Federal agents patrol the halls of immigration court in New York City in October. While arrests at federal immigration courts have received widespread attention, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement have also arrested individuals at state courthouses, prompting some Democratic states to impose restrictions. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

A day after President Donald Trump took office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement issued a new directive to its agents: Arrests at courthouses, restricted under the Biden administration, were again permissible.

In Connecticut, a group of observers who keep watch on ICE activity in and around Stamford Superior Court have since witnessed a series of arrests. In one high-profile case in August, federal agents pursued two men into a bathroom.

“Is it an activity you want to be interfering with, people fulfilling their duty when they’re called to court and going to court? For me, it’s insanity,” said David Michel, a Democratic former state representative in Connecticut who helps observe courthouse activity.

Fueled by the Stamford uproar, Connecticut lawmakers last week approved restrictions on civil arrests and mask-wearing by federal law enforcement at state courthouses. And on Monday, a federal judge tossed a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice that had sought to block similar restrictions in New York.

They are the latest examples of a growing number of Democratic states, and some judges, pushing back against ICE arrests in and around state courthouses. State lawmakers and other officials worry the raids risk keeping people from testifying in criminal trials, fighting evictions or seeking restraining orders against domestic abusers.

The courthouse arrests mark an intensifying clash between the Trump administration and Democratic states that pits federal authority against state sovereignty. Sitting at the core of the fight are questions about how much power states have to control what happens in their own courts and the physical grounds they sit on.

In Illinois, lawmakers approved a ban on civil immigration arrests at courthouses in October. In Rhode Island, lawmakers plan to again push for a ban after an earlier measure didn’t advance in March. Connecticut lawmakers were codifying limits imposed by the state Supreme Court chief justice in September. Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont is expected to sign the bill.

States that are clamping down on ICE continue to allow the agency to make criminal arrests, as opposed to noncriminal civil arrests. Many people arrested and subsequently deported are taken on noncriminal, administrative warrants. As of Sept. 21, 71.5% of ICE detainees had no criminal convictions, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a data research organization.

Some states, such as New York, already have limits on immigration enforcement in courthouses that date back to the first Trump administration, when ICE agents also engaged in courthouse arrests. New York’s Protect Our Courts Act, in place since 2020, prohibits civil arrests of people at state and local courthouses without a judicial warrant. The law also applies to people traveling to and from court, extending protections beyond courthouse grounds.

“One of the cornerstones of our democracy is open access to the courts. When that access is denied or chilled, all of us are made less safe and less free,” said Oren Sellstrom, litigation director at Lawyers for Civil Rights, a Boston-based group that works to provide legal support to immigrants, people of color and low-income individuals.

But in addition to challenging the New York law, the Justice Department is prosecuting a Wisconsin state judge, alleging she illegally helped a migrant avoid ICE agents.

“We aren’t some medieval kingdom; there are no legal sanctuaries where you can hide and avoid the consequences for breaking the law,” U.S. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement to Stateline. “Nothing in the constitution prohibits arresting a lawbreaker where you find them.”

Some Republican lawmakers oppose efforts to limit ICE arrests in and near courthouses, arguing state officials should stay out of the way of federal law enforcement. The Ohio Senate in June passed a bill that would prohibit public officials from interfering in immigration arrests or prohibiting cooperation with ICE; the move came after judges in Franklin County, which includes Columbus, imposed restrictions on civil arrests in courthouses.

“The United States is a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of law and order. To have a civilized society, laws must be respected, this includes immigration laws,” Ohio Republican state Sen. Kristina Roegner, the bill’s sponsor, said in a news release at the time.

Roegner didn’t respond to Stateline’s interview request. The legislation remains in a House committee.

Knowing where a target will be

Courthouses offer an attractive location for ICE to make immigration arrests, according to both ICE and advocates for migrants.

Court records and hearing schedules often indicate who is expected in the building on any given day. Administrative warrants don’t allow ICE to enter private homes without permission, but the same protections don’t apply in public areas, such as courthouses. And many people have a strong incentive to show up for court, knowing that warrants can potentially be issued for their arrest if they don’t.

“So in some respects, it’s easy pickings,” said Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of Rhode Island.

In June, ICE arrested Pablo Grave de la Cruz at Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal in Cranston. A 36-year-old Rhode Island resident, he had come from Guatemala illegally as a teenager.

“They pulled up on him like he was a murderer or a rapist,” friend Brittany Donohue told the Rhode Island Current, which chronicled de la Cruz’s case. “He was leaving traffic court.”

An immigration judge has since granted de la Cruz permission to self-deport.

McLaughlin, the Homeland Security assistant secretary, said in her statement that allowing law enforcement to make arrests “of criminal illegal aliens in courthouses is common sense” — conserving law enforcement resources because officers know where a target will be. The department said the practice is safer for officers and the community, noting that individuals have gone through courthouse security.

Still, ICE’s directive on courthouse arrests sets some limits on the agency’s activity.

Agents “should, to the extent practicable” conduct civil immigration arrests in non-public areas of the courthouse and avoid public entrances. Actions should be taken “discreetly” to minimize disruption to court proceedings, and agents should generally avoid areas wholly dedicated to non-criminal proceedings, such as family court, the directive says.

Crucially, the directive says ICE can conduct civil immigration arrests “where such action is not precluded by laws imposed by the jurisdiction.” In other words, the agency’s guidance directs agents to respect state and local bans on noncriminal arrests.

Trump administration court actions

But the Trump administration has also gone to court to try to overcome state-level restrictions.

The Justice Department sued in June over New York’s Protect Our Courts Act, arguing that it “purposefully shields dangerous aliens” from lawful detention. The department says the law violates the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause, under which federal law supersedes state law.

New York Democratic Attorney General Letitia James argued the state law doesn’t conflict with federal law and sought the lawsuit’s dismissal.

U.S. District Court Judge Mae D’Agostino, an appointee of President Barack Obama, on Monday granted James’ motion. The judge wrote that the “entire purpose” of the lawsuit was to allow the federal government to commandeer New York’s resources — such as court schedules and court security screening measures — to aid immigration enforcement, even though states cannot generally be required to help the federal government enforce federal law.

“Compelling New York to allow federal immigration authorities to reap the benefits of the work of state employees is no different than permitting the federal government to commandeer state officials directly in furtherance of federal objectives,” the judge wrote.

The Justice Department didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The department is also prosecuting Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan, who prosecutors allege helped a person living in the country illegally avoid ICE agents in April inside a Milwaukee courthouse by letting him exit a courtroom through a side door. (Agents apprehended the individual near the courthouse.) A federal grand jury indicted Dugan on a count of concealing an individual and a count of obstructing a proceeding.

In court documents, Dugan’s lawyers have called the prosecution “virtually unprecedented and entirely unconstitutional.”

Dugan has pleaded not guilty, and a trial is set for December.

Lawmakers seek ‘order’ in courthouses

Rhode Island Democratic state Sen. Meghan Kallman is championing legislation that would generally ban civil arrests at courthouses. The measure received a hearing, but a legislative committee recommended further study.

Kallman hopes the bill will go further next year. The sense of urgency has intensified, she said, and more people now understand the consequences of what is happening.

“In order to create a system of law that is functioning and that encourages trust, we have to make those [courthouse] spaces safe,” she said.

Back in Connecticut, Democratic state Rep. Steven Stafstrom said his day job as a commercial litigator brings him into courthouses across the state weekly. Based on his conversations with court staff, other lawyers and senior administration within the judicial branch, he said “there’s a genuine fear, not just for safety, but for disruptions of orderly court processes in our courthouses.”

Some Connecticut Republicans have questioned whether a law that only pertains to civil arrests would prove effective. State Rep. Craig Fishbein, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, noted during floor debate that entering the United States without permission is a criminal offense — a misdemeanor for first-time offenders and a felony for repeat offenders. Because of that, he suggested the measure wouldn’t stop many courthouse arrests.

“The advocates think they’re getting no arrests in courthouses, but they’ve been sold a bill of goods,” he said.

Stafstrom, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, said in response that he believed the legislation protects many people who are in the country illegally because that crime is often not prosecuted.

“All we’re asking is for ICE to recognize the need for order in our courthouses,” Stafstrom said.

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

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill on Oct. 31, 2025, in Washington, D.C. The House speaker's office held the news conference on the 31st day of the government shutdown to discuss food stamp programs running out of funding. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins’ call for a close reexamination of the 42 million people who receive federal food aid has befuddled advocates and lawmakers, coming mere days after recipients began to see benefits that had been stalled during the government shutdown.

Details remain scant a week after Rollins during an interview on the right-wing Newsmax network first publicly broached the startling idea that every beneficiary would have to reapply for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, often called food stamps.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, asked for an explanation, referenced existing requirements and suggested more changes in SNAP rules could be in store.

“Secretary Rollins wants to ensure the fraud, waste, and incessant abuse of SNAP ends,” a USDA spokesperson wrote Wednesday. “Rates of fraud were only previously assumed, and President Trump is doing something about it. Using standard recertification processes for households is a part of that work. As well as ongoing analysis of state data, further regulatory work, and improved collaboration with states.”

The 2008 law governing SNAP leaves states responsible for administration. Part of that role includes periodically making sure that the low-income people in the program meet the qualifications for inclusion, but the law allows states to determine how often that occurs.

“It’s not clear what she would be proposing that is different from what is already happening,” said Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst for food assistance at the left-leaning think tank Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

One interpretation of Rollins’ comments is that she would remove all 42 million individuals from SNAP’s rolls and ask them to resubmit applications. Bergh said that would lead to people losing money they need for groceries. About 40% of those enrolled in SNAP are children.

“If she’s suggesting that they’re going to somehow redo that process for more than 40 million people who already demonstrated their eligibility and who already have to periodically recertify their eligibility, that would be pretty duplicative and would likely create pretty significant paperwork backlogs that would cause people who are eligible to lose the food assistance that they need,” Bergh said.

Administration critics have suggested that, while the comments are unlikely to lead to policy changes, they introduce even more confusion for a program that was used as a political token during the record government shutdown that ended this month. 

Making people reapply would underscore the Trump administration’s opposition to the nearly $100 billion program, which accounts for 70% of federal nutrition assistance. USDA says the average SNAP household in fiscal 2023 received a monthly benefit of $332, or $177 a person based on the average SNAP household size of 1.9 people.

