Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem at a roundtable discussion with local ranchers and employees from U.S. Customs and Border Protection on Jan. 7, 2026 in Brownsville, Texas. (Photo by Michael Gonzalez/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Members of Congress on Thursday sought a ruling from a federal judge to block yet another Department of Homeland Security policy that required a notice for lawmakers to conduct oversight visits to immigration detention facilities.

The policy is the third from DHS Secretary Kristi Noem on the subject, and it is nearly identical to the previous two. 

Noem’s policies put in place a new requirement that members of Congress must give DHS seven days notice before conducting an oversight visit at a facility that holds immigrants, despite a 2019 appropriations law that allows for unannounced visits by lawmakers. 

On Feb. 2, U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb blocked a seven-day notification policy ordered by Noem one day after the deadly shooting of Renee Good by a federal immigration officer in Minneapolis on Jan. 7. 

On the same day as Cobb’s ruling, Noem issued a nearly identical policy, after Democrats said they would refuse to approve new DHS funding unless changes in enforcement tactics were made following a second deadly shooting of Alex Pretti by two Customs and Border Protection officers.

With disagreement between both parties, and Thursday’s failed vote to move forward on funding the Homeland Security bill for fiscal year 2026, the agency will be shut down beginning early Saturday. 

However, even if DHS is shut down, Immigration and Customs Enforcement still has $75 billion in funding due to the tax cuts and spending package signed into law last year.

Agency shutting down

Department of Justice attorneys on Thursday argued because DHS will be shut down, the appropriations law will expire by the end of the week and therefore the unannounced oversight provision for members of Congress will no longer be in effect.

An attorney for the members of Congress, Christine L. Coogle, rejected that argument and said just because the funds expire does not mean the law, which is a rider in the Homeland Security funding bill, does as well. 

“The law itself does not expire,” she said. “And so the oversight rider remains on the books.” 

Cobb said she would extend her temporary restraining order until March 2, or until she rules, whichever comes first.

Visits denied

Under a 2019 appropriations law, any member of Congress can carry out an unannounced visit to a federal facility that holds immigrants, referred to as Section 527. But in June, multiple Democrats were denied visits to ICE facilities, so they sued. 

“What we’re really seeking here is a return to the status quo,” Coogle said in court Thursday. 

In December, Cobb granted the request to stay Noem’s policy, finding it violated the 2019 law. 

But in the second policy Noem issued on Jan. 8, she argued because the ICE facilities are using funds through the Republican spending and tax cuts law, known as the “One, Big Beautiful Bill,” and not the DHS appropriations bill, those facilities are therefore exempt from unannounced oversight visits by members of Congress. 

Cobb earlier this month, rejected that argument from the Trump administration and temporarily blocked the policy for the plaintiffs in the case. 

The House Democrats who sued include Joe Neguse of Colorado, Adriano Espaillat of New York, Kelly Morrison of Minnesota, Jamie Raskin of Maryland, Robert Garcia of California, J. Luis Correa of California, Jason Crow of Colorado, Veronica Escobar of Texas, Dan Goldman of New York, Jimmy Gomez of California, Raul Ruiz of California, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi and Norma Torres of California.

Attendees at a Feb. 12 protest called for a pause on data center construction in Wisconsin. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

A group of Democratic state lawmakers on Thursday announced a proposal to put a moratorium on data center construction in Wisconsin as communities across the state grapple with local resistance to the development of hyperscale AI data centers. 

Debates around data centers have become increasingly tense in recent months as residents of communities including Mount Pleasant, Mount Horeb, Beaver Dam, Port Washington and Janesville have rallied opposition to  the approval of data centers by local officials. 

While officials in these communities are often tempted by the promise of increased property tax revenue from the facilities, residents have raised objections to their local representatives ceding local land to multibillion-dollar tech companies, the massive amounts of energy and water needed to operate the large data centers and the related effects on local utility rates and the environment to produce all the power.

Several pieces of legislation to regulate data center construction have already been proposed in the Legislature. In January, Assembly Republicans passed a bill that would establish some regulations, but Democrats said it didn’t do enough to prevent electricity costs from being passed on to regular consumers and included a provision that would stymie renewable energy development in the state. 

With just days left before the Legislature ends its work for the session next week, a group of Democratic lawmakers rolled out a proposal that would pause data center construction until “all of the questions that you have, that you have been asking your local mayors, you have been asking your local legislators, you have been asking these data centers, that all of those are actually answered,” Sen. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee) said at a press conference Thursday afternoon with local data center activists. 

The bill defines a data center as “a facility having a primary purpose of storing, managing, and processing digital data and that has at least 5,000 servers, occupies at least 10,000 square feet, or has an electricity demand of at least 100 megawatts.”

The bill wouldn’t allow the construction of any data centers in the state until the state establishes a data center planning authority; prohibits energy and water costs from being shifted to residential utility customers; creates a “land and community funding mechanism”; eliminates state and local financial subsidies for data centers; mandates public reporting of data center energy and water use; creates data center-specific pollution regulations; requires that 100% of the energy produced for data centers be renewable; requires that data center construction projects pay prevailing or collectively bargained wages; restores planning authority to the Public Service Commission; prohibits non-disclosure agreements between data centers and government entities and creates an enforcement and penalty structure for data centers that violate regulations. 

“The intent is not to permanently prohibit data centers, but to ensure that any future development is responsible, transparent, and does not impose additional financial burdens on Wisconsin households,” a co-sponsorship memo on the proposal states. “Wisconsinites should not be asked to shoulder higher utility costs while large new energy users operate without clear rules, accountability, or public oversight. This bill provides the Legislature with the time and authority necessary to establish a fair and comprehensive framework that protects ratepayers, workers, and local communities before large-scale data centers are allowed to move forward.”

On Thursday, a few dozen people gathered outside the state Capitol to protest against data center construction before meeting in a hearing room for a news conference and panel discussion. Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison), one of the several Democrats running in the primary for governor, said at the press conference that the data center proposals have galvanized anti-corporate views in communities of all political stripes. 

“This is about community power and returning community control to folks all across the state,” Hong said. “I am so incredibly grateful because I have not seen this type of bipartisan opposition to corporate control. I have not seen this type of bipartisan support for ensuring that we protect our natural resources. Our natural resources are not for sale. Our health is not for sale. Our shared future depends on all of us fighting right now to ensure that we are holding AI data centers accountable.”

Marathon Petroleum Company’s Salt Lake City Refinery in Salt Lake City on Wednesday, Jan. 3, 2024. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump and his top environmental policy officer finalized a move Thursday to undo an Environmental Protection Agency regulation that laid the foundation for federal rules governing emissions of the greenhouse gases that cause climate change.

At a White House event, Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said they were officially rolling back the “endangerment finding” that labeled greenhouse gases a threat to public health and provided a framework for the EPA to regulate emissions. 

The 2009 finding, established under President Barack Obama, called climate change a danger to human health and therefore gave the EPA power to regulate greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide from cars and trucks. 

Such regulations created a challenge for automakers and other industries, which dragged down the entire economy, according to Trump, administration officials and allies in Congress. 

Democrats and their allies in environmental and climate activism, though, consider the measure a crucial tool to address climate change and protect human health.

Undoing the finding will remove the economy-wide uncertainty, Trump argued. 

“That is why, effective immediately, we are repealing the ridiculous endangerment finding and terminating all additional green emission standards imposed unnecessarily on vehicle models and engines between 2012 and 2027 and beyond,” he said Thursday. 

Affordability argument

In its initial notice last year that it would repeal the endangerment finding, the EPA said it did not have the authority to regulate vehicle emissions.

With household costs, including transportation, expected to be a major theme in the fall’s midterm campaigns to determine control of Congress, members of both parties have framed it as an economic issue.

“This will be the largest deregulatory action in American history, and it will save the American people $1.3 trillion in crushing regulations,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said at Tuesday’s press briefing.

Some Democrats and climate activists argue the rollback will hurt the country’s nascent renewable energy sector, driving up the cost of home heating, electricity and other common expenses.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., issued a lengthy joint statement slamming the announcement.

“The Trump EPA has fully abandoned its duty to protect the American people from greenhouse gas pollution and climate change.  This shameful abdication — an economic, moral, and political failure — will harm Americans’ health, homes, and economic well-being. It ignores scientific fact and common-sense observations to serve big political donors,” the senators said.

“This sham decision initially relied on a now thoroughly disgraced and abandoned ‘report’ by known climate deniers. Zeldin stuck to this charade anyway, undaunted by half a century of actual evidence, showing the fix was in from the beginning,” they continued.

Money and fossil fuels

The move outraged Democrats and climate activists when Zeldin first proposed it last summer. Climate activists say undoing the finding undercuts the federal government’s ability to address an issue critical to the United States and the entire world.

In a Tuesday floor speech, Schumer blasted the rollback as a giveaway to fossil fuel companies, leaders of which contributed to Trump’s 2024 campaign.

“Remember: In the spring of 2024, Donald Trump invited top oil executives to Mar-a-Lago and told them, if you raise me a billion dollars to get me elected, I will cut regulations so you can make more money,” Schumer said. “That devil’s bargain is now coming true. I never thought it would be this way in America, in this bald disgusting way that so hurts people’s health, but there it is.”

Democratic attorneys general and environmental groups are likely to sue over the rollback.

At least one lawsuit, from the Environmental Defense Fund, was promised Thursday afternoon.

“EDF will challenge this decision in court, where evidence matters, and keep working with everyone who wants to build a better, safer and more prosperous future,” Fred Krupp, EDF president, said in a statement Thursday. 

Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown, a Democrat, said last year he would “consider all options if EPA continues down this cynical path.”

Ashley Murray contributed to this report.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., speaks with reporters on Capitol Hill on Friday, Sept. 19, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The Department of Homeland Security is headed for a shutdown as lawmakers on Capitol Hill remained stuck Thursday over bans on face masks and other immigration tactics. 

The department’s funding expires Friday night.

A procedural vote to advance a funding bill failed in the Senate, 52-47, with Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., the only Democrat to join Republicans on the measure. Senate Majority Leader John Thune changed his vote in a maneuver to recommit the bill and bring it up again later. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., did not vote.

The Senate then left for a scheduled recess over the Presidents Day holiday, and will not return for votes until Feb. 23.

Democrats have so far rebuffed counter proposals from the White House and a Republican offer to further extend temporary DHS funding while negotiations continue. 

