out Act specifically targets preemptive NDAs used in workplaces. It nullifies nondisclosure contracts that are signed, often as a condition of employment, before a dispute involving sexual assault or sexual harassment happens. But the law doesn’t apply to NDAs signed after allegations are made.

Much of the new state legislation, such as in Oklahoma and Texas, applies retroactively, nullifying older NDAs. Alabama’s bill would only apply to contracts entered into or amended after the measure is signed into law.

It’s difficult to find public detractors for such legislation. It’s one of the few issues that has, so far, united both sides of the political aisle. In the handful of states that have enacted bans on NDAs in sexual assault cases, they’ve passed with unanimous or near-unanimous bipartisan support.

But in Alabama last month, Republican state Sen. Greg Albritton expressed concern that a blanket ban could harm churches and institutions like the Boy Scouts of America that have faced civil allegations that they ignored child abuse or protected abusers.

“That nondisclosure statement is a lifeline, very often, for the institution to continue its efforts in trying to do good,” Albritton told Alabama lawmakers from the Senate floor, adding that he believes NDAs allow organizations to implement reforms and move forward. “If we pass this, we could be doing damage to institutions — including churches, including those not-for-profit organizations — that are doing their best to do good in the communities.

“I would caution that eliminating that tool from civil procedure does more harm to our society than it does good.”

The lawmaker sponsoring Alabama’s bill is another Republican, state Sen. Matt Woods. The Alabama version of Trey’s Law is his first bill in the Senate, after he was elected in a June 2025 special election. He said the bill was brought to his attention by some of Carlock’s relatives who live in his home county.

“We need to allow victims of this terrible act to heal,” Woods told the Alabama Reflector in January.

“The only way they can heal is to be able to disclose what’s happened to them, talk about it, and move on with the healing process.”

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

FBI agents load boxes of election documents onto trucks at an elections warehouse in Fulton County, Ga. State and local election officials are bracing for the prospect of federal action after President Donald Trump’s call to nationalize elections. (Photo by Ross Williams/Georgia Recorder)

President Donald Trump’s calls this week to “nationalize” elections capped a year of efforts by his administration to exercise authority over state-run elections. The demands now have some state and local election officials fearing — and preparing for — a tumultuous year ahead.

“I don’t think we can put anything past this administration,” Oregon Democratic Secretary of State Tobias Read told Stateline in an interview. “I think they’re increasingly desperate, increasingly scared about what’s going to happen when they are held accountable by American voters. So we have to be prepared for everything.”

Ever since Trump signed an executive order last March that attempted to impose a requirement that voters prove their citizenship in federal elections, the federal government has engaged in a wide-ranging effort to influence how elections are run. Under the U.S. Constitution, that responsibility belongs to the states.

Then came Trump’s remarks on a podcast Monday that Republicans should nationalize elections and take over voting in at least 15 places, though he didn’t specify where. In the Oval Office the next day, the president reaffirmed his view that states are “agents” of the federal government in elections.

“I don’t know why the federal government doesn’t do them anyway,” Trump told reporters on Tuesday, despite the Constitution’s clear delegation of that job to states.

Across the country, election officials are watching recent developments and, in some instances, grappling with how the Trump administration’s moves could affect their preparations for November’s midterm elections, which will determine control of Congress. Local election officials say they are considering how they would respond to the presence of federal law enforcement near polling places and what steps they need to take to ensure voting proceeds smoothly.

Several Democratic election officials, and some Republicans, have spoken out. Placing voting under control of the federal government would represent a fundamental violation of the Constitution, they note.

The U.S. Constitution authorizes states to set the time, place and manner of elections for Congress but also allows Congress to change those regulations. The elections themselves are run by the states.

“Oh, hell no,” Maine Democratic Secretary of State Shenna Bellows said in a video statement posted to social media about federalizing elections. Bellows, who is running for governor, said she would mail the White House a pocket Constitution, “because it seems they’ve lost their copy.”

The U.S. Department of Justice already has sued 24 states and the District of Columbia to obtain unredacted voter rolls that include sensitive personal information that it says is needed to search for noncitizen voters. The Department of Homeland Security wants states to run their voter rolls through a powerful citizenship verification tool. Those opposed to the demand say sharing the data risks the privacy of millions of voters. Many fear the administration could use the information to disqualify eligible voters, challenge the legitimacy of a victory in a closely contested midterm election, or use the information to target political enemies.

In recent weeks, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi linked the presence of federal immigration agents in Minneapolis in part to Minnesota’s refusal to turn over its voter rolls. And the FBI seized ballots from an elections warehouse Fulton County, Georgia — a state that was a central focus of Trump’s push to overturn his 2020 election loss.

“I think it does affect our planning as far as, what if there is some sort of federal law enforcement presence on Election Day or before or after? So that definitely factors into our planning,” said Scott McDonell, the Democratic clerk in Dane County, Wisconsin, which includes Madison.

Ingham County, Michigan, Clerk Barb Byrum, a Democrat running for secretary of state, said she and other election administrators conduct tabletop exercises and keep emergency plans for numerous scenarios. Those used to focus on floods, power outages and cyberattacks.

“Now, unfortunately, it’s turning into the president of the United States meddling in elections,” Byrum said. “We will be prepared. Voters will hopefully not see anything different at their polling locations. … But we need to be diligent.”

Pamela Smith, president and CEO of the election security nonprofit Verified Voting, said election officials and their lawyers need to study up on laws and regulations, including chain-of-custody requirements for ballots.

David Becker, director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research, which operates the Election Official Legal Defense Network, said more than 10,000 lawyers have been recruited who are ready to provide pro bono legal assistance or advice to election officials.

Trump doubles down on calling for the feds to take over state elections

When Stateline asked Read whether he anticipates Oregon facing federal pressure over its voter rolls, the secretary of state said he was set to meet this week with county clerks in the Portland metro area “to talk about that very question.” Read’s office later confirmed the meeting took place.

Oregon’s largest city, Portland, has been a focus of the Trump administration. Last year, Trump deployed federalized Oregon National Guard members to the city after protests outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility. And federal agents last month shot two people in a hospital parking lot. Portland is a self-described sanctuary city that does not aid the federal government in immigration enforcement.

The concern in Oregon comes after Bondi on Jan. 24 sent a letter to Minnesota Democratic Gov. Tim Walz after federal agents killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti in separate shootings in Minneapolis that were captured on video.

Bondi’s letter outlined three “common sense solutions” that would help end the “chaos” in Minnesota, she wrote. One of those solutions called for the state to provide the Justice Department with its full, unredacted voter rolls.

Minnesota Democratic Secretary of State Steve Simon has called Bondi’s letter an “outrageous attempt to coerce Minnesota” into handing over the data. Simon hasn’t provided the voter list, but White House border czar Tom Homan is pulling 700 immigration agents from Minnesota amid outrage over their presence. Roughly 2,300 agents will remain in the state.

In North Carolina, Durham County Director of Elections Derek Bowens called Trump’s rhetoric and recent federal actions concerning. Bowens, a nonpartisan official appointed by the Durham County Board of Elections, said that as long as the rule of law persists, a “constitutional guard” will protect election administration.

Still, Bowens, who oversees elections in a largely Democratic area in a presidential swing state, said he and other local officials are preparing to prevent potential “intrusion” into the process.

“I’m not at liberty to divulge what that would be in terms of security protocols, but that’s definitely in the forefronts of our minds,” Bowens said in an interview, adding that he would be working with local emergency services officials “to make sure we’re positioned to ensure everyone that is eligible has unfettered access to the ballot box.”