“Secretary Rollins and the Trump administration have cut food assistance for 42 million Americans multiple times this year,” U.S. House Agriculture ranking member Angie Craig said in a Wednesday statement to States Newsroom. “Now, they’ve once again shown that they do not understand the program.”

What did Rollins say?

In the Nov. 13 interview on Newsmax, Rollins said SNAP was beset by widespread fraud, citing data that 29 mostly Republican-run states submitted to the department. Acquiring data from the 21 other states would give the department a way to wholly remake the program, she said.

“Can you imagine when we get our hands on the blue state data, what we’re going to find?” she said. “It’s going to give us a platform and a trajectory to fundamentally rebuild this program, have everyone reapply for their benefit, make sure that everyone that’s taking a taxpayer-funded benefit through SNAP or food stamps that they literally are vulnerable, and they can’t survive without it. And that’s the next step here.”

In an interview Monday on Fox News, host Maria Bartiromo asked Rollins about the move to have recipients “reapply.”

“Business as usual is over,” Rollins answered in part. “The status quo is no more. We know that the SNAP program is rife with fraud.”

She added that guarding against fraud would help those the program is meant to serve.

The comments touched off widespread confusion about what specifically Rollins meant. 

Asked about the initiative during a Thursday press conference, Craig, a Minnesota Democrat, said she was unclear about how it would work and predicted that Rollins would take credit in the future for the existing low rate of fraud.

“We’re hearing off the record that, you know, maybe people don’t know what the hell they’re talking about,” she said. “In fact, I think they’re trying to take credit for the already very strict standards and the actual low fraud rate in the SNAP program … So we can find no real plan there. Not even sure there’s concepts of a plan there.”

In response to a States Newsroom request this week for details about the initiative, USDA provided the statement that did not answer how the department would proceed or under what authority, but said Rollins was seeking to reduce fraud in the program.

Spokespeople did not respond to follow-up questions, or a request to respond to Craig’s remarks Thursday.

Low fraud rate

Program experts say fraud is not a widespread problem for SNAP.

An April report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found that retailers illegally trafficked about 1.6% of SNAP benefits from fiscal 2015 to 2017.

Fraud by households applying for SNAP, which appear to be the main target of Rollins’ proposal, is even lower. 

According to a USDA report, about 26,000 applications were referred for an administrative review or prosecution on suspicion of fraud. That number accounts for about 0.1% of the 22.7 million households enrolled in the program, according to the Pew Research Center.

“Long-standing data sources indicate that intentional fraud by participants is rare,” Bergh said.

At Thursday’s press conference, Craig called Rollins’ comments “bullsh*t” and “propaganda.”

“Secretary Rollins goes on TV and talks about all the fraud,” she said. “This most effective anti-hunger program in our history has a fraud rate of 1.6%. It’s actually one of the most effective, well-run programs in the country … The bullsh*t this administration is peddling is egregious.”

More targeted reforms

Even experts who advocate for reforms to SNAP say eligibility fraud is not a major issue.

Romina Boccia, director of budget and entitlement policy at the libertarian Cato Institute, said high-net-worth individuals can receive SNAP benefits, but aren’t committing fraud by doing so.

“Some of the issues with SNAP … aren’t because of fraud or abuse, but they are because of bad program rules,” said Boccia.

Boccia also cited an “incentive misalignment” inherent in the state-federal program. States have little incentive to control payments because the federal government funds the program, she said.

Forcing all beneficiaries to reapply would likely reduce the cost of the program by reducing the number of its beneficiaries, including by forcing out higher earners who may not consider the benefits they don’t actually need to be worth the onerous reapplication process, Boccia said. 

But it would also result in a percentage of low earners dropping off the program, as well as many who would be affected by the administrative backlog that would come with processing tens of millions of new applications, she said. 

Shutdown, the big beautiful bill, and confusion

Bergh said Rollins’ comments “add insult to injury” because they come after congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump signed a major tax cuts and spending law that is expected to shrink federal SNAP spending by $187 billion over 10 years. The law added work requirements for many SNAP recipients and shifted some costs to states.

That was followed by the six-week shutdown that saw a dizzying back-and-forth over whether November SNAP benefits would be paid.

“There has been huge amounts of chaos and confusion and disruption for both states and participants in recent weeks, largely due to the shutdown, but also because simultaneously, the administration has required states to implement many of the reconciliation bill’s SNAP cuts,” Bergh said.

Craig, in her statement, also said Rollins’ comments would hurt the people who need the program.

“I am astounded by the secretary’s careless disregard for the hungry seniors and children who can afford to eat because of this program,” she said.

Sara Naomi Bleich, a public health policy professor at Harvard University, said in a phone interview the confusion from Rollins’ comments compounded hardships produced by the Republican reconciliation law, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

“Big picture with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is that there’s basically this tidal wave coming to families that have low income,” Bleich, who worked at USDA during the Obama and Biden administrations, said. “They’re going to lose Medicaid. They’re going to lose SNAP. There could be collateral impacts on the school meals. This is going to be a really hard time for families to navigate.”

Natali Fani-González, a Democrat who serves on the Montgomery County Council, speaks during a rally on Nov. 20, 2025 outside the U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, Maryland in support of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who had a hearing in court. (Photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters)

GREENBELT, Md. — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials detailed to a federal judge Thursday plans for the Trump administration to again remove the wrongly deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia, this time to the West African country of Liberia.

U.S. District of Maryland Judge Paula Xinis is considering whether to lift her order that barred Abrego Garcia, a longtime Maryland resident, from being removed from the United States. The case and its months of wrangling in courts in two states has generated huge publicity, both in Maryland and nationally, and has brought attention to the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

Separately, as the Trump administration tries to deport Abrego Garcia, the Justice Department is moving forward with criminal charges against him of human trafficking in Tennessee.

Xinis specially requested the Trump administration provide John Cantú to testify because he is a top official at ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations and previously submitted a declaration to the court regarding the State Department’s deliberation with Costa Rica’s government about accepting Abrego Garcia as a refugee. 

Abrego Garcia, whose deportation due to an “administrative error” cast a spotlight on President Donald Trump’s aggressive immigration crackdown, is challenging his detention on the grounds that the Trump administration is using his imprisonment as punishment rather than for the purpose of removal. He is currently detained at an ICE facility in Pennsylvania.

Abrego Garcia has agreed to be removed to Costa Rica, but the Trump administration last month argued before Xinis to allow him to be removed to Liberia. In August, Costa Rica’s government stated it would accept him as a refugee. 

As he challenges his removal to any country other than Costa Rica, Abrego Garcia has also pleaded not guilty to the criminal case in Nashville, which accuses him of the human trafficking of immigrants in an incident stemming from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee. 

Rally outside

Similar to previous hearings at the Greenbelt courthouse, the immigrant advocacy group CASA led a rally in support of Abrego Garcia. The event included a singing group called the Rapid Response Choir.

George Escobar, who will become CASA’s new executive director on Jan. 1, said it’s important for people to stand up against a “corrupt government” that seeks to take away immigrant rights, especially as the Trump administration tries to ship Abrego Garcia to various third countries.

“We want to make sure that we stand here united. We want to make sure that Kilmar (and) his family understands that we are by his side,” Escobar said. “We will not let this go silently into the night.”

Maryland Del. Gabriel Acevero, a Montgomery County Democrat who’s from Trinidad and Tobago, and who has a family background in Venezuela, said his state colleagues will be working on legislation to improve immigrant rights, such as ending the 287(g) program in the state.

Currently, about eight local enforcement agencies in the state have agreements with ICE that delegate certain immigration enforcement abilities to local police. But Acevero’s colleague, Del. Nicole Williams, a Prince George’s County Democrat, plans to reintroduce legislation to terminate all ICE agreements. Law enforcement agencies would have a year to do so.

After the rally ended, CASA leaders handed out green postcards for participants to write down words of support for Abrego Garcia.

Jacki Gilbert of Baltimore wrote on her postcard: “Dear Kilmar, We stand with you and your family. You are both a friend and a neighbor.”

“This impacts my community. My culture in Baltimore City. My economy there. You got to stand with your friends and neighbors. Respect them,” Gilbert said as she choked up and shed a tear.

Abrego Garcia has deportation protections that should have prevented his deportation to his home country of El Salvador, but earlier this year he was still removed to a brutal Salvadoran prison. 

Because of those protections granted by an immigration judge in 2019, the Trump administration must find a third country that is willing to accept Abrego Garcia and a country where he believes he will not face harm or persecution. 

The Trump administration so far has floated sending him to Liberia as well as one of three other nations in Africa — Ghana, Eswatini and Uganda.

Worries about return to El Salvador

Abrego Garcia’s lawyers have raised concerns that if he is sent to a third country, that country will then send him back to El Salvador. 

Cantú said that the government of Liberia has given the State Department assurance that Abrego Garcia will not face torture, persecution, and will not be sent back to El Salvador. 

The assurances from Costa Rica’s government accepting Abrego Garcia were “nonbinding,” Cantú said. 

The State Department informed him that Abrego Garcia’s removal to Costa Rica is “not an option at the moment,” he said.

Cantú was pressed by one of Abrego Garcia’s attorney’s, Sascha Rand, about communications with the State Department and Costa Rica regarding Abrego Garcia.  

Cantú said he had a five-minute virtual meeting with an attorney from the State Department, during which he was given a statement that Costa Rica was no longer an option for Abrego Garcia. 

But he could not give the judge any additional information on further communications between the State Department and Costa Rica’s government since August.

“This witness has zero information about the content of the (Costa Rica) declaration,” Xinis said. “No shade on you, Mr. Cantú, you’ve been very candid with the court. The point has been made.”

Rand pointed to how the assurance from Costa Rica granted Abrego Garcia refugee status and citizenship, and he asked if Liberia made those same assurances. 

Cantú said he did not recall. 

Rand asked Cantú if in his career at the Department of Homeland Security, which dates to 1997, if he has had any experience of removing someone from Latin America to Africa. 

Cantú said he has in the past six months under the Trump administration. Rand asked about any scenarios prior to that time.

“I cannot recall,” Cantú said.

Rand said that Abrego Garcia has “no objection to him being removed to Costa Rica.” 

He argued that the Trump administration, and its witness, have not proved that Abrego Garcia cannot be removed to Costa Rica. 