The vote came just hours after President Donald Trump’s border czar Tom Homan announced immigration officers will retreat from Minneapolis, which has become ground zero for the administration’s aggressive and deadly escalations that sparked mass protests and sinking approval numbers for the president.

Thune said the administration’s exit from Minneapolis is “certainly a demonstration of good faith.”

Demands for warrants and more

The fatal shootings in Minneapolis by federal agents of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, both U.S. citizens, has prompted Democrats to demand immigration officers obtain judicial warrants to forcibly enter homes, wear and actively use body cameras, remove face masks, wear identification and undergo additional training.

The department, which houses Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, is the remaining part of the government for which Congress has not passed full-year funding. In addition to ICE and Customs and Border Protection, the department also includes the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, the Coast Guard and the Transportation Security Administration, otherwise known as TSA.

Short-term stopgap funds for the department expire Friday at midnight, though ICE will likely continue operations on an influx of cash earmarked for the agency in Republicans’ massive tax and spending cuts law enacted in July.

TSA agents, Coast Guard personnel and other essential government workers will continue their duties without pay until lawmakers strike a deal. Others will be sent home, also without pay, though all will receive back pay once the shutdown ends.

Red lines

Thune said Democrats “don’t seem to want to play ball” and consider his party’s “reasonable efforts and requests.”

“There’s some obviously red lines that Democrats have and that the White House has. I think Republicans, as I told you before, are very interested in making sure that law enforcement officials continue to be able to do their jobs in a way that is safe and that we aren’t in any way enabling, you know, dangerous illegal aliens, or disallowing them being detained and deported from the country,” the South Dakota Republican said following the failed vote.

Thune said the White House is “giving more and more ground on some of these key issues” but declined to provide further detail on the administration’s proposal.

He added he did not plan to cancel the Senate’s planned recess next week but has let members know they’ll need to be available if a deal emerges.

“I’m encouraged to hear that they’re actually going to put together another counterproposal. I think if people are operating in good faith and actually want a solution … this can get done,” he said.

Following the failed vote for full-year funding, Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., asked for unanimous consent to keep Homeland Security open with another stop-gap measure.

“Let’s keep talking, let’s keep working. Don’t let anyone miss a paycheck,” Britt, the chair of the Homeland Security appropriations subcommittee, said.

Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the Homeland Security appropriations subcommittee, objected, saying the Democrats want “to rein in  ICE’s lawlessness.” 

Democrats want GOP to get ‘serious’

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer doubled down on Democrats’ demands following the failed procedural vote. 

“This vote today asked a simple question: Will you rein in ICE’s abuses, or will you vote to extend the chaos?” he said. “Republicans chose chaos and the Democrats, we refused — Republicans chose to put a bill on the floor that ignored the abuses, ignored the outrage, ignored what the American people want, overwhelmingly, and they failed to get the votes to avoid a shutdown at DHS.” 

The New York Democrat called on Republicans to get “serious” if they want to keep DHS funded. 

“They need to sit down, they need to negotiate in good faith, produce legislation that actually reins in ICE and stops the violence,” Schumer said. 

Both sides have complained that the other did not work fast enough during the past two weeks to find a deal.

“I wish our Republican colleagues in the White House had shown more seriousness from the start, but Senate Democrats have been clear that we have all taken an oath, an oath to uphold the law of the country and this Department of Homeland Security, this ICE, is out of control. They are tear gassing our children’s schools. They are killing American citizens. They are disappearing legal migrants,” Murphy said. 

Ahead of Thursday’s vote, Murphy said Democrats would not fund the department until an agreement is reached with the White House to “reform abusive practices of ICE.” 

Murphy told reporters the White House is “obviously trying to get us to fund the department,” pointing to the announcement of immigration officers soon leaving Minneapolis. 

“If we fund ICE, because we believe that the drawdown is meaningful, they’ll just pocket that money and show up in another city two weeks from now,” he said. “We need statutory changes to stop them from the abuse, or they will be quiet for a couple of weeks and show up in Philadelphia on April 1.” 

Thune said “the ball is in Democrats’ court,” during remarks on the Senate floor Thursday morning. 

“Are they going to shut down the Department of Homeland Security — which would be their second shutdown this fiscal year — or are they going to allow for the time to negotiate with the White House and get agreement on a final bill?” he said.

A masked U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent knocks on a car window in Minnesota on Jan. 12, 2026. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

After White House officials announced Thursday they will be ending the federal immigration enforcement surge in the Twin Cities, U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin said she would not vote for a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security, saying she hopes to prevent some other community from being victimized next.

On Thursday afternoon, Senate Democrats blocked the DHS funding measure. A procedural vote to advance the funding bill failed in the Senate, 52-47. Baldwin joined with all Senate Democrats except Sen. John Fetterman in voting against the measure. 

Baldwin said at a virtual news conference Thursday that her office has received more than 40,000 phone calls demanding that Immigration and Customs Enforcement be reined in. 

“The Trump administration claimed that they are winding down their invasion of Minneapolis, but I’ll believe it when I see it, and the truth is that is not even close to enough,” she said. “What is stopping them from just going to another American city and causing the same chaos? We need to put in law some serious guardrails and rein in ICE, and that’s exactly what I’m fighting for.”

Baldwin said she wants ICE to be held to the same standards as local police officers, which includes not wearing masks, carrying identification and wearing body cameras. She also said she wants to stop “chaotic, roving bands of federal agents” storming across communities as they have  done in the Twin Cities and to make sure the investigations into the shooting deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, the two U.S. citizens killed by federal agents in Minneapolis, are conducted independently and transparently. 

But Baldwin said congressional Republicans and President Trump have been unwilling to work with Democrats to put up “common sense” guardrails for ICE operations.

“I am still hopeful that we can find compromise, but negotiations are a two-way street,” she said. “Democrats have put forward some common sense measures that Americans overwhelmingly support, and so it’s up to my Republican colleagues if they want to get serious about negotiating with us. I’ve been clear for weeks that unless serious measures are added to this legislation that serve to rein in ICE, I am not going to be a signatory to a blank check for this administration to wreak havoc on communities and endanger our neighbors.”

A growing memorial stands Wednesday, Jan. 28, 2026 where Alex Pretti, 37, was shot and killed by Border Patrol agents days before at Nicollet Avenue and 26th Street in Minneapolis. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

WASHINGTON — The top leaders of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee showed a play-by-play video leading up to the fatal shooting in Minneapolis of Alex Pretti by Customs and Border Protection officers, as they grilled the heads of two federal immigration agencies about the incident during an oversight hearing Thursday.

Chairman Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, said there needs to be accountability following the deaths of Pretti, an intensive care unit nurse and Renee Good, a mother of three and poet, in January at the hands of immigration agents.

“The thousands of people in the streets in Minneapolis and in Minnesota and the millions of viewers who witnessed the recent deaths, it’s clearly evident that the public trust has been lost,” Paul said. “To restore trust in (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and Border Patrol, they must admit their mistakes, be honest and forthright with their rules of engagement and pledge to reform.”

Paul and Michigan Sen. Gary Peters, the top Democrat on the panel, questioned ICE acting Director Todd Lyons and CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott about immigration officers’ use of force tactics and whether the agents followed de-escalation procedures. 

“You have to look at what your rules are for drawing weapons, because it appears to me they’re not using the same standards as the police,” Paul said of immigration agents.

It was the second congressional oversight hearing for Scott and Lyons this week. Democrats and Republicans are at a stalemate over funding for the agency for fiscal year 2026, with Democrats demanding changes in immigration enforcement tactics after the deadly encounters in Minneapolis.

The shutdown will not stop President Donald Trump’s mass deportation push, however. Even if an agreement to fund DHS is not reached by Friday and the agency is closed, ICE still has $75 billion in funding from the tax and spending package from last year.

Minutes into Thursday’s hearing, border czar Tom Homan announced that immigration enforcement operations would end in Minneapolis after two months. 

Pretti pepper sprayed, held down

Paul and Peters showed the leaders of CBP and ICE a New York Times video analysis leading up to the shooting of Pretti, who was pepper sprayed and tackled to the ground by multiple immigration officers. He was held down and at least 10 shots can be heard on video.

Lyons and Scott declined to comment on the clips shown, saying there are multiple ongoing investigations. Scott said the FBI, CBP and ICE were conducting their own investigations.

Paul expressed his frustration with that answer and pointed to the lead-up to Pretti’s encounters with federal officers. The video shows a woman yelling at a federal immigration officer. She is shoved to the ground and Pretti goes to help her up.

“No one in America believes shoving that woman’s head, in the face, in the snow, was de-escalation,” Paul said. 

Paul asked if an appropriate response to someone yelling is to shove them to the ground. 

Scott said it was not, but that he couldn’t comment on the specific video. 

Paul said that in the video it’s clear that Pretti is using his hand to protect his face from pepper spray.

“He is retreating at every moment,” Paul said. “He’s trying to get away, and he’s being sprayed in the face. I don’t think that’s de-escalatory. That’s an escalatory thing.”

Paul said an investigation needs to be done quickly. 

Scott said there is body camera footage from the officers involved in Pretti’s shooting that will be released to the public.

“I don’t think this should take months and months and years and years,” Paul said. “There needs to be a conclusion.”

Peters pointed to how immigration officers are seen beating Pretti with a pepper spray canister. He asked Scott if that was an appropriate response. 

“What I’m seeing is a subject that’s also not complying, he’s not following any guidance. He’s fighting back nonstop,” Scott said, adding that he couldn’t answer Peters’ question because the investigation was ongoing.

Peters then questioned Scott and Lyons on why DHS Secretary Kristi Noem quickly labeled Good and Pretti as “domestic terrorists.” He asked the men if they had given her any briefing or additional information for her to have drawn that conclusion.

Both said they had not. 

Michigan Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin also told Lyons that she was concerned about statements made by Trump about sending immigration agents to polling locations ahead of the midterm elections. 

“There’s no reason for us to deploy to a polling facility,” he said. 

Minnesota withdrawal

Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford informed the first panel, which brought Minnesota leaders to the nation’s capital, of Homan’s announcement that the surge would be ending in Minneapolis.

The first panel included GOP Rep. Tom Emmer of Minnesota; Minnesota House Republican Floor Leader Harry Niska; Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, a Democrat; and the commissioner of the Department of Corrections for the state of Minnesota, Paul Schnell.  