Trump wants federal control

Trump appears to be crossing a line from urging Congress to set additional election requirements into wanting the federal government’s hands on states’ election administration infrastructure, said Barry Burden, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the director of the Elections Research Center at the university.

“That would be brand new,” Burden said.

After Trump called for nationalizing elections during Monday’s appearance on the podcast of Dan Bongino, a right-wing media personality who was previously a top FBI official, the White House said Tuesday that the president had been referring to legislation in Congress that would require individuals to show proof of citizenship to register to vote. The bill has passed the House but is stalled in the Senate.

But Trump late Tuesday doubled down on his original comments during an unrelated bill-signing ceremony in the Oval Office. He suggested the federal government should take a role in vote counting.

“The federal government should get involved,” Trump said. “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.”

Even before Trump’s nationalization comments, Democratic state chief election officials and some Republicans had refused to turn over copies of voter rolls containing driver’s license numbers, date of birth and full or partial Social Security numbers after the Justice Department began demanding the data last spring.

Federal judges in California and Oregon have ruled those states don’t have to provide the data; numerous other lawsuits against other states are ongoing.

Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, a Trump-supporting Republican who campaigned for office on calls to hand-count ballots, told a Missouri House committee on Tuesday that he wouldn’t provide the state’s full voter list without a court order. He said his office had only shared a public version of the voter rolls; Missouri hasn’t been sued by the Justice Department.

The Trump administration has previously confirmed it is sharing records with Homeland Security, which operates an online program that it uses to verify citizenship. The Justice Department has also offered some states a confidential agreement to search their voter lists.

“Clean voter rolls and basic election safeguards are requisites for free, fair, and transparent elections,” Assistant U.S. Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon wrote in a statement to Stateline.

“The DOJ Civil Rights Division has a statutory mandate to enforce our federal voting rights laws, and ensuring the voting public’s confidence in the integrity of our elections is a top priority of this administration.”

But U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter, a Clinton appointee, wrote in a Jan. 15 decision that the voter roll demands risk a chilling effect on Americans who may opt not to register to vote over concerns about how their information could be used. He dismissed the Justice Department’s lawsuit seeking California’s voter rolls.

“The taking of democracy does not occur in one fell swoop; it is chipped away piece-by-piece until there is nothing left. The case before the Court is one of these cuts that imperils all Americans,” Carter wrote in a 33-page decision.

Some Republicans oppose nationalization

Amid Trump’s call for nationalizing elections, some Republican election officials have broken with the president even as they have avoided criticizing him directly. State control has long been a central tenant of conservatism, though Trump has challenged elements of Republican orthodoxy over the past decade.

Hoskins, the Missouri secretary of state, told state lawmakers on Tuesday, “I personally don’t believe we should nationalize elections.”

Georgia Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in a news release on Monday urged lawmakers to focus on strengthening state administration of elections. He said that was better than “moving to federalize a core function of state government.”

Raffensperger, who is running for governor this year, was famously targeted by Trump following the 2020 election to overturn his loss in Georgia. In a phone call, Trump told Raffensperger he wanted to “find 11,780 votes” — the size of his loss in the state. Raffensperger refused to aid Trump.

Five years later, Raffensperger now faces pressure from Georgia state lawmakers to provide the state’s unredacted voter list to the Justice Department. The Georgia Senate on Monday passed a resolution calling on the secretary of state to fully comply with the department’s request.

Georgia Republican state Sen. Randy Robertson, the resolution’s lead sponsor, said during a state Senate committee hearing last month that federal law supersedes limits on data sharing in Georgia law. He didn’t respond to an interview request.

In a statement to Stateline, Raffensperger said that state law is “very clear” that officials aren’t allowed to turn over the information. “I will always follow the law and the Constitution,” Raffensperger wrote.

The Georgia Senate vote came less than a week after the FBI searched the Fulton County elections warehouse and seized ballots. Fulton County, which includes much of the Atlanta metro area, was where Trump was indicted on charges of conspiracy and racketeering related to his efforts to overturn the state’s 2020 presidential election. The case was dismissed last year.

The Justice Department didn’t answer a question from Stateline about whether it plans to seek search warrants for other election offices.

On Wednesday, Fulton County filed a motion in federal court demanding the return of the seized ballots and other materials, Fulton County Board of Commissioners Chair Robb Pitts, a Democrat, said at a news conference. The motion also asks for the unsealing of the affidavit used by the FBI to support its search warrant application.

“We will fight using all resources against those who seek to take over our elections,” Pitts said. “Our Constitution itself is at stake in this fight.”

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

An Amazon Web Services data center is shown situated near single-family homes in Stone Ridge, Va., in 2024. As Americans grow increasingly frustrated over their electricity bills, states are trying to keep the nation’s growing number of data centers from causing higher energy costs for consumers. (Photo by Nathan Howard/Getty Images)

As Americans grow increasingly frustrated over their electricity bills, states are trying to keep the nation’s growing number of data centers from causing higher energy costs for consumers.

For years, many states competed aggressively to land data centers, sprawling campuses full of the computer servers that store and transmit the data behind apps and websites. But many officials are now scrutinizing how those power-hungry projects might affect the electric bills of households, small businesses and other industries.

Oregon last year became one of the first states to enact a law requiring utilities to charge data centers different electric prices than other industries because of how they drive up the cost of energy production and transmission.

“We are now making data centers pay a higher rate commensurate with the amount of energy they’re sucking out of the system,” said Oregon state Rep. Tom Andersen, a Democrat.

Republican and Democratic leaders in at least a dozen states have targeted data centers with separate, higher electric rates to protect other customers. States also are requiring long-term commitments and financial guarantees through collateral before greenlighting infrastructure investments for new data center projects. But lawmakers acknowledge that numerous factors affect energy prices, so targeting data center-specific costs can be complicated.

An increasingly digital world and the rise of energy-intensive artificial intelligence has led to major expansion of data centers: Consultant McKinsey & Company expects companies to spend nearly $7 trillion worldwide on data centers by 2030. But the industry is facing growing scrutiny, from neighbors who don’t want to live near the massive server farms and from residents worried about how data centers will affect their own swelling utility bills.

Delaware legislation that would charge data centers higher rates advanced out of committee last week. On Tuesday, a Florida state Senate committee approved a bill that would create new rate structures for data centers.

In Oklahoma, a Republican state senator has proposed a moratorium on new data centers until late 2029, allowing the state to study how data centers affect utility rates, the environment and property values.

Separate legislation from state Rep. Brad Boles will seek to protect other ratepayers from the costs of data centers. Boles, the Republican chair of the state Energy and Natural Resources Oversight Committee, said his in-the-works measure would ensure data centers pay their fair share.

Boles told Stateline that his constituents are increasingly worried about data centers, with a dozen potential major ones proposed across the state.

“We’re trying to ensure that those data centers pay for their own infrastructure and we don’t shift that cost or burden to everyday Oklahomans,” he said.

In Oregon, Andersen’s legislation created a new rate structure for data centers with long-term contracts and required regulators to separate the costs of those facilities from other ratepayers.

But consumer advocates have already accused the state’s largest utility of trying to skirt the new law by making residential customers pay part of the long-term cost of supplying large data centers in a pending rate case.

Andersen, a member of the state House Committee on Climate, Energy and Environment, said the new rate structure is unlikely to immediately lower consumer bills. Rather, it aims to curb future increases as data centers require more power generation and transmission.

“We’re not going to change the rates that are being currently paid by the ratepayers and the users of the electricity,” he said. “It’s just going to stop future raises.”

The data center boom

Rising utility bills continue to outpace inflation, sparking anger from consumers and more scrutiny from state regulators, governors and lawmakers.