Order of removal

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys also requested that DOJ provide the order of removal for Abrego Garcia. 

Cantú said he had not seen such a document.

“If there is no order for removal, then there is no basis for detention,” said Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, another attorney for Abrego Garcia, who specializes in immigration law. 

DOJ attorney Drew Ensign said he does “believe there is a final order of removal.”

Xinis rejected that, because no document was provided to her and the document Ensign produced for her only mentioned that Abrego Garcia’s 2019 asylum claim was rejected.

“I am just interested in finding the order of removal,” she said. 

Ensign argued that because Abrego Garcia has a withholding of removal, meaning he cannot be removed back to his home country of El Salvador, that should be treated as a final order of removal. 

Ensign added that it’s odd that Abrego Garcia would agree to be removed to Costa Rica if he didn’t believe there was a final order of removal.

“No, it’s not,” Xinis said. “It’s a concession because he’s been to CECOT and back.”

While at the notorious mega-prison known as CECOT, Abrego Garcia detailed how he was psychologically and physically tortured by Salvadoran officials. 

Abrego Garcia tried to make another application for asylum, after he was brought back to the U.S. this summer, but an immigration judge denied it. He has appealed the decision.

The case before Xinis is a habeas petition, which is how immigrants challenge their detention. Immigrants cannot be held longer for six months in detention if the federal government is not actively making efforts to remove them, a precedent set by the Supreme Court. 

Xinis pressed Ensign about why the “government (is) standing in the way” of allowing Abrego Garcia to be removed to Costa Rica. 

“It’s so odd and that’s me being really polite,” Xinis said, adding that “there is no evidence that Costa Rica is withholding their prior” stance to accept Abrego Garcia.  

Xinis said Thursday would be the last hearing before she makes her decision. She said she will first decide Abrego Garcia’s habeas petition and then address the injunction that bars his removal from the U.S.

“It’s not going to be a quick decision,” Xinis said. “These are weighty issues.”

President Donald Trump prepares to speak after watching as members of the U.S. Army participated in the 250th birthday parade of the U.S. Army June 14, 2025, in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump accused six Democratic lawmakers of sedition on social media Thursday and threatened them with punishment as severe as death, after they appeared in a video message encouraging U.S. armed forces to refuse “illegal orders.”

Trump also shared another social media post that said the Democrats should be hanged.

The video’s distribution online by Democrats comes as the Trump administration is mired in multiple legal cases objecting to the president’s deployment of National Guard troops to cities across the country, including a challenge to Guard troops in Chicago which is now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In several morning posts on his own social media platform Truth Social, Trump wrote, “This is really bad, and Dangerous to our Country. Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP??? President DJT” 

“SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!,” he added a couple of hours later.

Prior to writing and publishing his own, the president reposted several messages from users on Truth Social, including one by a user with the handle @P78 who wrote, “HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!” 

Trump and his social media supporters were referring to the video, which featured Democratic U.S. lawmakers who served in the military telling current members of the military and the intelligence community to “refuse illegal orders.”

Each line in the video is alternately delivered by Sens. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Mark Kelly of Arizona, and Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire and Jason Crow of Colorado.

“We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now. Americans trust their military, but that trust is at risk. This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens. Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution. Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad but from right here at home. Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders,” the lawmakers said.

The video was titled “Don’t give up the ship.”

Does Trump want to ‘execute’ Democrats?

When asked by a CBS News reporter during the daily press briefing Thursday whether the president wants to “execute” members of Congress, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt answered, “No.”

Leavitt said Trump was reacting to sitting members of Congress who “conspired” on the video message to encourage active duty service members and national security officials to “defy the president’s lawful orders.”

Leavitt singled out the participation of Slotkin and Kelly, who respectively served as a CIA intelligence officer and a Navy captain. Leavitt also highlighted  Goodlander’s marriage to former National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, who served under President Joe Biden.

“They were leaning into their credentials as former members of our military, as veterans, as former members of the national security apparatus, to signal to people serving under this commander-in-chief, Donald Trump, that you can defy him, and you can betray your oath of office. That is a very, very dangerous message, and it perhaps is punishable by law,” Leavitt said.

During the ongoing exchange, CBS’s Nancy Cordes pressed back, saying the lawmakers specifically say “illegal order” in the video.

“They’re suggesting, Nancy, that the president has given illegal orders, which he has not. Every single order that is given to this United States military by this commander in chief and through this chain of command, through the secretary of War, is lawful,” Leavitt responded.

Democrats decry political violence 

Democratic lawmakers sounded the alarm Thursday over Trump’s social media posts, accusing him of encouraging political violence.

“Let’s be crystal clear: the president of the United States is calling for the execution of elected officials. This is an outright threat, and it’s deadly serious. We have already seen what happens when Donald Trump tells his followers that his political opponents are enemies of the state,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on the Senate floor Thursday.

“Every time Donald Trump posts things like this, he makes political violence more likely. None of us should tolerate this kind of behavior,” Schumer said, highlighting political violence in recent years, including the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, and political assassinations just this past year.

House Committee on the Judiciary Chair Jamie Raskin, D-Md., called on Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to “immediately denounce these reckless statements.”

The six Democratic lawmakers featured in the video issued a joint statement, saying they “love this country and swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

“That oath lasts a lifetime, and we intend to keep it. No threat, intimidation, or call for violence will deter us from that sacred obligation. What’s most telling is that the President considers it punishable by death for us to restate the law,” the lawmakers said.

“Frankly, Robin Vos’ move to prevent us from circulating this petition and his refusal to bring this bill to the floor is pathetic," Assembly Minority Greta Neubauer (D-Racine). (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

The Wisconsin Assembly met for its final floor session of 2025 Wednesday, where Democratic lawmakers sought to pass a bill that would extend Medicaid coverage for new mothers for one year after the birth of a child, though Republicans blocked it. Bills to encourage school district consolidation and make changes to elections laws passed.

Republicans block Democratic efforts to get a vote on postpartum Medicaid bill 

Wisconsin is one of two states in the U.S. that have not taken the federal government’s postpartum Medicaid expansion, and Democratic lawmakers hoped to begin the process of changing that during the floor session. 

The bill, which passed the Senate in April on a 32-1 vote, would allow eligible mothers to keep their Medicaid coverage for a year postpartum. Currently in Wisconsin, mothers only get 60 days of coverage if they don’t otherwise qualify for Medicaid.

Assembly Democrats planned to employ a rarely used Assembly rule to pull the bill out of committee and bring it up for a vote. Under the rule, if 50 lawmakers sign a petition, a bill can be brought to the floor. Democratic lawmakers hoped to have the chance to convince some of the Republican cosponsors of the bill to sign on.

Before that could come to fruition, however, the Assembly clerk notified Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) of the plan, Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine) told reporters. 

Republicans moved the bill from the Assembly Rules Committee, where it had sat since May, to the Assembly Organization Committee — triggering a rule that says a  withdrawal petition on the bill cannot be circulated for 21 days. 

“This is a great effort by the Speaker to prevent this important bill from getting a vote on the floor,” Neubauer said. 

Neubauer said she didn’t know why the clerk notified the Assembly Republican leaders.

“There had been some conversation with staff about the timeline for [the petition], but I’m not really sure why it happened the way it did,” Neubauer told reporters. She said that Rick Champagne, director of the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau, told the lawmakers that notification should have happened when they turned the petition in with the 50 signatures, not prior to the petition circulating.

All 45 Democratic lawmakers are cosponsors of the bill as are over 20 Republicans, but the bill has been hung up in the Assembly due to opposition from Vos, who has said in the past that he doesn’t support expanding “welfare.” The bill only needs a simple majority of 50 votes to pass the Assembly.

Neubauer read out the names of the Republican cosponsors during the press conference. 

“These are legislators who believe that this bill should become law, so they say, but they have been bullied by their speaker into not pushing for a vote on this bill on the floor,” Neubauer said. “Frankly, Robin Vos’ move to prevent us from circulating this petition and his refusal to bring this bill to the floor is pathetic, and when moms in Wisconsin and their babies are put at risk, their health and well-being is put at risk, because they do not have adequate health care in the year after they have given birth, it will be Robin Vos’ fault.” 

The Republican lawmakers on the bill include Reps. Patrick Snyder (R-Weston), Jessie Rodriguez (R-Oak Creek), Scott Allen (R-Waukesha), Elijah Behnke (R-Town of Chase), Barbara Dittrich (R-Oconomowoc), Bob Donovan (R-Greenfield), Cindi Duchow (R-Delafield), Benjamin Franklin (R-De Pere), Rick Gundrum (R-Slinger), Nate Gustafson (R-Omro), Dean Kaufert (R-Neenah), Joel Kitchens (R-Sturgeon Bay), Rob Kreibich (R-New Richmond), Scott Krug (R-Rome), Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc), Dave Maxey (R-New Berlin), Paul Melotik (R-Grafton), Jeff Mursau (R-Crivitz), Adam Neylon (R-Pewaukee), Todd Novak (R-Dodgeville), Kevin Petersen (R-Waupaca), David Steffen (R-Howard), Rob Tusler (R-Harrison), Chuck Wichgers (Muskego), Rob Wittke (R-Caledonia), Rob Summerfield (R-Bloomer), Calvin T. Callahan (R-Tomahawk), Clint Moses (R-Menomonie) and Joy Goeben (R-Hobart). 

Democratic lawmakers also tried to introduce amendments to a bill on the floor that would have extended postpartum Medicaid coverage, but those were also blocked by Republicans.

“It shouldn’t be this hard to get Republicans to do the right thing. Wisconsin women deserve access to quality, affordable health care and that includes postpartum care,” Vining said before she was cut off by Speaker Pro Tempore Kevin Petersen who said she wasn’t on topic.

“This is a disgrace,” Vining yelled out.

School district consolidation 

Democratic and Republican lawmakers split over a package of bills that would encourage school districts to consolidate. Republican lawmakers argue the bills are necessary due to falling enrollment, which they say is the reason for school districts’ financial struggles. 

Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) said at a press conference that the bills would address declining enrollment and the cycle of repeatedly going to referendum to raise money from local taxpayers that school districts are in. Schools in Wisconsin have seen a drop of about 53,000 students over a decade, from the 2013-14 to 2022-23 school years.