Lankford said there needs to be better coordination between local and federal law enforcement, such as 287(g) agreements. In those partnerships, which are voluntary, local law enforcement will notify ICE if they arrest someone who is in the country unlawfully and hold that person until federal immigration officers can arrive.

“So the position that my office has taken is that, if you are a sheriff who wants to pursue 287(g), you must have the support of your county board,” Ellison said, adding that seven counties have such agreements.  

One Republican, Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, blamed the deaths of Pretti and Good not on the immigration agents who killed them. He said they occurred because Ellison urged Minnesotans to exercise their First Amendment rights.

“Two people are dead because you encouraged them to put themselves into harm’s way,” Johnson said to Ellison. “And now you are exploiting those two martyrs. You ought to feel damn guilty about it.”

In response, Ellison said, “It was a nice theatrical performance but it was all lies.”

‘Occupied by the federal government’

New Jersey Democratic Sen. Andy Kim noted that the number of ICE agents, about 3,000, initially sent to Minneapolis, significantly dwarfed the local police, which is roughly under 600. He asked Ellison how it felt in Minneapolis to have that many federal immigration agents in the city. 

“It felt like we were being occupied by the federal government,” Ellison said. 

During the second panel, Kim asked Lyons if ICE is planning to conduct a similar operation in other cities.   

Lyons said the agency would, and said he learned lessons from the deportation drive in Minneapolis. 

“We look at lessons learned,” Lyons said. “The problem, I believe, is the … agitators and the coordination on the protest side. People can go out there and protest, but why are we going to encourage individuals to go out there and impede and put themselves in harm’s way? I think that’s the lesson learned from this.”

Henry Garnica, the owner of CentroMex Supermercado in East St. Paul, spoke to reporters at the Capitol Thursday Feb. 12, 2026. (Photo by Alyssa Chen/Minnesota Reformer)

Gov. Tim Walz proposed $10 million in forgivable loans for Minnesota businesses affected by the surge in federal immigration activity starting in December.

The incursion of around 3,000 federal immigration agents in Minnesota in what the Trump administration called “Operation Metro Surge” led to revenue losses for businesses, especially those in major immigrant corridors, as employees and customers stayed home out of fear of being detained by federal immigration agents.

The one-time forgivable loan proposal was announced Thursday at a Capitol press briefing, moments after U.S. border czar Tom Homan announced the end of the surge and claimed success in making the Twin Cities and Minnesota “safer.” The unprecedented federal incursion ignited massive resistance and resulted in two killings of American citizens, among other high-profile incidents.

The damage from Operation Metro Surge is still being assessed, Walz said. Minneapolis businesses are estimated to have lost $10 to $20 million a week in sales, the Star Tribune previously reported.

The relief package would apply to businesses that can demonstrate substantial revenue loss tied to the surge with revenues between $200,000 and $4 million annually. The loans would be between $2,500 to $25,000, with an opportunity to apply for 50% forgiveness after a year.

Walz acknowledged that the $10 million relief proposal is “a very small piece of” the recovery. He said that the upcoming legislative session, which starts Feb. 17, “needs to be about recovery of the damage that’s been done to us.” The prospects at the Legislature aren’t great, however: Republican House Speaker Lisa Demuth, who is also a frontrunner for the GOP nomination for governor, is likely disinclined to support anything that could even implicitly be viewed as a criticism of the Trump administration’s immigration agenda.

Henry Garnica, the owner of CentroMex Supermercado in St. Paul’s East Side, a grocery store that caters to the Hispanic community, spoke at the briefing. Federal agents visited CentroMex without a judicial warrant in December, where they faced off with residents who quickly arrived at the scene and formed a chain outside the entrance. The incident ended in the federal agents leaving.

Garnica, who immigrated from Colombia over 20 years ago and is a U.S. citizen, said that his sales have been down 30 to 40% during the federal immigration enforcement surge. He spoke wearing a whistle and showed reporters his passport that he’s been carrying: “Hopefully we don’t have to do this anymore.”

Garnica said he expects that recovering from the loss in sales will take at least three to six months.

Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly outside the District of Columbia federal courthouse where his lawsuit against the Department of Defense was heard on Feb. 3, 2026. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction Thursday, blocking the Department of Defense from downgrading Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly’s rank as a retired Navy captain for appearing in a video where he and other lawmakers reminded members of the military they aren’t required to follow illegal orders. 

Senior Judge Richard J. Leon of the District of Columbia District Court wrote in the 29-page ruling that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and others named in the lawsuit have “trampled on Senator Kelly’s First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees.”

In his scathing opinion loaded with emphasis and exclamation points, Leon wrote, “After all, as Bob Dylan famously said, ‘You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.’ To say the least, our retired veterans deserve more respect from their Government, and our Constitution demands they receive it!” 

The senior judge ruled that Kelly is likely to succeed on the merits of his case. The preliminary injunction will block Pentagon action while the case proceeds through the courts.

Leon conceded that while active military personnel are subject to “well-established doctrine” limiting First Amendment rights, “(u)fortunately for Secretary Hegseth, no court has ever extended those principles to retired servicemembers, much less a retired servicemember serving in Congress and exercising oversight responsibility over the military.” 

“This Court will not be the first to do so!”

Leon was nominated by former President George W. Bush.

Leon concluded the ruling with a biting passage suggesting that “Rather than trying to shrink the First Amendment liberties of retired servicemembers, Secretary Hegseth and his fellow Defendants might reflect and be grateful for the wisdom and expertise that retired servicemembers have brought to public discussions and debate on military matters in our Nation over the past 250 years.” 

“If so, they will more fully appreciate why the Founding Fathers made free speech the first Amendment in the Bill of Rights! Hopefully this injunction will in some small way help bring about a course correction in the Defense Department’s approach to these issues,” Leon wrote.

‘This case was never just about me’

Kelly said in a lengthy statement following the ruling that the federal court “made clear that Pete Hegseth violated the constitution when he tried to punish me for something I said.” 

“But this case was never just about me. This administration was sending a message to millions of retired veterans that they too can be censured or demoted just for speaking out. That’s why I couldn’t let it stand,” Kelly said.

Kelly said the nation is at a “critical moment” to defend free speech.

“The First Amendment is a foundation of our democracy. It’s how we demand better of presidents like Donald Trump – whether they are jacking up the cost of groceries with tariffs or sending masked immigration agents to intimidate American communities.  

  “But Donald Trump and his administration don’t like accountability. They don’t like when journalists report on the consequences of their policies. They don’t like when retired veterans question them. And they don’t like when millions of everyday Americans peacefully protest. That’s why they are cracking down on our rights and trying to make examples out of anyone they can.”

The Department of Defense pointed to Hegseth’s X account as official comment on the matter.

The secretary wrote about the case: “This will be immediately appealed. Sedition is sedition, ‘Captain.’”

DOD investigation

Kelly, Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, Colorado Rep. Jason Crow, Pennsylvania Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan and New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander, all Democrats with backgrounds in the military or national security, posted the video on Nov. 18

President Donald Trump reacted on social media a few days later, falsely claiming the video represented “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

The Defense Department announced on Nov. 24 that it had opened an investigation into “serious allegations of misconduct” against Kelly. Officials wrote the senator could face “recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures.” 

Hegseth wrote in a social media post on Jan. 5 that he had started the process to downgrade Kelly’s retirement rank as a Navy captain and his pay. 

Hegseth wrote Kelly’s “status as a sitting United States Senator does not exempt him from accountability, and further violations could result in further action.”

Kelly filed a lawsuit against the Department of Defense and Hegseth on Jan. 12, asking a federal judge to declare the effort “unlawful and unconstitutional.”

“Pete Hegseth is coming after what I earned through my twenty-five years of military service, in violation of my rights as an American, as a retired veteran, and as a United States Senator whose job is to hold him—and this or any administration—accountable,” Kelly wrote in a statement at the time. “His unconstitutional crusade against me sends a chilling message to every retired member of the military: if you speak out and say something that the President or Secretary of Defense doesn’t like, you will be censured, threatened with demotion, or even prosecuted.”

Court hearing

Leon held a hearing on Kelly’s request for a preliminary injunction on Feb. 3, where he asked the attorney representing the Department of Defense how any retired member of the military who is later elected as a member of Congress, especially one that sits on the Armed Services Committee, like Kelly does, could challenge any actions taken by the Defense Department. 

John Bailey, the Justice Department attorney, contended that Congress has determined that certain retired military members are still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

Benjamin Mizer, one of the lawyers on Kelly’s team, told the judge the Defense Department’s actions represented a “clear First Amendment violation.” 

Grand jury non-indictment

The other Democratic lawmakers in the video aren’t subject to the military’s judicial system but rebuked the Justice Department Wednesday for seeking a grand jury indictment against them for publishing the video, where they told Americans in the military and intelligence communities they “can” and “must refuse illegal orders.”

“No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. We know this is hard and that it’s a difficult time to be a public servant,” they said. “But whether you’re serving in the CIA, in the Army, or Navy, or the Air Force, your vigilance is critical.”

Slotkin, a former CIA officer, posted a video on Feb. 5, saying she had informed U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro that she wouldn’t be sitting for an interview. 

Slotkin said her letter to Bondi and Pirro also told them “to retain their records on this case in case I decide to sue for infringement of my constitutional rights.”

“To be honest, many lawyers told me to just be quiet, keep my head down and hopefully this will all just go away. But that’s exactly what the Trump administration and Jeanine Pirro want,” Slotkin said. “They are purposely using physical and legal intimidation to get me to shut up. But more importantly they’re using that intimidation to deter others from speaking out against their administration.

“The intimidation is the point and I’m not going to go along with that.”

House members 

Houlahan released her own video the same day saying she would not sit for an FBI interview and that the Democrats’ video “told the truth, it stated facts, it reiterated the law and it exercised speech explicitly protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.” 

“Free speech is not a favor that the government can revoke,” Houlahan said. “It is a right and I will not surrender it, for myself or for anyone else.” 

Deluzio wrote in a social media post the following day that he would “not be intimidated by any harassment campaign” and does “not intend to sit down for a voluntary interview with DOJ or FBI officials sent to interfere with the important work I’m doing for my constituents.”

Goodlander wrote in a statement that the “Justice Department is targeting us for doing our jobs, and the aim here is clear: to intimidate, coerce, and silence us. It will not work. I will not bend the knee in the face of lawless threats and rank weaponization — I will keep doing my job and upholding my oath to our Constitution.”