The boom of data centers is frequently cited as a prime reason for rising electricity prices, as their operation requires more power generation, transmission and distribution upgrades. A Bloomberg News analysis in September found wholesale electricity costs as much as 267% more for a single month than it did five years ago in areas with significant data center activity.

Data center companies say they aren’t the only reason prices are rising.

“It’s inaccurate to draw a clear line between large load customers like data centers coming online and increases in prices. It’s just not that simple,” said Lucas Fykes, senior director of energy policy and regulatory counsel at the Data Center Coalition, a trade group representing data center owners and users, including Amazon, Meta and Visa.

He said many factors have contributed to higher electricity prices, including extreme weather events and the nation’s aging electric grid.

Fykes said his organization opposes rate structures that treat data centers differently from other large electric users such as industrial sites. The organization is working with regulators as states increasingly implement practices to ensure residents and small businesses aren’t on the hook for big energy investments if major projects including data centers don’t come to fruition.

Fykes said the country is likely just in the “beginning innings” of a longer ramp-up in technology and power needs.

“We are also in a global race to build out data centers, to support AI, to support cloud infrastructure,” he said. “It’s important to make sure that we maintain those assets here in the United States.”

That can pose competing interests for political leaders, including mayors, who have pushed hard to land investments from tech companies.

“We want to be leaders in AI, but we don’t want the infrastructure needed to support it,” said Rusty Paul, the mayor of Sandy Springs, Georgia, in the Atlanta metro area.

He was among several mayors addressing the issue of data centers at last month’s winter meeting of the United States Conference of Mayors in Washington, D.C. On a data center panel, Paul acknowledged the effect of Georgia’s tax incentives for data centers: “They’re just popping up everywhere,” he said.

But utilities and regulators are also making long overdue grid upgrades that aren’t tied to data centers, he said.

“The cost of electricity is going up for everybody — and it’s not all related to data centers,” he said.

A bipartisan push

The Georgia Public Service Commission last year created new rules that officials said would protect ratepayers from data center costs. In addition to covering costs of power consumed at their facilities, data centers would have to fund the costs incurred by upstream generation, transmission and distribution, the regulator said.

But lawmakers aren’t convinced those steps went far enough.

State Sen. Chuck Hufstetler, a Republican, is again pushing legislation that would solidify the regulator’s rules into law. His bill would prohibit utilities from passing along the fuel, generation or transmission costs of data centers to other customers.

He told Stateline that the regulator’s rules need to be codified into law so they can’t be weakened later.

Hufstetler said rising utility bills are among the biggest issues facing his constituents. High prices played a key role in November’s election, when Democrats flipped two seats on the state’s Public Service Commission board — the first time Democrats won statewide constitutional office in nearly two decades.

“I saw people with MAGA hats going into the election polling places that were saying, ‘I’m not voting for those guys that raised my rates,’” Hufstetler said, referring to the Republican incumbents who lost.

Hufstetler said the bill, which passed out of committee last year, has already gained major bipartisan support in the Senate, where it is sponsored by multiple Republicans and Democrats.

“This is very bipartisan,” he said. “We have all heard from our people around the state of Georgia.”

The Georgia Public Service Commission agrees in principle with the legislation, said agency spokesperson Tom Krause. But he said the regulator worries about losing flexibility if its rules are written into law.

“Not just this bill, but whenever the legislature codifies a rule that we put in place, we get a little nervous because it can tie our hands in special circumstances,” he said.

A complex challenge

As part of implementing a law enacted last year, Maryland’s utility regulator is weighing a new rate structure for data centers and other large load users.

Proposed regulations would require certain preapproval analysis for heavy power users, a separate rate tariff for data centers and collateral to ensure other ratepayers don’t end up paying for major investments if projects do not come to fruition.

Maryland’s Office of People’s Counsel, an independent agency representing residential utility users, said the proposed changes meet statutory requirements but could do more to protect consumers.

In a news release last month, Maryland People’s Counsel David S. Lapp said residents are already facing higher costs from data centers from outside the state.

“While we push for better federal rules to address those costs, Maryland has the power—and customers a clear need—to make sure data centers within Maryland take on every cost that they impose on residential customers,” Lapp said.

Democratic Gov. Wes Moore recently joined 12 other governors and the Trump administration in urging the regional grid operator, PJM Interconnection, to shield residents and businesses from the infrastructure costs from data centers.

Maryland state Del. Lorig Charkoudian, a Democrat, said the grid operator has for years failed residents in the 13 states plus the District of Columbia that it serves. By delaying renewable energy projects, she said, PJM has kept older, more expensive power plants online, driving up prices as data centers increase demand.

PJM’s board last month rolled out a new data center plan that it said would improve demand forecasting, accelerate the addition of new generation projects and give states a larger role.

Charkoudian said states and utilities struggle to determine just how much power is needed. Data center users shop around for sites, which can cause wildly inaccurate forecasts of just how much power a utility will need.

“It actually has a very concrete financial impact on ratepayers,” she told Stateline. “And so that’s why one of the things that really could make a difference for ratepayers is if we actually had an accurate count of how much we’re getting online.”

While some of those challenges lie outside the realm of state control, Charkoudian said there are things the state can do, including the new rate structure for larger users. She’s crafting a bill encouraging data centers to curtail their power usage during peak periods, such as hot days, when the electrical system is taxed by heavy usage of air conditioners, Maryland Matters reported.

Charkoudian said adding solar generation and storage are low-cost ways to respond quickly to demand. And states can avoid the need for more generation by doubling down on energy efficiency programs that lower demand and also consumer costs.

“The best time to fix this was five years ago,” she said. “The next best time is right this minute, because it’s only going to get worse.”

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira contributed to this story. Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org. 

Roger Williams Medical Center in Providence, R.I. A new study shows that women with breast cancer living in Rhode Island and other states that expanded Medicaid eligibility were less likely to die from the disease. (Photo by Michael Salerno/Rhode Island Current)

Women with breast cancer living in states that expanded Medicaid eligibility were less likely to die from the disease — but not everyone benefited equally, according to a recent study published in the medical journal JAMA Network Open.

Researchers from Howard University, the University of Alabama, Henry Ford Hospital in Michigan, and others looked at data from about 1.6 million women ages 40 to 64 who were diagnosed with breast cancer between 2006 and 2021.

They compared survival rates among women living in states that expanded Medicaid eligibility under the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, with the rates in states that did not expand. About 58% of the women lived in expansion states, and roughly 42% lived in nonexpansion states. States began expanding Medicaid in 2014.

The researchers found that Medicaid expansion was associated with lower overall mortality — no matter the disease stage, race or ethnicity, or neighborhood income of the women. Women in expansion states whose cancer had spread to other organs — the most advanced stage of disease — saw the most significant decline in deaths.

Among racial and ethnic groups, the largest relative gains were among Hispanic women — they were 19% less likely to die if they lived in an expansion state. There were smaller gains among non-Hispanic Black women and residents of low-income areas. The smallest difference was among white women.

Hispanic women’s large gains could be due to many previously lacking insurance, said Dr. Oluwasegun Akinyemi, director of Howard University College of Medicine’s Clive O. Callender Outcomes Research Center and a coauthor of the study.

Black women have higher breast cancer death rates compared to white women, even though there are fewer cases among them, partly because they are often diagnosed with the disease at a later stage.

Overall, Black women with breast cancer benefitted less from Medicaid expansion than other groups because they are disproportionately located in the South, where most states have not expanded, Akinyemi noted. The expansion holdout states include Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.