Of Wisconsin’s 421 school districts, about two-thirds are struggling with declining enrollment with preliminary numbers from the Department of Public Instruction showing that enrollment for public school districts in the 2025-26 school year fell by about 13,600 students. Total enrollment across Wisconsin school districts is about 759,800 this year. 

“Districts with declining enrollment receive less in state aid and to make up for that revenue loss. We’ve seen a growing cycle of constant referendums with varying degrees of success,” Nedweski said. “Wisconsin taxpayers are frustrated with our public school system… They are frustrated with districts continuously asking them to raise their own taxes, frustrated that their generous investments have not produced matching results.”

Democrats blamed Republicans for school districts having to go to referendum, noting that state aid has not kept pace with inflation in nearly two decades. They also said Wisconsinites have not been asking to close schools. Neubauer said Republicans were “proving how disconnected they are from our constituents.”

“Wisconsinites do not want to close school buildings, break up their communities, force their kids to ride on the bus for hours a day, or lose their local sports teams. Wisconsinites want us to fund our public schools,” Neubauer said. “Republicans’ push to close schools misses the mark completely, and Wisconsinites deserve better… Don’t close schools, fund them.”

According to the Department of Public Instruction, Wisconsin is spending the least, proportionally, in state revenue that it has ever spent on schools under the current funding formula. About 32.1% of state general purpose revenue goes to state general aid to schools, while that percentage used to be around 35%.

Rep. Angelina Cruz (R-Racine) noted during floor debate that many school districts lost state aid this year. Data from DPI for the 2025-26 school year shows that of 421 districts, 71% — or 301 districts — will receive less state aid this year compared to the prior year and 26% will receive more.

“For 15 years, Wisconsin has intentionally divested in our public schools while expanding privatization through voucher schemes,” Cruz said at a press conference, adding that Racine Unified School District has felt the loss of revenue acutely.

According to DPI data, about 15% of Racine’s revenue limit — or $43 million — goes to pay for voucher program participants.

“Since 2011, our community has gone to referendum three times —  in 2014, 2020 and 2025 — asking residents to raise their own property taxes to provide what the state has refused to fund,” Cruz said. “Even after those referendum paths, our district has been forced to close and consolidate schools including… the school where I grew up as a teacher. This is not about a lack of community commitment. It is about the state failing its constitutional obligation to provide free and as nearly uniform as practicable schools to children… Let me be clear, if there is money to close public schools, there is money to fund public schools.”

Rep. Joel Kitchens (R-Sturgeon Bay) rejected claims that the choice program is to blame.

“That’s a tiny little percentage of this,” Kitchens said. “It’s happening because of declining birth rates, of people choosing to have less kids, waiting long to have kids. I can’t imagine how anybody can look at our 421 school districts that we have right now and think that in 30 years, that’s going to be sustainable.”

Kitchens also emphasized that the bills are voluntary.

“Let’s trust our communities to work through these things and decide for what’s best for themselves,” Kitchens said. 

Republicans also rejected Democratic lawmakers’ insistence that the state needs to invest more money in its public schools. 

“[Democrats] want us to believe that if we simply spend more on K-12, people will flock to Wisconsin and increase enrollment,” Nedweski said. She compared Wisconsin to New York, which according to the New York Focus spends more per public school student than any other state. “Their outcomes are no better than ours, and they are losing students even faster than Wisconsin. As they elect more communist leaders like [New York City Mayor-elect] Zohran Mamdani, I suspect more New Yorkers will rapidly leave tax-and-spend Democratic Socialist policies. More spending is not a strategy, it’s denial.”

Nedweski said the bills are a “lifeline” for school districts that can use it and will encourage savings and “invest in increasing opportunities for students who may not otherwise have access to things like AP classes, world languages, advanced tech ed and specialized learning services.”

The six bills in the package:

• AB 644 would increase additional state aid to schools that consolidate in 2027, 2028 and 2029 to $2,000 per pupil in the first year. Under current law, school districts receive additional aid when they consolidate. For the first five years after consolidation, a consolidated school district gets $150 per pupil. In the sixth year, the aid drops to 50% of what the school district received in the fifth year and in the seventh year, the aid drops to 25% of the fifth year. It passed 53-44 with Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) joining Democrats against the bill. 

• AB 645 would provide grants of up to $25,000 to groups of two or more school district boards for the costs of a feasibility study for school district consolidation or whole grade sharing agreements. It passed on a voice vote.
• AB 646 would launch a study of Wisconsin’s school districts, looking at current school district boundaries, potential school district consolidations, existing school district facilities, staffing levels and salary scales, the population of school-age children in each school district, and revenue limits and current overall spending. It passed 54-43 along party lines.

• AB 647 would create a four-year grant program for school districts that enter into a whole-grade sharing agreement, agreeing to educate students at one location. School districts would get up to $500 per pupil enrolled in a single grade. It passed 54-43 along party lines.

• AB 648 would help create new supplemental state aid for consolidated school districts to  address differences in school districts’ levies when they merge. The measure is meant to address concerns of higher property taxes for residents of low-levy districts when a consolidation takes place. It passed 54-43 along party lines.
•  AB 649 provides the funding for the bills, including $2.7 million for grants to schools that enter whole-grade sharing agreements, $3 million to provide state aid to offset levy limit differences and $250,000 for feasibility studies. It passed 54-43 along party lines.

Vote on online sports betting bill delayed

After being fast tracked through the public hearing process, a vote on a bipartisan bill that would legalize online sports betting in Wisconsin was postponed. 

The Wisconsin Constitution requires that gambling in the state must be managed by the state’s federally recognized Native American tribes. Following that requirement, sports betting has been allowed in Wisconsin since 2021, but bets have had to be made in person at tribal casinos. 

AB 601 would expand this to allow for online sports betting anywhere in the state by placing servers running the betting websites and apps to be housed on tribal land; this is known as a “hub and spoke” model. It was introduced in October and received hearings in the Assembly and Senate earlier this month. 

Assembly Majority Leader Tyler August (R-Walworth) said that he still would have had the votes on the bill if it had come up for a vote, but he had conversations with members of his caucus over the weekend that brought new issues to his attention. He would not provide details on what the concerns were, though he said they didn’t deal with issues of constitutionality.

“I’m not going to get into the details of the conversations that I’ve had with members,” August said. “We’re just working through some of that right now, and I’m confident that there’s no rush on this. It’s the right thing for the state, and I’m confident that we’ll get there.”

Neubauer said she planned to support the bill. 

“We know that our tribes in Wisconsin have the right to control gaming in our state, and right now, that’s not happening with online sports betting,” Neubauer said. “I do hope that we pass a bill that puts control of that industry back in their hands.”

The Assembly passed and concurred in a total of over 50 bills. Others include:  

• AB 596 and AB 597, which passed unanimously, would direct $1.9 million to be used for a state grant match program for veterans’ housing. A nonprofit group would need to be participating in the federal program, which currently provides about $82 per day per veteran housed to groups that offer wraparound supportive services to homeless veterans, to be eligible for a state matching funds of $25 per day per veteran. While no one voted against the bills, Democratic lawmakers expressed concerns that the bill would not fill the gaps that currently exist due to the closure of two Veterans Housing and Recovery Program sites earlier this year. 
• AB 602, which would instruct Evers to opt into a federal school choice program, passed 54-44 along party lines. 
• A pair of bills meant to help address students who are disruptive in class passed in 54-43 votes. AB 613 would require principals to provide written notification to parents every time a student is removed from a class and “the quality or quantity of instructional time provided to the pupils in the class is diminished.” AB 614 would add language into state law to say that teachers are allowed to maintain order in the teacher’s classroom, establish and enforce classroom rules, call 911 in an emergency, take immediate action if a pupil’s behavior is dangerous or disruptive and request assistance from school administrators during a disruptive or violent incident.
• AB 207, which would provide information about constitutional amendments to voters including their potential effects, passed on a voice vote.
• AB 312  passed on a voice vote. It would require absentee voting sites to be open for at least 20 hours during the period for voting absentee in-person.
• AB 385 passed in a 55-42 vote with Rep. Lori Palmeri (D-Oshkosh) joining Republicans in favor. The bill would prohibit a political committee, political party or conduit from accepting contributions that are made with a credit card online unless the contributor provides their credit card verification value (CVV) or code and the billing address associated with the card is located in the United States. Republican state lawmakers introduced the bill following efforts by Republicans and the Trump administration to target ActBlue — a Massachusetts-based platform that processes donations to Democratic campaigns.
• AB 617 passed 53-44. Rep. Paul Tittl joined Democrats voting against the bill. It would make a number of changes to elections law, including requiring that alternate absentee ballot sites must be in a building or facility constituting a fixed location and requiring absentee ballots with faulty or missing certifications be returned to voters if they are received seven days before the election. It is similar to a bill introduced last session, but it does not include a provision that would have allowed for Monday processing of absentee ballots. Rep. Scott Krug (R-Rome) said that he is speaking with the Assembly Elections Committee chair about potentially having an informational hearing on Monday processing.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Group Health Cooperative of South Central Wisconsin's East Side Madison clinic. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

Directors of a Madison health care system will consider Thursday whether to change course in the organization’s response to a union organizing campaign.

Supporters of the union campaign at Group Health Cooperative of South Central Wisconsin put five motions before the board of directors at an in-person meeting in October — including one to voluntarily recognize the union, SEIU Wisconsin.

A statement from the co-op management Wednesday did not address whether the board will directly act on any of the motions when it meets.

“The motions are advisory to the Board of Directors concerning its instructions to management about the unionization efforts of our direct care employees,” Group Health stated. “All the Motions will be considered by the Board at the November 20th meeting. The results of those discussions will be communicated to our membership in a future statement.”

Group Health’s response to the union drive, which became public about a year ago, has produced a rift between the co-op’s management and some of its members, who have criticized the organization’s response as a betrayal of its progressive heritage.

“To me it was horrifying to learn that we had people leaving because the conditions were not tolerable,” said Ruth Brill, a Group Health member since 1979 who has supported the union organizing campaign.

According to union supporters, the five motions offered at an Oct. 11 in-person mass meeting to discuss the union organizing campaign passed unanimously. About 170 Group Health members attended that meeting, and union allies said it was the largest turnout in memory for an in-person meeting of co-op members.