Crow told CNN’s Pamela Brown last week that he was treating the FBI’s investigation as “an attempt to try to threaten, harass and intimidate political opponents.”

“(Trump’s) trying to make an example out of me and Mark Kelly and others because if he can make an example out of a member of Congress or a senator then why would everyday Americans stand up and protest and dissent? But he has chosen the wrong people.”

ICE agents search the passenger of a truck as they arrest both him and the driver during a traffic stop Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2026 on Bottineau Blvd. in Robbinsdale. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

President Donald Trump’s border czar announced on Thursday an imminent end to Operation Metro Surge, claiming success from the unprecedented federal incursion that brought thousands of immigration officers to Minnesota, ignited massive resistance and resulted in two killings of American citizens.

“The Twin Cities, and Minnesota in general, are and will continue to be much safer for the communities here because of what we have accomplished under President Trump’s leadership,” Border Czar Tom Homan said during a morning news conference.

He said a “small footprint of personnel” will remain for “a period of time” to wind down the operation. Within the next week, agents sent here from other states will be sent home or deployed elsewhere, he said. Homan, who reportedly was investigated for receiving $50,000 in cash from an undercover FBI agent in 2024 in an alleged bribery scheme, said the personnel here for fraud investigations will remain.

The announcement comes a little over two weeks after Homan arrived in the state, taking over control of an operation that had, by any measure, spun out of control.

Since the beginning of the year, immigration agents have shot three people, killing two; racially profiled people, asking them to produce proof of legal residency; detained legal immigrants and shipped them across state lines, including young children; caused numerous car crashes; deployed chemical irritants on public school property; smashed the car windows of observers and arrested them before releasing them without charges; charged journalists and activists while stymieing investigations of federal agents, leading to an exodus of prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, among other high-profile incidents.

The surge was deeply unpopular in Minnesota and across the country. Nearly two-thirds of people in Minnesota disapprove of how ICE is handling its job, according to a recent poll by NBC News Decision Desk, KARE 11 and Minnesota Star Tribune.

“President Trump didn’t send me here because the operations were being run and conducted perfectly,” Homan acknowledged.

Homan took over control from Border Commander Gregory Bovino, who spent many days out in the field with his “troops,” as he referred to them, asking Somali Uber drivers for their passports and throwing gas at protesters.

Just three weeks ago, Bovino would not say when the operation would end, and said that it would be “ongoing until there are no more of those criminal illegal aliens roaming the streets.”

Homan’s arrival – and Bovino’s termination – brought a swift reversal. Homan announced the beginning of a drawdown last week, pulling 700 immigration agents from Minnesota. Gov. Tim Walz said earlier this week, after speaking with Trump’s Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, that he believed a full end to the surge was days away.

“They knew they needed to get out here but, in very Trumpian fashion, they needed to save face,” Walz said at a Thursday news conference.

Walz said the state must now begin efforts to recover from the massive disruption the operation brought to schools and businesses.

U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar said ending the operation is not enough.

“We need justice and accountability. That starts with independent investigations into the murders of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, economic restitution for businesses impacted, abolishing ICE, and the impeachment of Kristi Noem,” Omar posted to social media.

Other Democratic leaders welcomed the news of the draw down but expressed skepticism that the Trump administration would follow through.

“Any announcement of a drawdown or end to Operation Metro Surge must be followed by real action. Last week, we were told ICE would be reducing its presence in Minnesota. Yet yesterday, we witnessed a reckless high-speed chase in a densely populated, heavily visited part of our city,” St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her said in a statement.

A group of Minnesotans who traveled to Washington, D.C. said on Thursday that Congress must still deny a funding increase to Homeland Security; an ongoing stalemate over the issue appears likely to lead to a partial government shutdown on Friday.

“We need real investigations, real oversight, real consequences when lives are lost,” Rochester Imam Salah Mohamed said, standing in front of the U.S. Capitol.

The Trump administration began sending federal agents to the state late last year, and their ranks swelled to 3,000 in what the Department of Homeland Security called its largest operation ever.

The operation catalyzed fierce resistance from residents across the Twin Cities metro, who created sophisticated anonymous networks to monitor and document ICE activities and deliver food and other necessities to immigrants too afraid to leave their homes.

Opposition to the operation, that by most accounts looked and felt like a military siege, grew even larger following the killing of a Minneapolis ICE observer, Renee Good, in her car on Jan. 7. Just over two weeks later, Border Patrol agents killed a second person, Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center.

Walz along with other Democratic leaders have for weeks called on the Trump administration to end the operation, saying it has only endangered residents rather than increasing public safety.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison along with the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul sued the Trump administration in hopes of forcing an end to the surge, pointing to widespread accounts of racial discrimination, violence against bystanders and protesters and enforcement actions at schools, churches and hospitals.

Homan touted the many arrests federal agents made of undocumented immigrants with criminal records, including murderers, sex offenders and other violent criminals.

Yet of the roughly 4,000 arrests made since the beginning of Operation Metro Surge last December, Homan could not say how many were targeted arrests of people deemed a safety threat.

Homeland Security has not released the names of the people it arrested. Instead, the agency has released curated lists of people they call the “worst of the worst” who they claim to have taken off the streets. But many of those people were actually in state prisons already and were simply transferred to federal custody, following standard practice that started long before the operation.

Homan said they’ve earned significant collaboration with local law enforcement and seen a reduction in “agitator behavior” interrupting immigration operations, two key conditions he made at a news conference last week for a full draw down.

“We have obtained an unprecedented level of coordination from law enforcement officials that is focused on promoting public safety across the entire state,” Homan said.

He boasted that local sheriffs offices will notify ICE when people of interest are released from jails, which has been common practice for county sheriffs for years. Homan reiterated he will not ask sheriffs to detain people beyond their scheduled release, which violates Minnesota law according to an opinion issued by Ellison last year.

Homan thanked Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara, Hennepin County Sheriff Dawanna Witt and other law enforcement leaders “for their responsiveness and efforts to maintain law and order in the streets.”

He also thanked Walz for his “messages focusing on peace” and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey for directing police to take down community barricades in the street.

Walz said he didn’t give up anything as part of a deal to end the operation.

“Nothing has changed. The final agreement was that Minnesota would continue to do what we do,” Walz said.

Madison McVan contributed reporting. 

A produce cooler at Willy Street Co-op in Madison, Wisconsin. The Evers administration and a large group of advocates are calling on the Legislature to put $69 million more into the Wisconsin FoodShare program to cover new administrative expenses. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

Advocates are urging state lawmakers to help Wisconsin absorb new administrative costs as a result of federal changes to the nation’s primary food assistance program.

Changes made to Supplemental Nutrition Aid Program (SNAP) benefits in the mega bill signed by President Donald Trump last year will add $69.2 million to the cost of Wisconsin’s FoodShare program in the current two-year budget, according to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services. The agency administers the FoodShare program.

The federal mega bill, which Trump signed on July 4, cut taxes along with spending on some federal programs, including SNAP.

A letter from 165 participating groups asks legislators “to take immediate action to provide funding for these changes. Additional delays in providing this funding will put Wisconsin taxpayers at risk of paying for increased costs and will negatively impact communities, businesses, and SNAP recipients across Wisconsin.”

The coalition of social service, food industry and advocacy organizations held a press conference Wednesday to call for the added state support.

“At an average of $6 per person per day, SNAP supports nearly 700,000 Wisconsinites, and also supports local economies with each dollar in SNAP benefits, generating between $1.50 and $1.80 in economic activity,” said Jackie Anderson, executive director of Feeding Wisconsin.

The press conference coincided with a lobbying day for the Wisconsin Cheesemakers Association, one of the coalition members

“FoodShare brings more than a billion dollars of spending power into our state every year, and a large share of that is returned to Wisconsin producers, and in particular, dairy producers, that flows not only through grocery stores, but back through cheese plants and into dairy farms like the one my family owns,” said Andy Hatch, the owner of Uplands Cheese in Dodgeville and the cheesemakers’ association’s policy chair.

“This is a bipartisan issue” — one that the association’s members, Republicans and Democrats alike, “have all agreed on,” Hatch added. “Our core mission is to feed people and to support our communities, rural and urban, and is why we’ve come together with people across the state to ask our lawmakers to fund the requested $69 million and make sure that there is not a disruption to FoodShare.”

The request includes funding to add administrative staff to avoid errors in the state’s operation of the program. Among the changes to SNAP is a penalty that would require states to pick up some of the benefit costs if their errors exceed 6%. State officials have said that could cost Wisconsin up to $205 million.

The $69 million that the state has estimated it will require to implement those changes was not included in the 2025-27 state budget. Gov. Tony Evers’s office said he had told lawmakers about the need last August, and Evers highlighted the coalition’s call in a statement Thursday.

“Because of President Trump’s so-called ‘Big Beautiful Bill,’ Wisconsin taxpayers will already be on the hook for over a quarter of a billion dollars in new costs in future budgets,” Evers said.

“And if we don’t get the resources we’ve been asking for in order to keep our FoodShare error rate low, Wisconsinites could have to pay hundreds of millions even more in penalty fees each year,” he added. “That just cannot happen—it will cripple future state budgets. This funding is critical, and the Legislature must get this done.” 

The request includes $16.1 million to add staff in order to ensure that FoodShare is administered accurately. The new federal law requires states with SNAP error rates exceeding 6% to cover from 5% to 15% of the benefit costs starting in October 2027.

Wisconsin’s error rate in 2024 was 4.47%, the state health department said in a news release in August. The error rate flags instances when recipients get too much or too little SNAP aid or the state makes other mistakes in the program.

“However, rates naturally fluctuate, and even more so when the federal government changes program policies and standards with virtually no notice and is inconsistent with its definition of an error,” the health department release stated.

If the error rate rises and requires Wisconsin to start paying some of the benefit costs, that could cost the state up to $205 million a year, according to the Wisconsin DHS.

To hold down the state’s “historically low error rate while implementing the other provisions” in the federal law and to maintain quality control in administering FoodShare, the state and Wisconsin counties combined will need to add 56 employees, according to the health department.

The new federal law also increases the state’s share of administrative costs for SNAP from 50% to 75%, starting Oct. 1, 2026. That will cost the state an additional $32.4 million.

In addition, the law expanded work requirements for people who receive SNAP, which the Wisconsin DHS estimates would affect about 43,700 Wisconsin FoodShare recipients.