The remaining three nonexpansion states are Kansas, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

The researchers also compared mortality rates in low- and high-income neighborhoods. Women living in the highest-income neighborhoods, as well as those who received immunotherapy treatment, had lower mortality rates. Akinyemi said that result suggests that coverage leads to greater access to treatment.

In July, President Donald Trump signed a broad tax and spending bill  that will cut federal Medicaid funding by more than $900 billion over the next decade. As a result, about 15 million people may lose Medicaid coverage, according to estimates by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

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

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. promotes "real food" at a rally in Harrisburg, Penn., last month. Over the next decade, obesity rates across the nation could surge to close to half of U.S. adults, a new study says. (Photo by Whitney Downard/Pennsylvania Capital-Star)

Over the next decade, obesity rates across the nation could surge to close to half of U.S. adults, a new study published in the medical journal JAMA estimates.

Researchers at the University of Washington conducted the analysis using body mass index data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and self-reported weight data from a national survey of adults ages 20 and older. They examined the 2022 rates and created estimates for 2035 based on current trends. The researchers also looked at race, ethnicity and state-level data, finding wide disparities across states and racial groups.

About a fifth of U.S. adults were living with obesity in 1990. By 2022, the percentage increased to nearly 43%. Obesity was more prevalent in states in the Midwest and South.

If current trends continue, about 47% of U.S. adults will be living with obesity by 2035, according to the researchers. Obesity rates are projected to increase among Americans of all ages and racial groups.

In 2022, non-Hispanic Black women had the highest age-standardized obesity rate, at about 57%, followed by Hispanic women at 49%. Hispanic males, non-Hispanic white males and females, and non-Hispanic Black males had similar rates, ranging from about 40% to nearly 43%.

The study comes amid exploding demand for weight-loss drugs, and as U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. continues to push his Make America Healthy Again campaign.

HHS and the U.S. Department of Agriculture last month made changes to the federal food pyramid, placing a greater emphasis on animal protein, dairy and fats. Like the previous guidelines, the new pyramid discourages the consumption of processed foods, which can cause weight gain.

Despite disparities between men and women and between racial groups, HHS says its nutrition strategy moves away from the “health equity” focus of the Biden administration, in favor of making “the health of all Americans the primary goal.”

For Hispanic people, obesity rates were generally higher in states in the Midwest and the South in 2022, a pattern that is expected to continue through 2035.

In 2022, the obesity rate for Hispanic women was highest in Oklahoma, at about 54%. For Hispanic men, the rate was highest in Indiana, at roughly 47%. In 2035, Indiana is projected to have the highest rate of obesity among Hispanic men at about 54%, while the highest rate for Hispanic women, nearly 60%, is expected to be in South Dakota.

The Midwest and South also had high rates of obesity for non-Hispanic white men and women. In 2022, West Virginia had the highest obesity rates for white men and women — about 47% and 49%, respectively. In 2022, obesity rates for white men and women were lowest in the District of Columbia, at roughly 24% for men and 26% for women.

Among Black women, obesity rates were over 50% for all states, except Hawaii, in 2022. That pattern is expected to continue through 2035. Black men have lower obesity rates than Black women across all states. In 2022, the highest obesity rate for Black men was in Oklahoma, at about 44%. That rate projected to rise to 49% in 2035.

“While no locations were predicted to have decreases in obesity prevalence between 2022 and 2035, there were many with small increases over this time,” the authors wrote. They pointed to Mississippi, where Black women had the highest obesity rates between 1990 and 2022, but are projected to see one of the smallest changes — an increase of about 1.8% — by 2035.

“Predictions in states with historically high levels of obesity, such as Mississippi, suggest that the prevalence of obesity may be plateauing in some locations,” the researchers wrote.

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

Snow and ice boulders at the Forest Glen Metro stop in Silver Spring, Maryland, on Jan. 29, 2026, days after Winter Storm Fern hit the region. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

A focus on addressing climate change, including by producing wind and solar energy, has not helped Americans keep their electricity and heat on during winter storms, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said Friday.

Ahead of another major cold snap on the East Coast, Wright briefed reporters at the agency headquarters in Washington, D.C., on the importance of maintaining electricity and heat supply during winter storms and advocated for a national energy strategy that focuses more on grid resilience and less on reducing carbon emissions. 

His statements continued a Trump administration stress on fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas that contribute to global climate change.

Americans elected President Donald Trump to move away from a focus on climate, Wright said.

“Today, the policies that get in the way of reasonable energy development and mess up the math are things focused around climate change,” he said. “We’ve done almost nothing to change global greenhouse gas emissions — as close to nothing as you can get — from endless regulations on electricity that have just driven up prices and driven down reliability in the name of climate change.”

Electricity grids and peak demand 

Electricity grids must be designed for peak demand, such as during winter storms or summer heat waves, Wright said. Efforts to increase generation capacity with renewable sources are misguided, as the United States electricity grid produces hundreds of excess gigawatts of power during normal conditions, he said.

During President Joe Biden’s administration, Democrats enacted a law providing massive tax credits for wind and solar production. Without naming that law or specific officials, Wright said those efforts were not useful.

“When I hear politicians say, ‘We just need more electrons on the grid,’ no, we don’t,” he said. “When the sun shines or the wind blows, (it) doesn’t add anything to the capacity of our electricity grid. It just means we send subsidy checks to those generators, and we tell the other generators, turn down.”

During the winter storm that gripped much of the country last month, wind energy provided 40% less electricity than it had on the same days in 2025, Wright said. Solar provided only 2% of energy to affected areas, according to a pie chart shown at the briefing.

By contrast, coal provided 25% more power than usual and natural gas produced 47% more, he said. Nuclear energy was about the same.

Renewables strengthen grid, climate group says

The clean energy group Climate Power said in a Tuesday statement that renewable sources helped fortify energy supply during peak demand times. Solar energy produced 300% more in a 2024 Texas storm than it had in a storm three years earlier. And during last month’s cold streak, areas that relied on wind saw lower prices, according to the group.

Climate Power also said natural gas infrastructure was “prone to freezes and mechanical failure.”

“As back-to-back winter storms pummeled communities across the country in January, the facts about Donald Trump’s reckless energy policies have come into focus: fossil fuels have proved less reliable and more expensive as families struggle to keep the power on,” the statement read.

Wright favors natural gas

But while Democrats and climate activists have said the U.S. should move away from oil, coal and gas because of the climate-warming emissions they release and toward renewables, Wright suggested natural gas should be emphasized instead to substitute for oil, which is more expensive and produces more air pollution.

The proposed Constitution Pipeline, which would carry natural gas from New York state to Pennsylvania, should have been approved years ago, Wright said, but was held up by a “bad political decision.”

Planners abandoned the controversial project in 2020 in the face of regulatory difficulties in New York, but revived it last year. Its federal reviews are pending.

Wright said producing more energy would also be needed for another Trump administration priority: leading in artificial intelligence development. The industry needs massive energy sources to run the data centers AI relies on. 

Chair of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., on Feb. 5, 2026, in Washington, D.C.  Scott criticized President Donald Trump's use of a racist meme on social media. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The White House on Friday pulled down a social media post depicting former President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama as monkeys after members of Congress from both political parties expressed dismay and called it racist.

A White House spokesperson told States Newsroom around noon that a “staffer erroneously made the post” that was shared on President Donald Trump’s social media platform late Thursday night. 

But White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt wrote in a statement earlier in the day the video wasn’t a real issue.

“This is from an internet meme video depicting President Trump as the King of the Jungle and Democrats as characters from the Lion King,” she wrote. “Please stop the fake outrage and report on something today that actually matters to the American public.”

The White House press office also shared via email the full video, which was published in October. Trump shared a clip of the video on his social media account on Thursday at 11:44 p.m. Eastern within another video about allegations of 2020 election fraud in Michigan. 