Three of the five motions call on the board, the co-op management, or both:

• To report to members how much money Group Health has spent in 2024 and 2025 to pay the law firm Husch Blackwell, which has represented the co-op in connection with the union campaign.
• To voluntarily recognize SEIU Wisconsin as the representative for the professions and departments that the union first sought to represent when workers petitioned the National Labor Relations Board for a union election on Dec. 12, 2024. That motion also demands that Group Health “observe strict neutrality regarding the unionization of any of its workers.”
• To compile a report “of all meeting minutes, emails, and other communications involving Board members, administrators, and/or supervisory employees regarding union activity, from January 2024 to the present.”

The third motion also demands a report on all legal or consulting fees that Group Health has spent related to the union drive, including itemized details.

The fourth motion demands that the board and administration “faithfully follow the democratically expressed will” of the co-op members, charging that the membership has “been denied an opportunity to duly and fully exercise its role” in leading the co-op.

The fifth motion calls for a meeting by mid-January “on the democratization of GHC governance.”

“GHC says members are the most important part of our cooperative and yet the board is not listening to what the members have very clearly stated what they would like to happen,” said Dr. Nisha Rajagopalan, a family practice physician and among the union campaign’s leaders.

“If we are a cooperative that is for our members and our patients, those people showed up in the room and they voted and said exactly what they wanted, and we would like to hear the board uphold that,” said Katie Cloud, a certified medical assistant who has also been active in the union campaign.

Paul Terranova, a Group Health member for 25 years, organized a presentation to the co-op board earlier this year to make the case for unionization in the context of a nonprofit co-op. He later helped organize a slate of candidates for the board in opposition to four incumbent board members. All four of the rival candidates were elected in June.

Terranova said that board members have not communicated directly with Group Health members about the union campaign. Board discussions about the matter have been conducted in closed sessions.

The board’s consideration of the motions is “a really pivotal moment for GHC,” Terranova said, “and how they handle this is going to say a lot about whether this is still a cooperative or if it’s become just a corporate board with cooperative window dressing.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The Waupun Correctional Institution, the oldest prison in Wisconsin built in the 1850s, sits in the middle of a residential neighborhood (Photo | Wisconsin Examiner)

Under scrutiny over prison deaths and living conditions, the Wisconsin Department of Corrections has received recommendations that aim to improve life in adult prisons, including solitary confinement, suicide watch, mental health care and basic corrections practices. 

The study was conducted by Falcon Correctional and Community Services Inc. experts partnering with the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC). The department said it is planning to contract with the consulting firm to create a framework to implement recommendations. 

“While the report affirms that DOC is moving in the right direction, it also shows that there is more work to be done,” Corrections Secretary Jared Hoy said in the department’s press release. 

In a statement, the advocacy group Ex-Incarcerated People Organizing (EXPO) said the report “confirms what directly impacted people and advocates have said for years: Wisconsin’s prisons are dangerously overcrowded, under-resourced and in desperate need of healing-centered reform.”

Many of the suggested changes will affect the entire correctional system, the agency said. Consultants and staff will work to “reimagine existing space, create new processes and training at five pilot sites.” 

In a letter dated July 9, 2024, Hoy told a state Assembly committee that the department planned on bringing on Falcon for an outside review. News of criminal charges against staff at Waupun Correctional Institution over prisoner deaths had broken just weeks before Hoy wrote the letter. The same day, the committee heard testimony about the toll of solitary confinement and other issues in the prison system. 

The department and Falcon signed a contract in November 2024, and the Examiner reported in January on details of the partnership obtained through public records requests. Criminal justice reform advocates expressed hope the report would be beneficial but have called for independent oversight of the Department of Corrections. Last week, the department published the 137-page final report, which lists strengths for the department to build on as well as recommendations for improvement.  

The report states that while all recommendations are made based on Falcon’s overall review of the adult prison system, “we understand that the majority of recommendations will require funding, often requiring budget approval.”

Susan Franzen of the prison reform advocacy group Ladies of SCI expressed concern about whether overcrowding and staffing shortages will affect DOC’s ability to effectively carry out recommendations. 

“Legislators need to help the DOC out by giving them a fighting chance to make these changes,” Franzen wrote in an email to the Wisconsin Examiner. 

The report states that the study involved working with DOC officials, gathering data, reviewing policies, statutes and prior studies and conducting virtual workshops with DOC experts and others, including formerly incarcerated people and advocates. 

It also included visits to 15 facilities, such as the Waupun and Green Bay prisons, and interviews with staff and incarcerated people.

Suicide watch

Preventing suicide is a pressing concern, the report states in a section that summarized information from mental health-related discussions with staff during mental health workshops and site visits.

One concern is that observation cells are typically in restrictive housing units; in addition, “individuals on observation status are not allowed therapeutic items, visits, phone calls, or recreation,” the report states.  

People who pose threats to themselves, or who pose threats to others because of mental illness, may be put on observation.

The report recommends housing people in observation in “more appropriate environments that support therapeutic care and patient safety.” 

Over the last 15 years, 59 people died by suicide in Wisconsin prisons, an average of four deaths per year. Suicide watch placements reportedly rose from 1,200 to 1,500 per year to about 2,500 in 2024. In June, the Examiner reported on Victor Garcia, who died due to an attempt to hang himself while he was on observation in a Wisconsin prison.

Psychological services staff decide what items a person can have access to while they’re on clinical observation. Department policy provides a list to use as a starting point, including items like soap, toilet paper and suicide-resistant clothing. 

The report described the list as “very limiting,” and the security mat or mattress was observed to be inadequate for most people on suicide precautions. Later on in the report, it suggests replacing small sleeping mats with suicide-resistant mattresses.

Solitary confinement

The Falcon report includes priorities and steps to take on “restrictive housing” in state prisons, where incarcerated people experience “very limited” out-of-cell programming and recreation time, such as:

• Giving people in restrictive housing at least two hours of recreation and/or programming each day, not including out-of-cell time for necessary activities, such as showers 
• Reviewing the status, programming and needs of people in restrictive housing every week instead of every 30 days 
• Improving cleanliness and removing all graffiti 
• Establishing units that are alternatives to restricted housing for people with serious mental illnesses

Incarcerated people in Wisconsin prisons can be put in restrictive housing as a punishment for a violation or when having the person live with the general population would create a serious threat. 

An average stay in disciplinary separation — a punishment for committing a violation — decreased from 39.7 days in January 2019 to 27.4 days in April 2025, the report notes. However, this varies by facility, and the latest average published online for Green Bay Correctional Institution is 48.7 days. 

The department has begun to address the number of people in restrictive housing and how long they spend there, the report states. However, the number of people placed in restrictive housing has not changed significantly over the last five years.

“High rates of substance use and mental illness among individuals placed in restrictive housing was noted, often contributing to a ‘revolving door’ for this population,” the report stated in the section about mental health insights from staff. 

Solitary confinement has potential effects of physical harm, health issues and negative effects on mental health, the report notes.

Solitary confinement is also associated with increased risk of violence towards oneself and suicide, and research shows that solitary confinement as a tool does not reduce institutional misconduct or violence or the risk of recidivism, the report states. 

There were 950 people in restrictive housing as of September, 863 of whom were placed there due to a rule violation, according to online Department of Corrections data. 

Under a policy that went into effect last May, a placement of over 120 days has to be approved by the assistant administrator for the division of adult institutions, the report noted. 

An overcrowded system

All medium and maximum-security facilities in Wisconsin except for Waupun Correctional Institution are over capacity, as of January, the report states. Facilities for men were at 130% of capacity, while women’s prisons were at 166% of capacity. People are living at security levels that don’t fit their classification — for example, a person sentenced to medium-security being held in maximum security, or a person sentenced to minimum-security being held in medium security. 

The state building commission took an initial step toward updating the aging and overcrowded prison system last month, when it agreed to create plans for a revamp. 

Inconsistency in the department 

Leaders and staff at the facility level of the agency felt a lack of autonomy in their day-to-day jobs, the report found. They believe there is “significant and often excessive and unnecessary scrutiny from outside entities.” 

But the study also found a problem with “a general lack of uniformity across facilities,” which is creating challenges relating to monitoring, oversight and accountability. It recommends “system-wide alignment” on areas including basic security practices, incident reporting and investigation processes.

The report recommends that the agency take an approach that involves both oversight and collaboration. The goal would be to carry out the strategy of DOC leadership with both efforts from leadership and “input and innovation” from frontline staff, stakeholders and incarcerated people. 

A central part of a section called “Back-to-Basics in Correctional Practices” recommends a three to five-day training for all staff about basic corrections practices, such as searches, use of force and out-of-cell time for people in restrictive housing. 

The department “has experienced a great deal of staffing changes, with a significant number of the current staff hired during or after the COVID19 pandemic,” the report found.

Strained mental health care

Mental health services were described as strained, according to the section of the report about mental health-related discussions with staff.

That section of the report suggests that an “unsustainable” number of people have been assigned to receive mental health care at least once every six months, and that this interferes with treatment for people who need more intensive care. 

Nearly half of all incarcerated people in adult prisons had been classified as needing mental health care as of May 20. It’s a much higher rate than other state correctional departments see, the report states. 

Department data shows the agency isn’t fully staffed in psychological services, with a vacancy rate of 19.7%. 

About nine in ten incarcerated women were on the mental health caseload. The report also noted that the population of maximum security facilities has a higher percentage of incarcerated people with mental health needs than medium or minimum security facilities.

Other recommendations in the report address medical practices, investigations and intelligence practices, data management and human resources and staffing.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

President Donald Trump delivers remarks during a joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron in the East Room at the White House on Feb. 24, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump signed into law late Wednesday a bill compelling the release of unclassified investigative files from the case against convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, with whom he shared a well-documented friendship, though Trump denies any involvement in the financier’s crimes. 

Epstein, who surrounded himself with the rich and powerful, died in a Manhattan jail cell in 2019 awaiting federal trial on sex trafficking charges.

Trump signed the bill the day after the House sent it to the Senate, which agreed by unanimous consent to accept the measure.

In a post on his own social media platform Truth Social, the president name-called several prominent figures in business and politics, including former President Bill Clinton.

“Perhaps the truth about these Democrats, and their associations with Jeffrey Epstein, will soon be revealed, because I HAVE JUST SIGNED THE BILL TO RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES!” Trump wrote.

In the lengthy post, Trump credits himself and Republican leaders in Congress for the legislation, though the bipartisan bill was forced to the House floor via a discharge petition. 