The new requirements affect anyone ages 18 to 64 without a child under 14 at home, including parents with children ages 14 to 17, who were previously exempt from work requirements. Previously work requirements applied to adults age 54 or younger without any children under 18 at home.

The state has estimated it would need an additional $20.7 million to increase participation in the FoodShare employment and training program for recipients who have work requirements and aren’t working already.

Reno Wright, public policy and advocacy director at the Hunger Task Force in Milwaukee, said more than 40% of FoodShare recipients are children, with about one in four Wisconsin children living in a household that uses FoodShare sometime during the year.

“Research shows that SNAP reduces child poverty by nearly 30% and is linked to long-term health and educational outcomes, but those outcomes depend on a system that functions efficiently,” Wright said. The funding sought for the program “ensures that the department has the staffing and the infrastructure needed to prevent delays and disruptions as new federal requirements take effect.”

There is not a stand-alone bill in the Legislature currently for the additional funding, but advocates hope an amendment could be added to another piece of  legislation that would fund SNAP.

Faith leaders and community members gather Thursday, Jan. 8, 2026 at the site where an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Good, 37, in south Minneapolis the previous day. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

Before Operation Metro Surge sent thousands of armed federal agents into Minneapolis, terrorizing families and spreading chaos and violence in formerly peaceful residential neighborhoods, local parent organizations were already setting up networks to provide mutual aid and safely transport children of immigrants to and from school.

“My school group of friends formed our first network of communication in October, after we saw what had happened in Chicago,” the mother of an elementary school student in South Minneapolis named Elizabeth told me in a phone interview Wednesday. She asked that her last name not be published, because of the danger of reprisals. 

The encrypted neighborhood chat started chiming for the first time on Tuesday, Dec. 9, she recalls, when “there were two people abducted early in the morning within blocks of my kid’s school.” When her child asked what was going on, “I said, you know, people are concerned about the safety of coming to school today,” Elizabeth recalls. “And like a good Minnesotan, my child realized that it was foggy outside and said, ‘Well, fog creates ice, and so the roads are probably slippery …’ And I said, yeah, they’re worried about ice on the roads. And I really had hope in that moment of naivety that that would be the last time we’d have to have that conversation. But it wasn’t.”

Since December, when Operation Metro Surge began, Elizabeth said her child’s class has shrunk from 25 students to just five. The school district has offered a remote learning option to immigrant families who are afraid to let their children leave the house. Meanwhile, the neighborhood chat group, which began with five families whose children played soccer together, has connected with hundreds of volunteers, many of whom don’t have kids in the school.

Because most of the families at the school are people of color, “we really had to start relying on our neighbors around us to help us, because we don’t have enough families that are not in danger,” Elizabeth said. Residents of nearby neighborhoods joined to form a group of 200 people who patrol the playground in the morning and afternoon and during recess, guard the nearby bus stops, and drive children from home to school and back again. 

In addition, volunteers pick up laundry every other week from families that are shut inside, and bring groceries, shopping for food at local Hispanic markets, which have taken a heavy hit after losing employees and customers during the immigration enforcement surge. 

There are many similar mutual aid groups throughout the area, each doing things in different ways. “There are a lot of micro projects happening everywhere,” Elizabeth said. And things are constantly changing. “It’s a living process,” she said. “No two days are the same.” 

While she tries to avoid contact with federal agents, ICE is everywhere in their neighborhood, Elizabeth said. She no longer allows her child to walk to the corner store alone. 

“ICE is constantly driving through our neighborhoods. They’re not obeying traffic signals. They’re not obeying traffic laws. They’re running through stop signs. They’re going the wrong way on one-ways,” Elizabeth said. While she isn’t afraid that her child, who is white, will be snatched and sent to immigration detention, she worries about the possibility of her child stumbling upon a violent action, “or they could get tear-gassed, very easily.”

The Department of Homeland Security’s rationale for the federal immigration enforcement surge is to enhance public safety. But it’s very clear from talking to people in Minneapolis that armed agents speeding through neighborhoods, smashing car windows and dragging people out of their homes has shattered the sense of safety residents used to have. 

Elizabeth does not claim that her neighborhood group can overcome that, or effectively deter ICE. Instead, she describes its purpose as offering comfort to immigrant parents. And for the children, she says, “I really make sure that I’m there every day so they can see the same faces, so there’s some stability in their day.”

“We’ve got families that have been in hiding for nine weeks now,” she adds. “… I want them to know that we were here for them.”

As for her own child, “I have to be really honest,” she said. She’s had to give up her hope, before the surge, not to have to talk about the sickening danger all around them. “They live in a community, and they need to be part of their community,” she said. “Right now, their community is under attack, and so I think it is my responsibility as a parent to make sure that they see that, and that they understand that this is not how you treat your neighbors. That, like I said, our community needs love, help and support right now. And so we have lots of conversations about it.”

Her child misses the friends who aren’t coming to school, and makes an effort to stay in touch and fill them in on what is happening. And there are the daily car rides with the handful of kids Elizabeth drives to school and home again. 

Those car rides are important, she said. She has a bag of snacks and a playlist the kids get to curate. “We’ve listened to a lot of K-pop,” she said. “We try to have as much joy and fun as we can for them, and to create those safe spaces and make sure that there’s laughter.”

As Wisconsinites worry about whether we will be next, I asked Elizabeth about the reluctance of some public officials to make concrete community defense plans, for fear it might put a target on our so-called sanctuary communities, and draw the very ICE surge they dread. 

“It comes back to being a good neighbor,” she said. “I’m not sure that any organizing that we’ve done or did or will do is necessarily a flag calling attention to us. It’s just we’ve got neighbors that are hungry. How are we going to feed our neighbors? We have neighbors that can’t pay their bills. How are we going to help? … To some degree it’s somewhat selfish, right? Like, I need, in order for my child to succeed in school, there needs to be continuity … I care about my community.”

“I would recommend people not be scared and not think of it as organizing against the government, but organizing for the people in your neighborhood,” she added. “And if it’s not your neighborhood, if it’s a neighborhood next to you, know where those neighborhoods are that might be impacted, and find ways that you can support that neighborhood.”

Sen. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit) said the bills are part of a larger effort to "legislate trans people out of public life.” (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

The Wisconsin State Senate passed bills that would restrict administrative rulemaking and that would place restrictions on health care for transgender youth. The bills are likely to be vetoed by Gov. Tony Evers.

Bills to restrict transgender youth headed to Evers

Democrats slammed five bills passed by Republicans that would restrict transgender children from receiving gender affirming care, from choosing the names and pronouns used for them in school and from participating on sports teams that align with their gender identity. Republicans said the bills are meant to protect children. Each bill passed 18-15 along party lines.

Sen. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit) said the bills are part of a larger effort to “legislate trans people out of public life.” He noted the Legislature’s emphasis on bills related to transgender people and said he felt a responsibility as a gay man to speak against them.

“Why are gay people and transgender people often lumped together politically? Why do we stand with each other? In large part because it is the same stereotypes. It is the same bias… and rigid ideas of male and female that have led to discrimination against gay people,” Spreitzer said.

Spreitzer said that even bringing the bills forward would do harm to transgender youth.

“It does harm to the mental health of our youth,” Spreitzer said. A 2024 survey by The Trevor Project found that 91% of LGBTQ+ young people in Wisconsin reported that recent politics negatively impacted their well-being. “What do they mean by recent politics? They mean bills like these as well as similar things coming down from the Trump administration.”

He added that he asked lawmakers to stop moving the bills forward during the committee process. “Yet forward they move, despite the Republican majority knowing full well that Gov. Evers will veto all five of these bills. They will not become law this session.”

Evers has vetoed similar bills several times over his seven years in office. Each time, he has promised to veto “any bill that makes Wisconsin a less safe, less inclusive, and less welcoming place for LGBTQ people and kids.”

Spreitzer said Senate and Assembly Democrats would sustain those vetoes if necessary.

One bill passed by the Senate is SB 405, which would create a civil cause of action against health care providers who perform gender transition procedures on someone under the age of 18 if they claim to be injured.

Spreitzer said SB 405 is a “blatant effort to threaten health care professionals with privileged litigation in the hopes that it will create a chilling effect and that they will stop providing gender affirming care.”

Sen. Melissa Ratcliff (D-Cottage Grove) made personal pleas, speaking to her own experience as the mother of a transgender child during the floor session. She said it would make life harder for transgender children and their families.

“It’s not about protecting children, it’s about controlling them,” Ratcliff said, adding that decisions about gender affirming care are deeply private and should only be made by families and doctors.

“Why are we not helping families instead of burdening them? Why are we attacking children instead of protecting them? Why are we prioritizing culture wars over real problems?” Ratcliff said. “It’s really pretty obvious you want to use kids as pawns in a cynical political crusade. It’s not your kids that you’re using. It’s my kid and other people’s kids being used as pawns. It’s really shameful.”

“Stop bullying trans kids, and stop bullying their families,” Ratcliff said. 

The Senate also concurred in AB 100 and AB 102, which would prohibit transgender students from being able to participate on sports teams that align with their gender identity at Wisconsin K-12 public and choice schools, University of Wisconsin campuses and technical colleges.

Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield), the lead author of the sports and the civil action bills, said he has met with the “transgender community” while working on the legislation and added that it “doesn’t matter who that is, doesn’t matter what their name is, but all that matters is I’ve been able to reach out.”

Hutton said his bills would help “protect fairness, safety and privacy” in girls’ and women’s sports. He said SB 405 would ensure that there is the “same level of support for those who realize now that the issue that they’re physically dealing with and mentally dealing with, that they were wronged and they believe there should be some accountability to the health care professional.”

The Senate also concurred in AB 103, which would require that school districts adopt policies to inform and get permission from parents before a student would be allowed to use names and pronouns that differ from their legal ones, and AB 104, which would prohibit health care professionals from providing medical gender affirming care for those under 18.

Ratcliff said the bills are part of a political strategy for Republican lawmakers.

“Last year, you weaponized trans kids for campaign points and you’re doing it again,” Ratcliff said. “In both cases, the cost is the same. Real children are being harmed. It didn’t work last year and it’s not going to work this year.”

Wisconsin has a slate of elections coming up this year including a state Supreme Court race in April as well as an open governor’s race and state legislative races that will determine control of the Senate and Assembly.