The decision to delete Trump’s social media post followed hours of pushback from lawmakers.

“Praying it was fake because it’s the most racist thing I’ve seen out of this White House,” wrote South Carolina Republican Sen. Tim Scott. “The President should remove it.”

Scott is chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which is tasked with ensuring the GOP maintains its majority in that chamber following November’s midterm elections. 

Nebraska Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts posted that, “Even if this was a Lion King meme, a reasonable person sees the racist context to this. The White House should do what anyone does when they make a mistake: remove this and apologize.”

New York Republican Rep. Mike Lawler wrote the “post is wrong and incredibly offensive — whether intentional or a mistake — and should be deleted immediately with an apology offered.”

Mississippi Republican Sen. Roger Wicker called the post “totally unacceptable. 

“The president should take it down and apologize.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., described the video as something that “is dangerous and degrades our country” as well as “Racist. Vile. Abhorrent.” 

“The President must immediately delete the post and apologize to Barack and Michelle Obama, two great Americans who make Donald Trump look like a small, envious man,” Schumer wrote. 

Michigan Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin posted, “This is racist garbage from President Trump. If you’re finding yourself defending it, you’re on the wrong side of history.” 

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., wrote that “President Obama and Michelle Obama are brilliant, compassionate and patriotic Americans. They represent the best of this country.”

“Donald Trump is a vile, unhinged and malignant bottom feeder,” Jeffries added. “Why are GOP leaders like John Thune continuing to stand by this sick individual? Every single Republican must immediately denounce Donald Trump’s disgusting bigotry.”

New York Democratic Rep. Yvette Clarke, chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, wrote that while some people “still find Donald Trump’s behavior shocking. I do not.”

“This is the man who built his political fortune by way of a vile campaign of birther lies and harassment against President Obama,” Clarke wrote. “Bigotry has been his brand since Day 1, and the wretched ‘yes’ men who surround him enabling or endorsing this conduct aren’t going to change that.

“As his scandals continue to escalate, and as he continues to lose the little lucidity that remains with him, I expect Donald to only retreat deeper into the sewers of racism and ignorance. That’s where he’s most at home. That’s where he’s most comfortable.”

Virginia Democratic Rep. Don Beyer wrote, “Donald Trump greets the first week of Black History Month with one of the most racist things he’s ever posted. This man is unwell.”

U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks during a policy announcement event at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on Jan. 8, 2026 in Washington, DC.  (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Congress has approved the first public health funding bill since President Donald Trump began his second term, with lawmakers largely rejecting his proposed spending cuts and the elimination of dozens of programs. 

A bipartisan group of negotiators instead struck a deal to increase funding on several line items within the Department of Health and Human Services’ annual appropriations bill, including for major initiatives at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

“When you look at the differences between what was proposed and what was agreed to, it is astonishing,” House Appropriations Committee ranking member Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., said during a hearing on the bill in late January.

The Trump administration’s budget request, released in May, called on Congress to cut funding for the Department of Health and Human Services by $33 billion, or 26.2%.

The president asked lawmakers to implement an $18 billion funding cut to the NIH, which he argued would bring the agency in line with the Make America Healthy Again agenda. 

The Trump administration proposed a $3.6 billion cut for CDC programs, including the elimination of the National Center for Chronic Diseases Prevention and Health Promotion, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, and Public Health Preparedness and Response, all of which it said could “be conducted more effectively by States.”

The budget request said more than $1 billion should be cut from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, though it said the administration was “committed to combatting the scourge of deadly drugs that have ravaged American communities.”

Trump also requested lawmakers zero out any funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP, which he deemed “unnecessary.” The federal program helps millions of low-income households meet their home energy needs, via states and tribes.

The final spending bill Congress approved rejected nearly all of the major cuts. 

Collins, Murray both praise final product

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, said the bills “reflect months of hard work and deliberation and contributions from members of both parties and on both sides of the Capitol.”

“Funding for NIH is not decreased, as was proposed in the administration’s budget,” she said. “Rather, it is increased by $415 million, including increases of $100 million for Alzheimer’s research and $10 million more for diabetes research, with a focus on type 1 diabetes.” 

Collins also touted an increase in “funding for low-income heating assistance, which is absolutely crucial for states like Maine and is an issue that I have worked for years on with my Democratic colleague Jack Reed of Rhode Island.”

Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash., said the difference between Trump’s budget request and the final bills was like the difference between “night and day.”

“Our bill rejects President Trump’s asks to rubber stamp his public health sabotage,” she said. “Instead, it doubles down on lifesaving public health investments. It rejects Trump’s efforts to slash opioid response funds. It rejects his proposal to chop the CDC in half. It rejects his call to end programs like title X, the teen pregnancy program, essential HIV initiatives, and more.” 

Rare bipartisan agreement in Trump’s second term

Senators from both political parties indicated last summer they weren’t fully on board with Trump’s budget proposal and used a hearing with HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in May and a separate hearing with NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya in June to highlight their concerns. 

The Senate Appropriations Committee approved its HHS spending bill on a broadly bipartisan vote in July, while the House Appropriations Committee approved its funding bill in September without any Democratic support.

Neither of the original bills went to the floor for debate and amendment votes, though negotiations to find compromise on a final bill began late last year after the record-breaking government shutdown ended in November. 

Republicans and Democrats brokered a final agreement on the HHS funding bill in late January, the first time bipartisan agreement was reached during Trump’s second term. 

Congress previously approved a series of stopgap spending bills to keep HHS up and running, mostly on funding levels and policies last set during the Biden administration. 

The House originally voted on Jan. 22 to send the package that included funding for HHS to the Senate. But it stalled after federal immigration agents shot and killed a second U.S. citizen in Minnesota and Democrats demanded changes to the spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security. 

The Senate voted 71-29 on Jan. 30 to send the package back to the House after removing the full-year DHS spending bill and replacing it with a two-week stopgap. The House then voted 217-214 on Tuesday to clear the package for Trump, who signed it later in the day, ending a four-day partial government shutdown.  

The package also holds funding for the departments of Defense, Education, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, State, Transportation and Treasury. 

‘Months of hard work turned into results’

House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., said during floor debate last month the process that led to the final bills proved lawmakers “can make tough decisions.”

“This is where months of hard work turned into results,” Cole said. “You see, we aren’t here for just another stopgap temporary fix. We’re here to finish the job by providing full-year funding and specifically this package addresses core areas of national consequence — defense; labor, health and education; and transportation and housing development.”

Congress is supposed to pass the dozen full-year appropriations bills by the start of the fiscal year on Oct. 1, though it hasn’t completed all of its work on time in decades. 

Last fiscal year, it didn’t complete its work at all, making March 2024 the last time Congress approved all of the funding bills. 

Cole said during debate the programs funded “aren’t abstract concepts on a page, they affect how Americans live, work, learn and travel every day.”

DeLauro said the package of bills represents “a strong bipartisan, bicameral agreement that rejects the Trump administration’s efforts to eviscerate public services and reasserts Congress’ power of the purse.”

“It provides funding levels, removing ambiguity that the White House sought to exploit in the past,” DeLauro said. “It establishes deadlines for required spending, provides minimum staffing thresholds to prevent agencies from being hollowed out and increases notification requirements to ensure the administration is complying with the laws that Congress makes.” 

HHS ends up with $210 million bump

The bill provides HHS with more than $116 billion, $210 million more in discretionary funding than the previous level and a rejection of Trump’s request to cut $33 billion, according to a summary from Murray’s office. 