After months of loud cries to release the files, even from his base, Trump changed his position Sunday night and directed Republicans to support the measure.

In July, Trump’s Department of Justice issued a memo that it would not publicly release any further records about the Epstein case.

The legislation overwhelmingly passed the House Tuesday in a 427-1 vote. GOP Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., was the lone no vote. 

The legislation compels the Justice Department to publicly disclose “all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in its possession that relate to Epstein or (co-conspirator Ghislaine) Maxwell.” 

They include records related to Epstein’s detention and death; flight logs from Epstein’s planes; names of those connected with Epstein’s alleged crimes; records of civil settlements, and sealed and unsealed immunity deals and plea bargains; records pertaining to entities with ties to Epstein’s trafficking or financial networks; and internal DOJ communications “concerning decisions to investigate or charge Epstein or his associates.” 

The bill carves out exceptions for records containing victims’ identities, images of death or physical abuse, and information that could jeopardize a federal investigation. 

The bill also notes that the “DOJ may not withhold or redact records on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity.”

The bill’s passage and Trump’s signature came less than a week after lawmakers on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released some 20,000 pages of emails from Epstein’s estate that repeatedly mentioned Trump’s name. 

In one email from Epstein to convicted co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier and sex offender claimed Trump “knew about the girls.”

Many other names turned up in the thousands of pages of correspondence, including that of Democratic Delegate Stacey Plaskett, who represents the U.S. Virgin Islands, where Epstein owned a residence, and former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers.

A House Republican effort to censure Plaskett narrowly failed in the House Tuesday night. Summers announced Wednesday that he would resign from prominent board and other positions.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., talks with reporters as he arrives at the U.S. Capitol on Feb. 20, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  Graham is one of eight senators who could sue the government over an FBI subpoena of his cell phone call logs, under a law passed to reopen the government. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House approved legislation Wednesday that would revoke part of a law Congress approved just last week, which for the first time allows senators to sue the federal government, potentially for millions of dollars, if their data is subpoenaed without their knowledge. 

The 426-0 vote sent the bill to the Senate, where Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., doesn’t appear inclined to put the measure on the floor for a vote, though he hasn’t entirely ruled it out. 

“You have an independent, co-equal branch of the government whose members were, through illegal means, having their phone records acquired, spied on if you will, through a weaponized Biden Justice Department,” Thune said. “That, to me, demands some accountability.”

Thune said he understands why several Republican senators were frustrated they didn’t know the provision was added to the funding package that ended the government shutdown.

“I take that as a legitimate criticism in terms of the process,” Thune said. “But I think, on the substance, I believe that you need to have some sort of accountability and consequence for that kind of weaponization against a co-equal branch of the government.”

Thune declined to say if he thinks it’s appropriate for senators to sue for millions in taxpayer dollars for having their phone call records pulled as part of the investigation into President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. 

“I don’t think there’s anybody that was targeted for whom the money matters,” Thune said. “I think it’s more about the principle.”

GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of eight senators who could benefit, said shortly after the House wrapped up debate he plans to sue Verizon as well as the Department of Justice under the new provision. 

“The subpoena that was issued, I think, was fatally flawed. The judicial order saying if you told me (about the subpoena) I would tamper with witnesses or tamper with evidence is legally offensive,” Graham said. “I’m not going to take this crap anymore. I am going into court, and we’ll see what happens.”

Dispute among Republicans

Senate Republicans’ decision to include the lawsuit provision in the stopgap spending law that ended the 43-day government shutdown represented a rare public break between GOP congressional leaders.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said last week just after the House passed the funding law he was “very angry” the lawsuit language was added to the package without his knowledge or sign off. 

“I think that was way out of line. I don’t think that was the smart thing to do. I don’t think that was the right thing to do,” Johnson said at the time. “And the House is going to reverse it. We’re going to repeal that. And I’m going to expect our colleagues in the Senate to do the same thing.”

The provision, which will remain in effect unless the Senate passes the new bill and Trump signs it, allows senators who had their cell phone or other data subpoenaed without their knowledge to sue the federal government for $500,000 “for each instance of a violation.” 

The language is retroactive until Jan. 1, 2022, and allows the eight senators who had their cell phone call logs subpoenaed as part of the FBI’s 2023 investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election to sue for millions of dollars. 

The FBI reportedly obtained data for cell phone use between Jan. 4 and Jan. 7, 2021, for Graham and Sens. Marsha Blackburn and Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, Josh Hawley of Missouri, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Dan Sullivan of Alaska and Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, as well as Pennsylvania Rep. Mike Kelly. All are Republicans. 

The law allows judges to delay notification for 60 days if the information was pulled as part of a criminal investigation and if telling the senator would endanger someone’s safety or life, lead the lawmaker to flee prosecution, result in someone tampering with or destroying evidence, lead to witness intimidation, place the investigation in jeopardy, or unduly delay the trial. 

A judge could keep renewing that 60-day notification delay in criminal investigations if one or several of those elements continued to exist. 

Both parties object 

House debate on the two-page bill sponsored by Georgia GOP Rep. Austin Scott was broadly bipartisan, though Democrats and Republicans expressed frustration with the lawsuit language for different reasons. 

Administration Committee Chairman Bryan Steil, R-Wis., said the “troubling provision” in the spending law must be stricken.

“These provisions are not the right path to address the true concerns over the separation of powers,” Steil said. “Remember, Congress serves the American people, not the other way around.”

Steil said the FBI pulling cell phone call records for senators as part of its investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election, known as Operation Arctic Frost, was an abuse of power that should be addressed. But he said allowing senators to sue for millions of dollars in taxpayer money was the wrong way to do that. 

“I’m committed to holding those involved accountable. No one benefited by the failures of the Biden administration,” Steil said. “However, that does not mean that elected officials should be financially benefiting from those failures now.”

New York Rep. Joe Morelle, ranking Democrat on the committee, said those eight senators’ cell phone logs were pulled because FBI agents believed the lawmakers “had knowledge of or even participated in efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Efforts that culminated in a violent attack on this very institution.”

Morelle said anyone with a basic understanding of criminal investigations knows that phone records “are among the most routine tools used” to gain a better understanding of events. 

“They do not reveal the content of any conversations. They simply show which numbers were called, which numbers called them and when those calls were made,” Morelle said.

“If these Republican senators genuinely believe that their civil liberties were violated or if they are interested in changing the law relating to subpoenas, then they are better positioned than literally anyone on planet Earth to hold hearings, draft legislation and debate proposed changes in the open,” Morelle added. “But that’s not what this is all about. This is about ensuring the law applies to every other American, just not to them.”

Scott said House Republicans voted for the spending law to end the government shutdown, not because they supported the lawsuit provision, which he called “the most self-centered, self-serving piece of language that I have ever seen in any piece of legislation.”

He also rebuked Sen. Graham for saying during interviews that he plans to sue the federal government. 

“We have one senator, one, who maintains that this provision is good and is currently saying that he is going to sue for tens of millions of dollars,” Scott said. “I believe my side did the right thing in voting to open up the government. There are a select few people that did the wrong thing in putting language in the bill that would make themselves individually wealthy.”

Bombs, cows, the Postal Service and lawsuits

Graham, who was an Air Force Judge Advocate General officer before entering politics, compared having his cell phone data pulled as part of the investigation to a case he handled earlier in his career after the Air Force “dropped a bomb on a guy’s barn and killed his cow. And he was able to make a claim.”

Graham also compared it to someone suing the government after being hit by a U.S. Postal Service truck, when asked by a reporter what he plans to do with the millions of dollars he will likely receive if he were to win the case. 

“You do whatever you want to do with the money if you’ve been wronged,” Graham said.  

In addition to filing a lawsuit, Graham hopes to broaden the language so that organizations and private individuals can file suit against the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act if they feel they’ve been wronged similarly. 

“I will insist on a vote in the United States Senate to expand the ability of people to make claims that may have been harmed,” Graham said, adding that would likely include the Republican Attorneys General Association, the Republican National Committee and Turning Point USA.

Graham rejected criticisms of the lawsuit provision from fellow GOP lawmakers, saying it doesn’t represent “self-dealing.”

“I understand politics, but I’m not worried about that. I’m worried about getting the right outcome,” Graham said. “I mean, if you don’t want me to sue the government, that’s up to you. I’m going to sue, whether you like it or not. I’m not going to put up with this anymore, and people in my spot shouldn’t have to deal with this in the future.”

American Civil Liberties Union lead attorney Lee Gelernt holds a press conference outside the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after a March 21, 2025, hearing on deportation flights that occurred despite a court’s restraining order in place. (Photo by Ariana Figueroa/States Newsroom)  

WASHINGTON — U.S. District Judge James Boasberg said Wednesday he will proceed with his inquiry on whether there is sufficient evidence to charge officials in the Trump administration with contempt for violating his order to return deportation flights to the United States.

Following an appeals ruling last week, Boasberg has the ability to resume a contempt investigation against the Trump administration relating to his March 15 order, which required several deportation planes that contained hundreds of Venezuelan men removed under an obscure wartime law to return to the U.S. Instead, the planes landed in El Salvador, and 137 men were detained at the mega-prison known as CECOT.

“I certainly intend to find out what happened that day,” Boasberg said.

He ordered the Department of Justice and the American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the suit against the government, to submit by Monday filings on how to proceed with the inquiry, such as potential witnesses and hearings as well as sworn declarations to the court. 

An attorney on behalf of the Department of Justice, Tiberius T. Davis said the Trump administration doesn’t believe Boasberg should move forward with the inquiry.

Boasberg cited several appellate judges who have ruled that he has the ability and jurisdiction to continue his fact-finding inquiry into the events of March 15.

“Justice requires me to move promptly,” he said.

Boasberg told Davis that he wants to get to the bottom of which official, or officials, gave the order to ignore his temporary restraining order to turn the planes back toward U.S. soil while they were in the air. 

Removals challenged

Additionally, Boasberg heard arguments from ACLU lead attorney Lee Gelernt on a request to require the Trump administration to give the 137 Venezuelan men the opportunity to challenge their removal under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. 

The men removed under the law remained at CECOT for several months until they were returned to Venezuela in a prisoner exchange. 