The only Republican gubernatorial candidate, U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, kicked off his campaign by playing up culture war issues including promising to keep transgender girls off of girls’ sports teams. He has also recently released a campaign statement calling on the New Richmond School District to reverse its current policy and bar transgender girls from being able to use the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity.

Sen. Cory Tomczyk (R-Mosinee) accused Democratic lawmakers of  engaging in “political theater” and said anyone who allowed a minor to “make irreversible decisions is a catastrophic failure of parenting and society in general.”

All of the bills except SB 405 will now go to Evers for consideration.

GOP seeks to restrict administrative rules

Republican lawmakers introduced bills — packaged together as the “red tape reset” and supported by the conservative legal group Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) in May. The bills would increase legislative control over decisions made by executive agencies. Republicans have increased their efforts to limit and restrict agency rulemaking powers in the aftermath of state Supreme Court rulings that limited their ability to block rules.

SB 275 would limit scope statements, which are the first step in the rulemaking process, so they could only be used for one proposed rule. 

SB 276 would allow those who have challenged the validity of administrative rule to receive attorney fees and costs if a court declares a rule invalid. 

SB 277 would have all administrative rules sunset after seven years unless a rule is adopted again through an agency process.

SB 289 would require agencies to make cuts to offset the cost associated with new regulations.

Each bill passed 18-15 along party-lines. They will now go to the Assembly for consideration.

Democratic lawmakers did not speak on the bills during the floor session.

Megan Novak, the Americans For Prosperity Wisconsin state director, said in a statement that Wisconsin has been overregulated and that has restricted its economic growth.

“Between our excessive regulations and the misguided decision by our partisan Supreme Court that removed a necessary legislative check on the governor in the rulemaking process, Wisconsin businesses and families deserve regulatory relief,” Novak said. “These bills are a welcome step to get Wisconsin back on the right track.”

Grooming bill heads to Evers

The Senate concurred in a bill that would make “grooming” a felony crime in Wisconsin. 

The bill was introduced after a report from the CapTimes that found there were over 200 investigations into teacher licenses stemming from allegations of sexual misconduct or grooming from 2018 to 2023, though authors of the proposal say they have been working on the legislation for longer.

Sen. Jesse James (R-Thorp) told reporters ahead of the floor session that the bill would protect “our vulnerable population from supposed trusted adults who would do our kids harm.”

“I can’t bear to think of the many dangers my grandkids will face, however, with this bill, I can sleep just a little bit better,” James said, adding that the bill would act as a deterrent to tell people that “our kids are not targets.”

The bill would define grooming as “a course of conduct, pattern of behavior, or series of acts with the intention to condition, seduce, solicit, lure, or entice a child for the purpose of producing, distributing or possessing depictions of the child engaged in sexually explicit conduct.”

Under the bill, a person convicted of a grooming charge would be guilty of a Class G felony. The charge would increase to a Class F felony if the person is in a position of trust or authority, and to a Class E felony if the child has a disability and to a Class D felony if the violation involves two or more children. A convicted person would need to register as a sex offender.

The bill, which passed the Assembly 93-6 last month, will now go to Evers for consideration. 

Another bill that was introduced following the CapTimes report passed on a voice vote. SB 785 would require the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) to maintain an online licensing portal that is searchable by the public at no cost. The portal would need to include information on license holders under investigation and the name of individuals who have had their licenses revoked.

A store in New York City displays a sign accepting Electronic Benefits Transfer, or EBT, cards for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program purchases for groceries. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

A bill in the Assembly seeks to order the Evers administration to follow a White House demand and turn over data on all Wisconsin food aid recipients since 2020 — despite a lawsuit that has put the federal demand on hold.

AB 1027 would give the administration six months to compile and share with the U.S. Department of Agriculture “all data” that USDA demanded in a letter to the states this past summer on applicants and recipients of benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Aid Program (SNAP).

SNAP funds the state’s FoodShare program.  The letter threatened to cut off SNAP benefits to states that didn’t comply with USDA’s data demand.

Wisconsin is one of 21 states along with the District of Columbia that have sued to block the demand, and a federal judge in California granted the request for a temporary restraining order in their favor. The case remains in litigation.

On Wednesday, the nine Assembly health committee Republicans who were present voted to advance the bill after holding a public hearing with just two witnesses. All five Democrats voted against the measure.

In the hearing, Rep. Nate Gustafson (R-Omro), the bill’s author, said it doesn’t change who is eligible for FoodShare.

“It is focused solely on compliance with the existing federal requirements, so that funding continues without disruption, and Wisconsin citizens can keep receiving the benefits that they have been promised,” Gustafson said.

Rep. Lisa Subeck (D-Madison) asked Gustafson exactly what information was being demanded from the state.

“I’m trying to figure out the motivation for wanting this data, and without a clear picture of what this includes, it certainly concerns me,” Subeck said. “Given what’s happening in the federal government right now, this raises a number of red flags.”

Gustafson said he had not spoken with the Department of Health Services, which administers the FoodShare program, but that in his view, “what this bill is trying to say is, why, we don’t have anything to hide, so let’s just comply.”

Subeck rejected the claim that the bill would help uncover fraud in the FoodShare program.

“I believe that we should absolutely root out any fraud that is in any of our programs,” she said. “I do not believe this bill does anything to address fraud.”

The only other hearing testimony was from Mike Semmann, president and CEO of the Wisconsin Grocers Association, which opposed the legislation. Wisconsin grocers have many customers who use FoodShare in order to meet their needs, Semmann told the committee.

“Many times Wisconsin’s retailers are on the front line, and they’re going to be the ones who are going to be asked the questions about the program and about the concept of what’s going on with their information,” Semmann said. “And we just think that due to everything that is going on with both the potential pending litigation, but other additional questions, that right now to pass a piece of legislation at this time is just a little bit premature.”

Booths await voters at the Pennington County Administration Building during early voting on Jan. 19, 2026, for a municipal election in Rapid City, South Dakota. (Photo by Seth Tupper/South Dakota Searchlight)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House passed legislation Wednesday that would require the public to produce a passport or birth certificate in most cases to register to vote, less than a year out from November midterm elections.

The 218-213 vote split mostly along party lines, with one Democrat, Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas, breaking with his party to support the measure. One Republican, North Carolina’s Greg Murphy, did not vote.

Republicans argued the bill, dubbed by House Republicans as the “Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act,” or the SAVE America Act, will prevent noncitizens from voting in federal elections, which is already illegal and rare.

The Senate is considering its own version of the bill.

The GOP’s championing of the bill follows President Donald Trump’s comments advocating to nationalize elections, a mid-decade campaign to redraw state congressional districts in Republicans’ favor and more than two dozen Department of Justice lawsuits demanding Democratic-led states turn over unredacted voter rolls to the Department of Homeland Security.

The bill also includes a provision requiring each state to send an “official list of eligible voters for federal office” to Homeland Security to be run through the department’s database to identify any noncitizens.

‘Show your papers’

The legislation has attracted sharp criticism from Democrats and voting rights advocates as a “show your papers” law that will disenfranchise the roughly 146 million Americans who do not have a passport. 

They say it would also affect those without ready access to a birth certificate and married women whose last names do not match the name appearing on birth records.

If passed by both chambers and signed into law by Trump, the measure would take effect immediately.

“Republicans know that they cannot win on the merits, so rather than change their policies, they’re seeking to change the rules. John Lewis was not bludgeoned on a bridge in my hometown for the Republicans and Donald Trump to take these rules away from us,” said Rep. Terri Sewell, D-Ala., invoking the late Democratic Rep. John Lewis, who was beaten in 1965 in Selma, Alabama, during a march for voting rights. 

“This is a blatant power grab, as Democrats will not stand for it,” Sewell, whose district includes Selma, said on the floor ahead of the vote.

Sean Morales-Doyle, director of voting rights and elections at the Brennan Center for Justice, said the timing of the measure, if enacted, would cause “maximum chaos.”

“A change of this magnitude to our election system right before an election would be not only terrible in substance in that it would block Americans from voting, but would also be chaos-causing,” Morales-Doyle said. 

“It would change the rules that govern our elections and government registration right when that is happening at the highest rate. … There’s always a huge increase in registration in the run-up to an election.”

‘Daggum ID’

But Republicans argue the legislation provides “safeguards” to ensure only U.S. citizens vote, as Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., said on the floor ahead of the vote.

“House Republicans and President Trump want to protect the ballot box and ensure integrity in our elections across this great country,” Burchett said.

“When you purchase a firearm, when you board a plane, when you open a bank account — if I put $100 in the bank and right then ask for $20 of it back, guess what: I gotta show a daggum ID,” Burchett continued.

Rep. Bryan Steil, R-Wis., said Democrats’ arguments against the bill amounted to “hyperbole.”

“We should be checking and cleaning up the voter rolls and removing individuals who are not eligible to vote, because every citizen deserves the right to vote,” he said.

Claims of noncitizen voting in federal elections represent “tiny fractions of voters,” according to a July 2025 analysis from The Center for Election Innovation and Research. The report was updated this month.

Murkowski not on board

The Senate version, sponsored by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, may face stronger headwinds.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, issued a statement on social media Tuesday saying she won’t support the legislation.

“Not only does the U.S. Constitution clearly provide states the authority to regulate the ‘times, places, and manner’ of holding federal elections, but one-size-fits-all mandates from Washington, D.C., seldom work in places like Alaska,” Murkowski wrote, adding that changing procedures so close to the midterms would “negatively impact election integrity.”

Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) told reporters on Wednesday ahead of a floor session that he hadn’t spoken recently with Gov. Tony Evers or Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) about property tax relief proposals. LeMahieu speaks at a 2023 press conference with Vos (left) and other Assembly Republicans standing behind him. (Wisconsin Examiner photo)

Senate Republicans are not on the same page as Assembly Republicans and Gov. Tony Evers when it comes to how to use the projected $2.5 billion state surplus to provide tax relief to Wisconsinites. 

Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) told reporters on Wednesday ahead of a floor session that he hadn’t spoken recently with Evers or Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) about property tax relief proposals. Vos told reporters on Tuesday that he was negotiating with Evers on a property tax proposal and was backing off a demand to repeal the partial veto that extended school revenue limit increases for 400 years. 

LeMahieu said his caucus was working on fine tuning its own proposal.

“When you have a surplus, you want to give it back to the people who are paying taxes in Wisconsin, the hard working families of Wisconsin,” LeMahieu said.