NIH will receive $48.7 billion in funding, $415 million more than its current spending level, showing that lawmakers were unwilling to slice its budget by $18 billion as requested. 

Congress bolstered funding for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration by $65 million to a total of $7.4 billion, according to Murray’s summary. Trump asked lawmakers to reduce its allocation by more than $1 billion. 

A $3.6 billion funding cut for the CDC was also rejected, with appropriators agreeing to provide the Atlanta-based agency with $9.2 billion.

A summary of the bill from DeLauro’s office says negotiators were able to keep funding for domestic and global HIV/AIDS activities, Firearm Injury and Mortality Prevention Research and Tobacco Prevention and Control, among other programs that House Republicans originally proposed to zero out. 

The legislation bolstered, instead of eliminated, funding for the Low Income Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP, according to a summary from Cole’s office. 

The bill, it said, “reprioritizes taxpayer dollars where they matter most: into lifesaving biomedical research and resilient medical supply chains, classrooms and technical programs that set Americans up for success, and rural hospitals and primary health care to support strong and healthy families.”

CDC program axed

The legislation does eliminate the CDC’s Social Determinants of Health program, which the agency’s website states are “nonmedical factors that influence health outcomes.” Those can include whether a person has access to clean air and water, a well-balanced diet, exercise, a good education, career opportunities, economic stability and a safe place to live.

HHS’ Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion writes that “people who don’t have access to grocery stores with healthy foods are less likely to have good nutrition. That raises their risk of health conditions like heart disease, diabetes, and obesity — and even lowers life expectancy relative to people who do have access to healthy foods.” 

Cole’s summary of the HHS spending bill says that program “promoted social engineering while distracting grant recipients from combating infectious and chronic diseases.” 

The American Public Health Association urged Congress to approve the bill, writing in a statement the compromise “rightly maintains funding for most public health agencies and programs.”

“While the bill is not perfect and we disagree with cuts to several HHS agency programs included, overall, the agreement rejects the devastating cuts and nonsensical agency reorganizations proposed by the Trump administration and is a positive outcome,” APHA wrote. “Importantly, the bill also includes language to ensure that CDC and other health agencies maintain an adequate level of staffing to carry out their statutory responsibilities. 

“The bill will also ensure that Congress exercises its oversight over any future proposed agency reorganizations.”

The starting line at the 2024 American Birkebeiner ski race in Cable, Wisconsin | Photo by Frank Zufall/Wisconsin Examiner

The 52nd American Birkebeiner, “Birkie,” cross-country ski race between Cable and Hayward, Wisconsin, is scheduled for Saturday, Feb. 21, featuring thousands of skiers from across the United States and several hundred from 16 foreign countries, including  Norway, France, Finland and Germany.

However, according to American Birkebeiner Ski Foundation Executive Director Ben Popp several international participants have called the Birkebeiner office in Hayward to express concerns after the federal immigration crackdown in Minnesota  and the death of Minneapolis residents Renee Good and Alex Pretti, who were both shot by federal immigration agents.

The Birkebeiner course in northwestern Wisconsin is close to the Minneapolis-St. Paul international airport. So far, Popp said, the Birkie doesn’t know if any foreign skiers have canceled their plans to attend the upcoming race, the largest cross-country/Nordic ski race in North America.

“We had people say, ‘Is it safe to fly into Minneapolis?’” said Popp. “I mean it’s no secret, globally speaking, people are looking at the United States in a very different light these days, especially if you’re a foreigner.”

He added, “it’s predominantly people asking questions like, ‘Is it safe to fly to Minneapolis? What’s it like? Should I still come?’ You know, those are kind of the questions I think we’re getting from the foreigners. And, you know, a lot of those are pretty savvy travelers. Typically, it’s like this is not their first international trip.”

Popp said a skier from Slovenia wanted a contract number with the Birkie in case the skier was stopped by immigration officers and questioned why he was in the U.S..

“So those are legitimate questions we’re getting and encouraging them to come,” Popp said. “And certainly there are some crazy things going on, but we think it’s safe to fly into Minneapolis and get to the Northwoods.” 

The Birkie will be able to assess how many skiers  canceled their trips after organizers see  who doesn’t participate in the 50K ski or the 53K classic events. 

“I think there’s certainly an economic impact that can happen if they don’t come,” said Popp. “But, you know, we’re trying to reassure them that we think it is safe to travel, you know, through Minneapolis.”

International tourism to the United States reportedly dropped dramatically  after President Donald Trump took office on January 21, 2025, and voiced an “American First” policy emphasizing a crackdown on immigrants, suspension of foreign visa programs and a tougher foreign-policy and trade stance toward other nations.

Images and videos of ICE officers breaking car windows and dragging people out of their homes, some of whom were immigrants who legally reside in the U.S., as well as the shooting deaths of U.S. citizens Good and Pretti, haven’t played well for international travelers considering visiting the U.S.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A cheesehead placed at the Minneapolis memorial of Green Bay native Alex Pretti, who was killed by federal agents Jan. 24. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

BALDWIN — Hours after White House border czar Tom Homan announced Wednesday morning that the Trump administration would be pulling 700 immigration agents out of Minnesota, agents crossed the St. Croix River to conduct a number of raids in the Twin Cities exurban communities of Hudson and Baldwin, Wisconsin. 

Those operations included the arrest of immigrants at the St. Croix County Courthouse in Hudson and a Mexican restaurant in Baldwin. In prior weeks federal immigration agents have regularly crossed the river, arresting people working at small manufacturing operations and gas stations, ranging as far east as Eau Claire. 

While Wisconsin has seen an increase in immigration enforcement since President Donald Trump took office last year — as well some high profile cases such as the arrest of a migrant at the Milwaukee County Courthouse that sparked the federal felony charges against former Judge Hannah Dugan — the level of ICE action in the state has been lower than in the neighboring states of Illinois and Minnesota, where the Department of Homeland Security launched massive operations targeting migrants in Chicago and Minneapolis/St. Paul. 

Ben Nelson, a St. Paul resident who serves as the pastor of Zion Lutheran Church in Woodville and works as a coach on the track team at Baldwin-Woodville High School, said that when students returned to classes after winter break, as many as 50 households in the school district had seen at least one parent taken by federal agents. 

On Wednesday, several ICE agents arrived at the St. Croix County Courthouse and went inside to arrest immigrants who were in  the building for court hearings.

Agents also raided Rancho Loco Mexican restaurant in Baldwin, where four members of the staff were arrested. 

“Within the last 48 hours, we probably had another 10 people taken from Baldwin,” Kimberly Solberg, a Baldwin resident who has been involved in local support networks, said Wednesday evening. “We are a small town, but they’re still doing the raids here, taking two, three, five, eight people at a time.” 

In the shadow of the Minnesota crackdown

Since ICE increased its Minnesota presence in December, these Wisconsin communities have been living in the shadow of the chaos caused by the immigration enforcement surge across the border. Residents work, shop and get their health care in Minnesota — including at the Veterans Affairs hospital where Green Bay native Alex Pretti worked before he was killed by federal agents Jan. 24. 

While the presence of ICE in the Twin Cities has galvanized resistance in the largely blue urban area, the operations in western Wisconsin are deeply dividing residents in a solidly Republican county. 

“The vitriol is so so thick, and the divide is so deep that people on one side, in the local minority, who are trying to do what they can to protect their neighbors, to support their neighbors, or just call for calmness and peace — which even calling for empathy, calmness and peace is radical leftist nonsense at this point,” Solberg said. “They’re terrified. People speak in code, there’s like signals, winks and nods. Everybody tiptoes around to suss out whether or not the person they’re talking to is safe because they’re so scared of how people react.”