Gelernt said that a majority of that group want the opportunity to challenge their removal under the wartime law, in the form of a habeas petition, which immigrants use to challenge their detention. He said the ACLU has been able to reach about one-third of the group members and they wish to pursue their claims either back in the U.S. or through a virtual hearing. 

“They are still very, very traumatized about what happened,” Gelernt said, adding that many fear being returned to CECOT if they come back to the U.S.

Remote hearings?

Davis argued that if the men want to continue with their habeas claim, then they would have to be detained in the U.S., rather than make the challenge virtually. 

“To fulfill a habeas, they have to be in our custody one way or another,” Davis said. 

He said they would likely be taken to the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but said that was not definite. 

Gelernt said the federal government should provide a plan in order for the men to make their due process claim.  

“Some may want to know if there is a remote option, if they found a sufficiently safe hiding place within Venezuela,” Gelernt said.

Boasberg agreed, and said the U.S. Supreme Court also agreed when it ordered the Trump administration to facilitate the return of the wrongly deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia as part of a due process case. 

Abrego Garcia was also taken to CECOT and detailed the physical and psychological torture he experienced there. 

The return of the sandhill crane to Wisconsin is a conservation success, but now the state needs to manage the population and the crop damage the birds can cause. (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources)

Republicans in the Wisconsin Legislature are trying once again to establish a sandhill crane hunting season in the state and once again the issue has caused a heated debate. 

At a public hearing on a bill to establish a crane hunt Wednesday morning, Democrats and conservation groups complained that the proposal was a solution in search of a problem while hunters repeatedly insisted the only way to manage the crane population is through a hunt. 

The bill is the product of a Joint Legislative Council study committee convened last year — which spent months trying to find a compromise solution that would satisfy farmers concerned about the more than $1.5 million in crop damage the birds cause each year, hunting groups dead set on establishing a hunt and bird conservationists worried a hunt could damage a population that the state spent decades working to reestablish. 

Sandhill cranes were once gone from the Wisconsin environment, but years of careful work have reestablished the birds. However, many of the wetland habitats that originally served as the bird’s nesting sites have been replaced with farmland and the birds like to eat the corn seeds out of those fields. 

The compromise proposal barely eked through the study committee — which was divided along similar lines as Wednesday’s hearing. 

In the version of the bill under consideration now, a number of proposals meant to help farmers with the crop damage problem have been stripped out, including a program that would subsidize part of the cost for pre-treating corn seeds with a chemical that makes them unappetizing to the birds. 

Dave Considine, a retired state representative whose former district includes the Baraboo-based International Crane Foundation, said at the hearing it was a “travesty” that aid for farmers has been left out of the bill. 

“I thought we had a really decent compromise [in the study committee]. Now I come here to testify and we have given farmers no help, nothing,” Considine said. “Matter of fact, most of the science in the committee meeting, spoke of the fact that if anything [a hunt] may increase damage.”

Plus, a number of anti-hunt advocates questioned how holding a hunt in the fall is meant to deter crop damage, which largely happens in the spring before the seeds have sprouted. 

A number of pro-hunt speakers at the hearing pointed to Alabama, Kentucky and Tennessee, as well as the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec, which hold or are preparing to start sandhill crane hunting seasons. 

The difference, conservationists argued, is that the sandhill cranes that migrate through the eastern flyway (the region of North America of which Wisconsin is a part), use Wisconsin as their annual nesting ground. 

“Cranes are long-lived, and slow to breed one or two young annually,” said Ann Lacy, director of North American eastern flyway programs at the International Crane Foundation. “They do not have the same biology as ducks or geese; therefore, they cannot be managed similarly. They have unique biological considerations, especially in Wisconsin. What happens to these birds in Wisconsin has an effect on the Eastern Population as a whole.”

Despite all those concerns, hunting advocates refused to budge, even as several experts testified explaining the scientific reasons why a hunt won’t help the crop damage problem. For example, sandhill cranes mate for life and are extremely territorial but most of the damage in the state every year comes from single birds moving in larger flocks. If one or both members of a mated pair are killed in a hunt, that only opens up the pair’s territory to be taken over by an unruly group of unmated birds. 

“[We’ve] heard several times that hunting is not a tool that will help us against agricultural damage,” Todd Schaller, a member of the Wisconsin Waterfowl Association board said in response to the expert testimony. “I’m going to say, in my pragmatic thinking, that’s false.”

In 2021, Republicans in the Legislature proposed a similar bill to start a crane hunt. When announcing that bill, conservative rock musician Ted Nugent appeared at a press conference in which he called the birds “ribeyes in the sky.” On Wednesday, Tim Andryk of Wisconsin Ducks Unlimited argued people would be less squeamish about having a crane hunt in Wisconsin if they tasted the meat. 

“They’re just amazing when it comes to eating them,” Andryk said. “They’re a delicate, dark red meat … they’re such good eating that people that are opposed to hunting them, once they’ve eaten one, I don’t think they would be opposed to hunting.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Traders work as the market opens on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on Nov. 18, 2025 in New York City. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — At least 25 bills have been introduced this Congress to further limit lawmakers and their family members from trading individual stocks, and representatives across the aisle renewed pressure Wednesday on U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson to take up the issue.

Their contention is members of Congress hold a serious advantage over everyday Americans when buying and selling stocks because of their access to information on Capitol Hill.

The House Committee on Administration convened Wednesday morning to hear how existing guardrails laid out in the 2012 STOCK Act fall short and consider the options to revamp it.

The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, shortened to the STOCK Act, codified that members of Congress, congressional employees and other federal officials are not exempt from federal insider trading laws. 

The law also required that lawmakers and certain congressional staffers must disclose stock transactions that amount to over $1,000 within 45 days.

The law built upon the late 1970s-era Ethics in Government Act that established financial disclosure requirements for officials in all three branches of government.

“While rules already govern how public officials trade stocks, stronger restrictions may be necessary to restore trust and ensure officials are not profiting from their positions,” said Chair Bryan Steil, R-Wis.

Ranking member Joe Morelle, D-N.Y., said that he “unequivocally” supports a ban on members of Congress trading individual stocks and “that ban should extend to the co-equal branches of government as well.”

Law seen as ineffective

Policy experts before the committee poked holes in the protective measures already on the books.

“Despite allegations of improper conduct, no member of Congress has ever been prosecuted under the (STOCK) Act, nor do any public records exist indicating that officials have ever paid statutory fines for STOCK Act disclosure errors,” said James Copland, senior fellow and director of legal policy at the conservative Manhattan Institute. 

Trust in lawmakers and government officials to self-police is eroding, argued the experts and several committee members. 

Roughly 86% of the public across party lines wants to ban members of Congress from trading individual stocks, according to a 2023 survey from the University of Maryland School of Public Policy.

Dan Savickas, vice president of policy and government affairs for the advocacy group Taxpayers Protection Alliance, said data collected by stock activity trackers and journalists reveals Congress’ sticky entanglement with the market. 

According to a January 2024 report from Unusual Whales, a platform that monitors lawmakers’ stock transactions, dozens of members who traded in 2023 outperformed the S&P 500 Index. 

A New York Times investigation published in 2022 found 3,700 stock transactions by members of Congress from both parties from 2019 to 2021 “posed potential conflicts between their public responsibilities and private finances.” 

Savickas said a number of issues exist in the law’s current form, not least of which is that the STOCK Act “does not prevent conflicted trading by members of Congress, but merely requires them to report when and if they do so.”

Plus, many report them late without consequence, he added. Additionally, a violation is only subject to a $200 penalty and enforcement is left up to the executive branch, leaving it vulnerable to subjectivity and politics, Savickas said.

Some members of the committee questioned how lawmakers would be taxed should they be forced to divest, and how to navigate specific family investments. That included Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va., whose family owns 20% of a community swimming pool he and his family have long used.

“How do we make sure that we’re not eliminating me or making me sell something that I feel strongly about? This has been part of my childhood, part of all my kids’ childhoods,” Griffith said, adding that his son coached the local swim team to the championships last year.

“How do we protect that while curing the ills of people who are trying to do bad things?”

‘As crooked as a dog’s leg’

During a press conference ahead of the hearing, Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., said “this place is as crooked as a dog’s leg, and it needs to stop.”

Burchett joined Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., and Seth Magaziner, D-R.I., in urging Johnson to bring to the floor the Restore Trust in Congress Act, a bill joining together several members’ proposals from this year.

The bill would prohibit Congress members, their spouses, and any dependent children and trustees from owning, buying or selling securities, commodities, futures and certain other assets. If enacted, a lawmaker and their family members would have 180 days to divest. Those newly elected would have a 90-day timeline to do so. The ban would not apply to diversified funds.

“Everybody standing here along with a number of others have been working on this issue for some time,” Magaziner told reporters. 

“We all worked together over the course of the summer to come up with a single, unified bill. So we have one bill, one strategy, and now it is on leadership to get this done and give us a vote,” he continued.

Other leaders on the issue who’ve signed onto the joint effort include Reps. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., Chip Roy, R-Texas, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Joe Neguse, D-Colo. Nearly 80 others signed as cosponsors in addition to the 16 original names.

Fitzpatrick said lawmakers “have to get this done, we will get this done this Congress.”

“Mark my words, this bill, or a bill, will come to the floor, hopefully through an open amendment process where we can make this better,” Fitzpatrick told reporters.

“If we are all willing to accept the premise, and I hope everyone is, that members of Congress unequivocally have access to inside information — we do — if you accept that premise then we have to do something on the stock trading front,” he continued.

Johnson timeline for action

When asked by States Newsroom if Johnson has a timeline for bringing any of the proposals to the floor, a spokesperson responded in an email, “We’ll defer to House Admin (committee) for the time being whether they plan to markup a bill etc.”

Johnson told Punchbowl News in September that a stock trading ban bill is “a tough issue.”

In May, Johnson said he worried whether a ban would affect who could serve in Congress because salaries haven’t risen in several years.

“But on balance, my view is we probably should do that because I think it’s been abused in the past and I think, sadly, a few bad actors discolor it for everyone,” he said.

Masked federal immigration officers talk while they patrol at the Jacob K. Javitz Federal Building in New York City on Oct. 16, 2025. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images) 

WASHINGTON — Federal immigration officers are making unlawful arrests in the District of Columbia because they are relying on ethnicity to identify targets, immigration advocates argued in federal court Wednesday.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are allowed to make warrantless arrests if an officer has probable cause or reason to believe a person is in the United States without legal authorization and can escape before a warrant is obtained. But the immigration advocates challenging ICE’s methods say the officers are using ethnicity-based criteria that have led to wrongful arrests.