Hours later, LeMahieu announced the introduction of SB 1, which would provide rebate payments of up to $1,000 to taxpayers, and SB 995, which would provide a sum sufficient appropriation for the proposal. 

“You and your family know how to spend your hard-earned dollars best, not the state government,” LeMahieu said in a statement. “So, whether you need more room in your budget for groceries, or if Governor Evers’ 400-year veto sent your property tax bill through the roof, the State Senate intends to vote next week to return the surplus to the people who created it in the first place: you, the taxpayers.”

Wisconsin leaders are debating ways to provide some financial relief to residents in the aftermath of a significant jump in property tax bills in December. The hikes were fueled by a state budget that increases school revenue limits while keeping state general aid flat — pushing education costs onto local taxpayers — as well as voter approval of school district referendum requests. Further property tax hikes are expected if there is no action from policymakers.

The Senate bill would provide a one-time rebate to taxpayers who filed a Wisconsin individual income tax return in tax year 2024 and owed for that year. It would provide a rebate of $1,000 for joint married filers and a $500 rebate for other individuals. 

The Department of Revenue (DOR) would make the payments without the taxpayers having to take any further action and they would need to be made by Sept. 15, 2026. The rebate would not exceed the amount of the taxpayer’s 2024 net income tax liability.

The bill will receive a public hearing Thursday afternoon in the Senate Agriculture and Revenue committee. The committee chair, Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point), called the 400-year veto “irresponsible” and said Republicans “know that many families across Wisconsin are struggling financially” and they believe their proposal “will go a long way toward reducing the tax burden on our residents.”

Asked about the new proposal, Evers’ spokesperson Britt Cudaback referred the Wisconsin Examiner back to a statement she made on Tuesday. 

“The governor’s been clear that any bipartisan bill on property taxes must include investments to ensure our K-12 schools receive the resources they need and were promised in the state budget,” Cudaback said. “We look forward to hearing back from Republican leaders regarding whether they will support the governor’s plan that both addresses property taxes and invests in our kids and our schools.” 

According to emails shared by Cudaback, Evers has proposed to Republican lawmakers a bill that would pair funding for schools with tax relief. The proposal would include $200 million, including $80 million to bring the special education reimbursement rate to 42% in 2026 and $120 million to bring it to 45% in 2027, as well as $450 million in 2027 in general school aids to buy out the projected statewide school property tax levy.

In exchange, Republicans would get $550 million for the school levy tax credit to help with property tax relief and $97.3 million in 2027 for tax exempt cash tips. 

According to the email, Evers was willing to discuss changes to the 400-year veto but only if Republicans would “approve a significant and ongoing state investment in K-12 schools, including, at minimum, closing the gap in special education funding from the 2025-27 Biennial Budget and making special education aid a sum sufficient appropriation,” meaning it would cover all special ed costs at the set rate, unlike a “sum certain” appropriation which is a limited pot of money regardless of increased expenses.

“However, we understand from our conversation that neither of the two leaders would like to have discussions about the 400-year veto,” Madden wrote in the email. 

While Vos may not be set on eliminating the partial veto, LeMahieu told CBS58 on Wednesday that the veto would need to be repealed to do anything on property tax relief. 

President Donald Trump, right, and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney speak to reporters in the Oval Office of the White House on Oct. 7, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — In a notable break from President Donald Trump’s signature trade policy, several House Republicans joined Democrats in passing a resolution to terminate the president’s national emergency at the northern border that triggered tariffs on Canada just over one year ago.

The measure, passed 219-211, revokes Trump’s Feb. 1, 2025, executive order imposing tariffs on Canada, which he triggered under an unprecedented use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. 

Whether he has the power to invoke tariffs under the 1970s law is under review at the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard arguments in November. An opinion, still not released, has been expected for months.

Reps. Don Bacon, R-Neb., Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., Jeff Hurd, R-Colo., Kevin Kiley, R-Calif., Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Dan Newhouse, R-Wash., broke ranks with the GOP to join Democrats in rebuffing Trump’s levies on Canadian goods.

Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, was the only Democrat to vote against the resolution. 

Two Republicans, Greg Murphy of North Carolina and Riley Moore of West Virginia, did not vote.

The House vote occurred less than 24 hours after three House Republicans delivered a rebuke to Trump and joined Democrats in blocking House leadership’s effort to extend a ban on bringing any resolutions to the floor that disapprove of the administration’s tariffs.

Trump’s centerpiece economic policy has drawn criticism over its on-again, off-again changes, causing uncertainty for business and costs passed along to consumers.

The vote also comes just days after Trump threatened to close a new bridge between Windsor, Ontario, and Detroit, Michigan, if Canada does not negotiate a new trade deal with the United States. 

In a nearly 300-word post Monday on his platform Truth Social, Trump predicted that if Canada struck a deal with China, the eastern power would “terminate ALL ice Hockey being played in Canada, and permanently eliminate The Stanley Cup.”

‘Canada is our friend’

Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., the resolution’s lead sponsor, criticized Trump’s “manufactured emergency” regarding Canada.

“Canada isn’t a threat. Canada is our friend. Canada is our ally. Canadians have fought alongside Americans, whether it was in World War II or the war in Afghanistan,” Meeks said. 

Meeks also said tariffs are costing his constituents up to $1,700 per year. 

“That’s what this is about. It’s about American people and making things affordable for them,” Meeks said on the floor ahead of the vote.

Analyses from the Tax Foundation and Yale Budget Lab pin the average cost per household between roughly $1,300 and $1,750 from all current tariffs combined — not just import taxes on products purchased from Canada.

Fentanyl debate

Rep. Brian Mast, R-Fla., disagreed, arguing the cost amounted not to lost income but to drug overdose deaths attributed to illicit fentanyl.

“Who will pay the price? It’s a very sad thing to have (been) asked by this colleague of mine … because it’s important to remember, what is this resolution? This resolution ends an emergency related to fentanyl,” Mast said during pre-vote debate. 

But U.S. Customs and Border Protection data from fiscal year 2023 to the present shows fentanyl seizures at the northern border dwarfed by the amount intercepted at the southwest border.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement  Agency identifies China as the beginning of the illicit fentanyl supply chain that moves through clandestine labs in Mexico and then into the United States.

Trump’s Feb. 1, 2025 executive order conceded that Border Patrol agents seized “much less fentanyl from Canada than from Mexico last year,” but claimed the amount seized at the northern border in 2024 was still enough to kill 9.5 million people.

The synthetic opioid “is so potent that even a very small parcel of the drug can cause many deaths and destruction to America(n) families,” according to the executive order.

Senate action so far

A handful of Republican senators have also rebuked at least one category of Trump’s emergency tariffs.

In late October, Sens. Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul of Kentucky, along with Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, Maine’s Susan Collins and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, supported a joint resolution in a 52-48 vote to terminate Trump’s 50% tariffs on Brazilian products, including coffee.

The president declared a national emergency and imposed the steep tariff on Brazilian goods on July 30 after accusing Brazil’s government of “politically persecuting” its former far-right President Jair Bolsonaro for plotting a coup to remain in power in 2022. 

The Senate vote marked a shift from two earlier efforts in April to stymie Trump’s tariffs, including a measure to terminate the president’s levies on Canadian imports.

The Lyndon Baines Johnson Department of Education Building in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 25, 2024. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Democrats on Wednesday rebuked ongoing efforts from President Donald Trump’s administration to dismantle the Department of Education, including moves to shift some of its core functions to other agencies. 

Rep. Bobby Scott of Virginia — who hosted a spotlight forum alongside several colleagues — said “over and over again, the administration has circumvented the law to hamstring the future of public education without the consent of Congress or the American people.” 

Scott, the top Democrat on the House Committee on Education and Workforce, brought in education advocates and legal voices pushing back against the administration’s ongoing attempts to axe the agency. 

The lawmakers and witnesses expressed particular alarm over the administration’s six interagency agreements, or IAAs, announced with four other departments in November 2025 that transfer several of its responsibilities to those Cabinet-level agencies.

‘Illegal’ transfers 

Ashley Harrington, senior policy counsel at the Legal Defense Fund, said that “while these agencies all provide important services for our nation, none of them are adequately prepared to take on the massive portfolio of programs that these interagency agreements strip from (the Education Department).” 

Harrington, who previously served as a senior adviser at the department, pointed to a “lack” of institutional knowledge at the four departments compared with career employees at the Education Department who have gained expertise from spending decades running the affected programs. 

Rachel Homer, director of Democracy 2025 and senior attorney at Democracy Forward, the legal advocacy group that is leading the ongoing case challenging the department’s dismantling efforts in federal court, pointed out that Congress creates and decides which agencies exist. 

“Congress charges those agencies with performing certain functions, Congress determines the mission of those agencies, and the executive branch’s obligation is to carry that out, is to implement those laws faithfully,” said Homer, who previously served as chief of staff of the Office of the General Counsel at the department. 

The advocacy group is representing a broad coalition in a legal challenge against the administration’s attempts to gut the agency. 

That challenge, consolidated with a similar suit brought by Democratic attorneys general, was expanded in November in the wake of the interagency agreement announcement to include objections to those restructuring efforts. 

“These transfers through the IAAs, they’re illegal,” Homer added. “That’s not what Congress has set up — that’s not how Congress has instructed the agencies to function.” 

Mass layoffs, downsizing 

Meanwhile, the administration’s attempts to wind down the department have also included mass layoffs initiated in March 2025 and a plan to dramatically downsize the agency ordered that same month. The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily greenlit these efforts in July.

Trump has sought to end the 46-year-old agency as part of his quest to send education “back to the states.” This effort comes while much of the oversight and funding of schools already occurs at the state and local levels. 

“I know I don’t just speak for myself when I say I can’t believe we’re here having to actually defend the existence of the Department of Education,” said Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education.

“As Education committee members, we came here to work on improving education and opening doors of opportunity and addressing the civil rights disparities, but here we are having to defend the actual existence of the Department of Education,” the Oregon Democrat said. 

Civil rights in the spotlight 

Employees at the Office for Civil Rights — tasked with investigating civil rights complaints from students and families — were targeted in March as part of a broader Reduction in Force, or RIF, effort and put on paid administrative leave while legal challenges against the administration unfolded. 

Though the agency moved to rescind the RIF against the OCR employees in early January while legal challenges proceeded, a Government Accountability Office report released earlier in February found that the Education Department spent between roughly $28.5 million and $38 million on the salaries and benefits of the hundreds of OCR employees who were not working between March and December 2025. 