Nelson, the Woodville track coach and pastor, said the lack of trust in the community is affecting how people are responding.

“There’s some really just strong opinions … it’s sort of difficult to know who you can trust, because there is a significant amount of people who believe that ICE is operating lawfully and doing the right thing, and will support them in those efforts,” Nelson said. “So honestly, I think we’re just still figuring it out as we go, figuring out how to speak and what we can do.”

Some networks that are helping western Wisconsin’s current immigrant communities were established when Hmong and Vietnamese refugees first arrived in the region after the Vietnam War, according to River Falls resident Ellie Richards. 

“There is a caring community here who is trying to provide the support we feel like these wonderful souls need,” Richards said. “We view them as an asset to our community. None of us feel the least bit threatened by their presence, despite what the federal government may try to tell us.” 

But the best way to respond has been unclear because of the political divide in the rural communities and the fact that there are fewer people nearby to rush to the scene when immigration agents are conducting an arrest.

On the evening of Jan. 28, about 50 residents of Baldwin met in sub-zero temperatures at a park to hold a candlelight vigil for Pretti and Renee Good. Residents of the small rural community lamented that ICE’s presence in St. Croix County has caused immigrant-owned businesses to close — including the local Mexican grocery store, Thai and Indian restaurants. 

Other area residents have been driving across the border to join Minnesota’s protests against the federal immigration enforcement crackdown. 

‘We don’t have the numbers and support’

In the Twin Cities, the presence of ICE agents often sparks an immediate response from neighbors who come outside to observe and make noise in an effort to deter an arrest. In rural Wisconsin communities, there are often fewer people in the immediate area who can respond in the same way. 

Even when responders arrive on the scene, they often don’t have enough people to feel comfortable standing up to the federal agents. 

“We don’t have the numbers and support, at least not in any way organized like they do in the Cities,” Solberg said. “None of the whistles, none of the honking or shouting. It’s intimidating, because if you don’t have a big group, we’ve all seen the videos of the attitude of some of these ICE agents, specifically that video where the agent tells the protester, ‘You raise your voice, I’ll erase your voice.’ It’s very clear that there’s an attitude that if you resist us in any way, we will come after you, whether we legally can or not.” 

St. Croix residents have joined group chats on encryption apps such as Signal and taken observer training offered by Twin Cities-based immigrant advocacy groups in Hudson and River Falls. But often, immigrants are arrested and swept away by federal agents before help can arrive, meaning that the support networks are largely left to help families handle the effects afterwards. 

Neighbors are bringing groceries to families staying home out of fear of arrest and providing rides to undocumented immigrants, who are legally barred from obtaining Wisconsin driver’s licenses. Residents say they are providing this type of help to immigrants whether they have legal status to be in this country or not, because of ICE’s history of arresting people based on their appearance. 

Strained relationship with local police

The presence of ICE in the community is straining the relationship between residents and local law enforcement. Several residents have complained that the Baldwin Police Department is at the scene when ICE conducts operations in the community. The St. Croix County Sheriff’s Department is not a participant in ICE’s 287(g) program granting deputies some civil immigration authority and the department policy states that victims and witnesses of crimes will not be turned in to federal authorities. But the policy states that the department can notify ICE about undocumented immigrants who are held in the county jail for other crimes. 

Solberg, who said she comes from a law enforcement family, said the perceived assistance local cops are giving ICE is harming their relationship with the community. 

“I have personally seen, with my own eyes, I have seen Baldwin P.D. conferencing, standing with ICE immediately prior to ICE raiding an apartment complex,” she said. “I want to give police every benefit of the doubt, because I’ve lived in places that have bad police, and Baldwin police is very community oriented, but also I’m not going to be willfully blind when so many people are saying that they have personally seen Baldwin P.D. working with ICE, assisting in detention, assisting in action, actively assisting in actions.” 

“The worst is it’s the perception, the perception in the community, for sure, across the board, among the ICE supporters and the ICE detractors, the perception in the community is that all the P.D. is working with ICE,” she continued. “Which, for people who are scared, who are legal migrants or possibly illegal immigrants, the police are supposed to be there to protect the community, and those entire groups of people do not feel safe with the law enforcement.”

But Baldwin Police Chief Kevin Moore denied that his officers were cooperating with federal agents.

“I am concerned that members of the immigrant community may feel hesitant to report crimes or contact law enforcement due to perceptions about immigration enforcement,” he said in an email. “That concern is taken seriously. The Baldwin Police Department is committed to serving everyone in our community, and we want residents to know that contacting our department for help does not place them at risk of immigration enforcement. As a small, community-focused department, our officers live and work in and around Baldwin and care deeply about the trust of the people we serve. While we occasionally encounter federal agents in the course of routine patrol or unrelated law enforcement activity, as we do with many agencies, these encounters are unplanned and do not reflect coordinated operations or cooperation related to immigration enforcement. Our intent is to maintain open communication with community members, address concerns directly, and ensure that Baldwin remains a safe place for everyone who lives, works, or visits here.”

ICE did not respond to a request for comment.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Washington, D.C., and 38 states have enacted some form of statewide restriction or requirement for districts to limit student phone use. Of those, 18 have bans for the entire day. (Photo by SDI Productions via Getty Images)

Wisconsin lawmakers are calling for the state to ban cell phones throughout the school day and to implement regulations on social media and other platforms in an effort to protect children from the negative consequences of internet and social media use.

The bills regulating cellphone and internet use are the result of a task force organized by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) last year. The group of lawmakers, which met four times, was tasked with examining the effects of social media on youth development, evaluating the benefits and drawbacks to children having unlimited, unsupervised access to the internet and assessing the risks and dangers of children being online.

Bell-to-bell cell phone ban

Following the lead of several other states, Wisconsin lawmakers are pushing for a “bell-to-bell” cell phone ban in schools, about six months before school districts in Wisconsin are required to implement the instructional cell phone ban in schools recently required by state law. 

Washington, D.C., and 38 states have enacted some form of statewide restriction or requirement for districts to limit student phone use. Of those, 18 have bans for the entire day. 

AB 948 would require policies banning cell phone use in school to prohibit them throughout the entire school day including during instructional time, recess, the time students travel between classes and the lunch period. This would need to be implemented by July 1, 2027, under the bill. 

Rep. Lindee Brill (R-Sheboygan Falls) told lawmakers on the Assembly Education committee that the bill is just one part of a “multifaceted approach” to addressing the question of protecting children online. 

“If schools can be a safe zone that this bill helps implement, that is a huge piece,” she said. 

Brill said that a student during one of the task force meetings said that he had many experiences on social media and “most of them were bad” and that social media “brings you down.”

Wisconsin recently enacted a statewide cell phone ban, signed into law by Gov. Tony Evers in October. But  2025 Wisconsin Act 42 only requires school districts to implement policies that ban cellphones during instructional times. These policies need to include exceptions for emergencies, for educational purposes and cases involving student health care, individualized education plans (IEPs) or 504 plans (learning environment accommodations).

Even prior to the recent state law, according to a Wisconsin Policy Forum report, most Wisconsin school districts already restricted student cellphone use, though policies and enforcement varied widely across the state.

However, Brill said the state should go further.

“School districts are right now considering adopting these policies independently and there’s a groundswell of parents calling for it,” Brill said.

Rep. Joel Kitchens (R-Sturgeon Bay), who led the first cellphone ban law, noted that he got a lot of pushback when he first proposed the idea because it was a “fairly new concept.” He said he would have liked to pass a bell-to-bell ban to begin with, but he didn’t think there was the political support necessary.

“Since that time, though, this issue has exploded across the country and Wisconsin is now on the weaker end of it,” Kitchens said, adding that New York, a Democratic-led state, and Louisiana, a Republican-led state, have the strictest bans in the country.

AB 948 would also explicitly allow school districts to use pouches or other storage devices for cellphones or ban having cellphones on school premises. 

Democratic lawmakers on the education committee questioned the approach as a  “one-size-fits-all” solution to the issue of cellphones, as well as the exclusion of the state’s private choice and independent charter schools, which receive taxpayers dollars, from the requirement.

“Why the one-size-fits-all nature of this?” Rep. Christian Phelps (D-Eau Claire) asked. He noted that there may be students who have a part-time job and need to stay in-touch with their employers during the school day and asked whether lawmakers would be open to allowing exceptions for phones during lunch if a school chooses.

“We did it for 200 years without cellphones before and I think we can do it again,” Kitchens said. “The more you understand the issue the more clear it becomes. You have to have a strict policy.”

Rep. Joe Sheehan (D-Sheboygan) said that the superintendent of the school district in the area he represents in the Assembly did not want the broader ban on cellphones. He also asked about the exclusion of the state’s voucher schools. He said if the schools don’t want to follow the regulations placed on schools getting taxpayer funding then “don’t take the money.” 

Brill said that parents are sending their children to voucher schools so they can get the education that fits their children best and that she doesn’t want there to be “punitive damages on private schools because they’re getting tax dollars when, in reality, it’s that child who’s getting the education.”

Kitchens said a bill that only includes public schools is all they can get done “politically” right now.

No one else testified on the bill.

Regulations on content, social media access

The Assembly Children and Families committee took up a set of bills that would regulate social media companies and platforms. 

AB 961 would require distributors of media, including print publications and digital platforms, to use prominent “explicit content” warning labels.

Rep. Joy Goeben (R-Hobart) said the bill would establish a “common-sense framework ensuring that material intended strictly for adults … is clearly identified before it is accessed.”

The bill defines “explicit content” as material “intended for an adult audience” that “lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value” and that “depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way.”

Under the bill, the warning label would need to be on the front cover or first page or on the packaging for print publications and for digital platforms, the label would need to appear for at least 10 seconds or until a user acknowledges the warning.

The warning label would need to be similar to: “WARNING: This material contains explicit content that may be harmful or offensive. Viewer discretion is advised. Not intended for minors.”

“Ultimately, this bill is about consumer transparency, helps protect minors by ensuring explicit material clearly is labeled and responsibly presented,” Goeben said. 

Rep. Jill Billings (D-La Crosse) asked Goeben whether she would be open to an amendment to remove printed materials from the bill, citing concerns from book sellers. 

“If this got this signed, you betcha I would, but realistically most things that are sold, aren’t they sold, like, in a wrapper?” Goeben asked, adding that she didn’t think it would be fair to social media or internet stakeholders to exclude printed materials.

“I think we really need to think about applying equally to all the people who create disturbing content,” Goeben said. 

“Maybe take print media out of it because again… this isn’t like the emerging technology where parents are struggling with trying to address what their kids are seeing and how they’re putting parental controls on it. Print media is a bit of a different animal,” Billings said. 

AB 962 would require app developers and app stores to verify the age of users and, if they identified a minor’s account, to get parental consent before child users are able to download or purchase apps or make in-store purchases. Accounts belonging to a minor would have to be affiliated with an account owned by a parent.

Goeben said the bill would give parents tools they have been asking for. 

“Parents should never discover after the fact that an app that their child has used daily has become more invasive or more dangerous,” Goeben said. “This proposal is narrowly and carefully tailored… it does not ban apps or censor content or interfere with innovation… What it does do is establish clear and uniform rules so families are no longer forced to navigate a confusing patchwork of opaque policies… written by corporations.” 

The bill would also prohibit apps and app stores from enforcing a contract or terms of service against a minor unless there is parental consent. And it bars knowingly misrepresenting any information in a parental consent disclosure and sharing or disclosing any personal information collected when conducting age verification.

The bill includes a provision to allow a minor or parent of a minor harmed by a violation to bring civil action against an app store provider or developer. They could be awarded actual damages or $1,000 for each violation, whichever amount is greater, and punitive damages if the violation was egregious, as well as court costs and reasonable attorney fees.

AB 963 would impose a number of requirements related to underage users on social media platforms that bring in more than $1 billion in revenue per year. Social media platforms would need to estimate the age of users and whether they are minors. 

The requirements include setting the default privacy settings at the most private; not allowing for “addictive features” including infinite scrolling, a profile-based feed, push notifications, autoplay and displaying likes; and preventing profile-based, paid commercial advertising in a minor’s feed.

Platforms would also need to terminate an account if they have reason to believe the user is a minor without parental consent. If a parent requests the termination of a child’s account, it must be done within 14 days, and the means to terminate an account must be clear, simple, and easy to locate. 

The bill includes a provision to allow a private civil action by a parent or child aggrieved by a negligent, reckless or knowing violation for declaratory or injunctive relief and damages. If the violation was reckless or knowing, the parent or minor would be entitled to $10,000 or actual damages per violation.

Brittney and Luke Bird, the parents of Bradyn Bohn, the 15-year-old who killed himself after falling victim to sextortion, testified in favor of the bill. They have become prominent advocates for online safety and child protection in the wake of the death of their son. 

Luke Bird told lawmakers on the committee that the bills are “meaningful steps towards preventing further tragedies.” 

“Over the last 11 months, we’ve learned firsthand how inadequate current safeguards are when it comes to internet use. The dangers are real, they’re immediate, and they’re widespread and growing,” he said. “There’s an active case against Meta involving sextortion scams. Snapchat is facing cases tied to drug distribution. TikTok has been tied to dangerous online challenges…. As parents and as citizens we’re expected to trust that our children can safely navigate these digital spaces. We believe safeguards, accountability and stronger protections must be put in place. That begins with you, in here.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A Madison Burger King owned by Cave Enterprises of Chicago. The Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development has found more than 1,600 violations of state child labor laws by Cave, which owns 100 Burger King outlets in Wisconsin. (Wisconsin Examiner photo)

This report has been updated.

The owner of more than 100 Wisconsin Burger King franchises will be required to pay 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 — liquidated damages amounting to 200% of the wage shortfall. 

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. The company must make the payments within 20 days to resolve the case.

Cave has not replied to an email message from the Wisconsin Examiner sent Friday to the company’s human resources manager seeking comment on the DWD’s findings.

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.

Those complaints were resolved individually, DWD Secretary-designee Amy Pechacek told the Wisconsin Examiner in an interview Friday.

But they also pointed to a larger pattern in “how this employer interacts with its minor-aged workforce,” Pechacek said. Investigators decided that “this warrants a very deep-dive, intensive audit about their practices as it relates to employing minors here in the state of Wisconsin.”

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.

DWD’s auditors “literally reviewed thousands and thousands and thousands of records for months,” Pechaeck said.

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.

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.

When DWD issues work permits, it also sends employers letters informing them about the details of Wisconsin’s child labor regulations, including the limits on hours of work and requirements such as the one for paid meal breaks after six hours of work. 

“It’s just not in the best interest of the youth, our families, or even the business to be using workers and youth workers in a way that again is really going to potentially impact their success in other areas that we want them to be protected in,” Pechacek said. 

“We have to put some guard rails around utilizing youth workforce so that we can protect them,” she added. “That also protects the businesses. These kids are going to school all day. They need breaks. They need to be able to focus on also being a kid.”

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 report was updated Friday following an interview with DWD Secretary-designee Amy Pechacek.

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.”

The headline on this report has been revised for clarity. 

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.