The government watchdog also found that despite the department resolving more than 7,000 of the over 9,000 discrimination complaints it received between March and September, roughly 90% of the resolved complaints were due to the department dismissing the complaint. 

“We’re extremely concerned of what this means for OCR to actually uphold its statutorily defined duty of protecting the civil rights of students in schools, including the rights of Black students, other students of color, girls, women, students with disabilities and members that identify with the LGBTQI+ communities,” said Ray Li, a policy counsel at the Legal Defense Fund.

Li, who previously served as an attorney for OCR, called on Congress to ensure that the unit “remains in a functioning Department of Education” and not transferred to the Department of Justice or another agency. 

He also urged Congress to provide “adequate funding for OCR” and to “play an important role in transparency, sending oversight request letters to get information on the quantity of complaints that are being received, the types of discrimination that they allege, how OCR is processing those complaints and what the basis of dismissals are.”

The Education Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday. 

“Maybe, we are getting the best value currently with WisconsinEye, but we don’t know... We want to be responsible with taxpayer money," Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) said. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Senate Republicans are proposing that Wisconsin solicit bids for parties interested in taking over livestream coverage of the state government — making WisconsinEye, the nonprofit that has done the job since 2007, compete for the job. 

The introduction of SB 994 follows the state Assembly unanimously passing a proposal Tuesday that would eliminate match requirements for $10 million that was set aside in the state budget for WisconsinEye, and place it in a trust fund from which the organization could draw interest.

WisconsinEye had to halt its coverage for about a month due to financial difficulties and has turned to state lawmakers for a long-term funding solution, and while the Assembly has been on the same page, the Senate has expressed skepticism about providing help.

Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) told reporters Wednesday that his caucus wants to see whether there is another party that could do the job for less. He said his local county board livestreams its meetings and it “doesn’t seem like it’s rocket science.”

LeMahieu said his caucus has been frustrated trying to get answers from WisconsinEye and with the lack of fundraising by the nonprofit since state funds were first set aside in 2023.

“There was a promise to raise funds to keep going over the last three years with state matching funds. That has not worked, so we think there is a different path,” LeMahieu said. “Maybe, we are getting the best value currently with WisconsinEye, but we don’t know… We want to be responsible with taxpayer money.”

WisconsinEye’s current annual operating budget is nearly $1 million. The Assembly proposal would allow the organization to use the interest on the trust fund for its operating expenses, though it is expected the organization would still need to fundraise hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to meet its annual costs. 

The coauthors on the Senate bill include 15 of the 18 Republicans; those not on the bill include Sens. John Jagler, Chris Kapenga and Eric Wimberger. The Assembly lawmakers coauthoring the Senate bill are Reps. Lindee Brill (R-Sheboygan Falls) and Chuck Wichgers (R-Muskego). Both voted in favor of the Assembly bill this week. 

Under the Senate proposal, the state Department of Administration would solicit bids for the operation of a statewide public affairs network that would provide unedited live video and audio coverage of state government proceedings.

Those proceedings would include Senate and Assembly floor sessions, legislative committee meetings, state agency meetings, state Supreme Court and other judicial meetings. The bill states that if “practicable,” the network can also cover eligible news conferences and civic events. 

Lawmakers said in a cosponsorship memo that the bill would ensure “high-quality, secure, and cost-effective coverage of legislative, executive and judicial proceedings while maintaining strict nonpartisanship.”

“For years, the state has relied on a single public affairs network model without a competitive procurement process that ensures taxpayers receive the best return on their investment,” the cosponsorship memo on the bill states. “As technology evolves and expectations for public access increase, it is time to modernize how Wisconsin provides live coverage and archives of government proceedings.”

The bill also requires the network to prohibit coverage from being used for campaign purposes. 

The Senate proposal would prohibit fees from being charged to access live and archived coverage of floor sessions and Joint Finance Committee meetings. Other meetings are not covered under this part of the bill.

The Assembly bill, in contrast, would generally require WisconsinEye to provide free online public access to all of its live broadcasts and archives. That bill would have WisconsinEye focus its coverage primarily on official state government meetings and business. 

Assembly lawmakers also wanted to implement some additional accountability measures, requiring WisconsinEye to submit an annual financial report to the Legislature and place additional members on its board of directors who would be appointed by legislative leaders.

Masked federal agents on the scene near where a federal officer shot a Minnesotan for the third time in as many weeks. (Photo by Madison McVan/Minnesota Reformer)

The Barron County Sheriff on Wednesday said in a social media post that area residents shouldn’t trust the news media about Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s presence in the area. 

In the post on Facebook, the sheriff’s office challenged the accuracy of local news reports on ICE activity in the area that prompted “a flurry of calls and messages” to the sheriff’s office. The post stated that ICE was in Barron County on Sunday looking for two individuals but did not locate either of them. The post also said that information about ICE should come from the agency itself. 

“The Barron County Sheriff’s Department encourages everyone to read past the headlines and question what they see or hear in the news, and especially on social media, as it relates to ICE operations,” the department wrote. “Do your own research and visit the Immigration and Customs Enforcement website to see what their operations entail and who they are apprehending.”

The post appears to reference Trump administration claims that ICE is targeting the “worst of the worst.” However, recent reporting from CBS News found that less than 14% of the 400,000 immigrants arrested by ICE in President Donald Trump’s first year in office had been charged or convicted of violent crimes. 

Data from Wisconsin has shown that the immigrants ICE has arrested here have largely been people charged with but not yet convicted of crimes — a practice that some county law enforcement officials have complained prevents the conclusion of local criminal cases. 

Additionally, ICE has frequently lied about its encounters with the public and the people it has arrested. After an operation in Manitowoc County in which ICE arrested several dairy workers — one of the highest profile ICE actions in Wisconsin of the past year — ICE claimed that one of the men arrested was a sex offender. However the man it referred to had been in ICE custody for months prior to the Manitowoc County arrests. ICE claims about violent activity by Renee Good and Alex Pretti, have also been disproven. 

ICE has been expanding operations throughout western Wisconsin since the surge of personnel into Minnesota began in December. In the Facebook post, the Barron County sheriff’s office said it would cooperate with local ICE operations. 

“As previously stated, if ICE comes to Barron County and requests assistance of the Barron County Sheriff’s Department, we will support our law enforcement partners,” the Barron County sheriff’s post stated. “Unlawful obstruction and interference with any operations will not be tolerated.”

The Wisconsin Supreme Court chambers. (Henry Redman/Wisconsin Examiner)

Liberal members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court said they were “shocked” at the ramifications of the right-wing Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty’s arguments against a grant program meant to help prevent minority students from dropping out of technical college. 

The Court on Wednesday held oral arguments in a case that began in a 2021 lawsuit in Jefferson County Circuit Court. The suit alleges that the state’s Minority Undergraduate Retention Grant program, administered by the Higher Education Aids Board, unlawfully discriminates based on race. 

The program, established in the 1980s, provides small-dollar grants to Black, Native American and Hispanic students, as well as Southeast Asians who came to the U.S. from Laos, Cambodia or Vietnam after 1975. On average, members of these groups drop out of school or fail to graduate at substantially higher rates than their peers, the state has argued. 

The program has been a frequent target of Wisconsin Republicans in recent years — especially after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ended the legality of affirmative action in college admissions. 

The Wisconsin Examiner previously reported that money through the program has largely been used to assist Black students at Milwaukee Area Technical College. 

In a decision last year, the 2nd District Court of Appeals sided with WILL and the taxpayers it is representing, declaring the program unconstitutional. Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul appealed the decision and in November the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. 

WILL attorney Luke Berg argued Wednesday that any program that targets specific racial groups is unconstitutional — regardless of whether those groups face statistical disparities. 

“I think the worst form of discrimination is discrimination under the law, when the law treats individuals differently based on their race,” Berg said. “I’m not asking the Court to ignore that there are disparities in statistics, and I think we should all be concerned about that. But there are poor white students, there are poor Asian students, there are poor Afghani students, there are poor Palestinian students, there are poor Egyptian students.” 

“It cannot have explicit race discrimination under the law,” he continued later. “It can target racially neutral criteria like poverty, and it can solve those disparities indirectly. Give the scholarship to every student that needs it. If there are more poor Black students, more of them will get that scholarship.”

Several of the Court’s left-leaning justices pushed back on Berg’s comments, questioning how ignoring race-based statistical gaps achieves the 14th Amendment’s promise of equal protection. Justice Jill Karofsky told him, “your argument basically asks us to stick our heads in the sand.” 

Justice Rebecca Dallet noted that in Wisconsin, Black mothers and babies face much higher rates of health issues and under Berg’s legal construction, the state couldn’t do anything to specifically target that problem. 

“If the purpose is to help Black babies live who are not living at the same rate as white babies. How would they do that without mentioning the word Black?” Dallet said.

Berg responded that the state could pass a program that applies to “all babies” because “there are some white babies in the world who might need that program, too, and so you would make the program available to all.” 

“That is shocking, and if that’s what our U.S. Supreme Court wants to say, that is shocking, but I don’t think that that’s what they said in SFFA,” Dallet responded. 

Charlotte Gibson, the Department of Justice attorney arguing on behalf of the HEAB, called the appeals court’s decision “radical” saying that it went further than the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling to end affirmative action. 

“The court of appeals decision was radical,” Gibson said. “I’m not aware of any court in the country that has come up with a ban this categorical that would impact things like medical research that’s targeted a particular racial group that’s suffering from specific health outcomes. But … that’s exactly what the rule of law they’re looking for would do.”

Berg opened his arguments to the Court saying he believed the justices should dismiss the case and accept the appeals court’s decision. He argued that if the Court sides with the state, an appeal will immediately be filed in federal court. 

“If this court reverses, either on standing or the merits, the next thing that will happen is someone will file this case in federal court, us or somebody else,” Berg said. “It may be a race to the courthouse, because this is, like I said, the lowest of low hanging fruit in terms of federal claims … So what will happen is the taxpayers will pay for this court’s time. The taxpayers will pay for their time to litigate the case again for three to four years. The taxpayers will pay the time [of] federal district court counsel.”

Justices Susan Crawford, Janet Protasiewicz and Dallet objected, saying they took his comments as a “threat.” 

“That is such an inappropriate argument. It is so inappropriate and disrespectful to the state and their program that they are here to argue in front of us, it’s basically a threat to us,” Dallet said.