“People are living in fear that they will be arrested unlawfully or subject to detention,” Ama Frimpong, the legal director of immigration advocacy group CASA and lead counsel in the case, said.

CASA is seeking class certification for people affected by the policy.

U.S. Justice Department attorney John Bardo said the Trump administration was against class certification because it would cause “micromanaging” by the courts for federal immigration officials and he argued that the plaintiffs in the class have different immigration statuses.

“You don’t even have commonality among the four plaintiffs,” Bardo said.

U.S. District Senior Judge Beryl A. Howell said she would make a decision on class certification and whether to narrow a preliminary injunction soon. 

Quota challenged

The suit stems from President Donald Trump’s emergency declaration in the district that flooded the 68-square-mile capital with federal law enforcement and National Guard troops. As a result, there has been an uptick in aggressive immigration enforcement.

Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller said officers should arrest 3,000 people per day on suspicion of being in the country without legal authorization. 

Bardo confirmed that policy in court Wednesday, but said the figure was a goal. 

Questioned by Howell, he said the quota was not leading to unlawful arrests and that officers were properly trained. 

Profiling policy

A policy that allows officers to target people based on factors like ethnicity and accent has also swept up U.S. citizens and legal residents. 

Groups challenged the policy, and the U.S. Supreme Court eventually heard it. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a 6-3 decision temporarily allowing profiling based on ethnicity that citizens face few problems in having their immigration status verified if federal agents apprehend them.

The four individual plaintiffs in the case in Howell’s court are immigrants who have some form of legal status such as a pending asylum case or temporary protections but were arrested by federal officers. They argue they were targeted because of their ethnicity and fear they will continue to be targeted because they are Latino. They have moved for class certification.

One plaintiff, B.S.R., said in his declaration he was arrested twice by officers in the district, despite having a pending asylum claim.

Another plaintiff, N.S., said in his declaration that was leaving a Home Depot after buying supplies and was arrested by officers, even after he showed his documentation showing he had Temporary Protected Status for Venezuela. He was transferred to several ICE facilities across the country and detained for 28 days before he was released and able to return to his family in the district.

A third, R.S.M., has a pending application for a visa category for victims of a crime who are helpful to law enforcement in cases. 

In her declaration, R.S.M. said that during her arrest, officers scanned her husband’s face, and found he was not the person they were looking for. 

“For a moment, I was relieved and thought they would not arrest us, but one officer said it did not matter that my husband didn’t match the person they were looking for, and the officer decided to arrest us anyway,” she said, adding that only one officer out of the seven who arrested them was in clothing that identified them as law enforcement.

R.S.M. said she was released and given an ankle monitor, but her husband is still detained.

‘Like being kidnapped’

In a declaration submitted to the court, the lead plaintiff, José Eliseo Escobar Molina, detailed how he was detained by federal immigration officials. 

Escobar Molina came to the U.S. in 1998 and obtained Temporary Protected Status in 2001. The status is granted when the Department of Homeland Security deems a national’s home country too dangerous to return to due to violence, natural disaster or other unstable environments.

He lives in the district neighborhood of Mount Pleasant, which has a large Salvadoran immigrant population, with his significant other and their two sons, both U.S. citizens. Escobar Molina, who works in construction as a scaffolder, said he was getting in his truck to head to work.

“Officers dressed in plainclothes got out of the vehicles,” he said in his declaration. “First, two of them grabbed me by the arms and immediately handcuffed me, and then the two officers from the other Suburban came over and grabbed me by the legs.”

Escobar Molina said the officers didn’t identify themselves and he tried to inform them of his legal documentation, which he said was in his wallet.

“I felt like I was being kidnapped,” he said. “Once in the car, I told them again that I had papers. The driver of the car, who was one of the officers that handcuffed me, told me, ‘Shut up b–-h! You’re illegal.’ After he yelled at me, I stayed silent. I did not try to resist arrest or to flee.”

Escobar Molina said he was asked no questions from any law enforcement officer before being transferred to a facility in Chantilly, Virginia. He said that during his 23-hour detention, all he was given was “one small bean burrito, something sweet, and a glass of water.” 

Officer mistake

Escobar Molina said while at Chantilly, Virginia, one of the officers at Homeland Security said his TPS “doesn’t count as being legal here,” and he was then transferred to Richmond, Virginia. 

TPS for El Salvador is still valid, and DHS extended the status earlier this year. 

Escobar Molina said once he was at Richmond, an ICE supervisor realized the mistake and said he was free to leave.  

“He said to me, ‘Sorry you had to live through this. These are new officers. They do not know what they are doing,’” Escobar Molina said, recounting his interaction with the ICE supervisor. “He gave me a copy of my TPS approval notice and told me to carry it with me so I could show it if officers stopped me again.” 

Escobar Molina said when he was arrested in the summer, it was the first time he had been arrested since being in the U.S. for more than 20 years. 

“I fear the same for my sons because even though they are U.S. citizens, they are Hispanic just like me,” he said. “I told them to carry their U.S. passports with them at all times just to be safe.”

The U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C., amid fog on Tuesday, Dec. 10, 2024. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — U.S. senators began debating how to reduce health care costs for Americans during a hearing Wednesday, where experts’ varied recommendations and comments from lawmakers previewed the rocky and potentially long path ahead. 

Republicans on the Finance Committee argued the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, has led to a spike in health insurance costs for individuals  that shouldn’t be offset by tax credits any longer. 

Democrats urged their colleagues to extend the enhanced subsidies for at least another year to give Congress more time to address larger, more complex issues within the country’s health insurance and health care systems. 

Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, said the hearing marked “the first step in building the foundation for” health care reform.

“We need both short-term and long-term solutions,” Crapo said. “In the short term, we cannot simply throw good money after bad policy. If we keep advancing a system that drives up premiums, we will make this problem even harder to solve.”

“Instead, we should set the groundwork for giving Americans more control over their health care choices,” Crapo added. “Rather than accepting the current system of giving billions of taxpayer dollars to insurers, we should consider providing financial assistance directly to consumers through health savings accounts, which are now available on the Obamacare exchanges through a provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill.”

Such tax-advantaged accounts are used to save money to pay for medical expenses and generally are used in conjunction with a high-deductible insurance plan, but an HSA “is a trust/custodial account and is not health insurance,” according to the Congressional Research Service.

The ACA, signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2010, overhauled the U.S. health care system with the intent of reducing high rates of uninsured people and ending insurance industry practices such as exclusions based on pre-existing conditions and the sale of policies with high costs and skimpy coverage. The law also expanded Medicaid and, for individual coverage, introduced the health insurance exchanges, or marketplaces, that now are at issue.

According to the health organization KFF, the number of uninsured Americans fell from about 14% to 16% in the years preceding passage of the law to a record low of 7.7% in 2023.

Pessimism about health care action

Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the panel, rebuked Republicans for focusing on other policy areas throughout the year instead of making improvements to health care.

“Sitting on your hands has consequences,” he said. 

Wyden doesn’t see a way for Congress to extend the enhanced tax credits set to expire at the end of the year for people who get their health insurance from the ACA marketplace, despite Democrats pressing for that during the 43-day government shutdown that ended in mid-November. 

Wyden expressed support for working with Republican senators to address health insurance companies’ structure, though he said he is “skeptical” his GOP colleagues will actually approve legislation on that particular issue in the months ahead. 

“Now if they are serious about taking on the crooks that dominate big insurance, like UnitedHealthcare, I’m all in,” Wyden said. “In my view that starts with a laser focus on lower costs for consumers, going after fraud where it truly exists, and cracking down on middlemen.”

‘Very little that this Congress can do’

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president at the center-right American Action Forum and former chief economist at the Council for Economic Advisers during the President George W. Bush administration, told the committee the structure of the Affordable Care Act poses problems. 

“As a piece of health policy, economic policy and budget policy, the ACA has always been a troubling construct,” Holtz-Eakin said, later adding there is “very little that this Congress can do to change the outlook” for 2026. 

Holtz-Eakin testified that Congress is long “overdue for a real rethinking of health care policy at the federal level” that he believes should focus on two primary areas. 

The first is to “rationalize the insurance subsidies” and the second is to address what he referred to as “high-value care,” which he said should include Medicare, the health program that covers 69 million Americans over 65 and some people with disabilities. 

“Medicare is a great budgetary threat, and so I encourage the committee and the Congress as a whole to take a hard look at that and make some progress toward better health care outcomes and better budgetary outcomes,” Holtz-Eakin said.  

Jason Levitis, senior fellow of the Health Policy Division at the left-leaning Urban Institute and a Treasury employee who led the ACA implementation at the department during the Obama administration, urged lawmakers to address the “too complicated and segmented” health insurance marketplace. 

Levitis said the best short-term option for Congress would be to extend the enhanced tax credits for ACA enrollees during 2026, despite the time crunch. 

“At this point the only feasible option is a clean extension of the existing enhancements,” Levitis said. “The marketplaces have already built that option and have been preparing for months for the possibility of an extension.” 

Former Trump adviser says ACA ‘failed’

Brian Blase, president of the Paragon Health Institute and a former special assistant to President Donald Trump at the White House National Economic Council, said bluntly that the Affordable Care Act has “failed.”

“The law entrenched an inefficient insurance-dominated health sector with massive subsidies flowing straight from the Treasury to health companies,” Blase said. 

The subsidies for ACA marketplace plans, he said, were “ill-designed and inflationary,” urging lawmakers not to extend them for another year.  

“The enrollee share of the premium is capped regardless of the total premium. When enrollees pay only a small slice of the premium or no premium at all, insurers face almost no price discipline,” Blase said. “Insurers can raise premiums knowing the taxpayers will absorb almost all of the increase.”

Blase said he believes the ACA’s regulations on health insurance companies are one of the reasons costs have spiked. 

“For example, under the medical loss ratio, insurers must spend a minimum share of premium revenue on medical claims. In other words, to increase profits, insurers must increase premiums,” Blase said. “The ACA’s essential health benefits require plans to cover the same set of services regardless of what people want or need. These rules increase premiums and wasteful spending.”

The medical loss ratio was included in the ACA in response to insurers who spent “a substantial portion” of premiums on administrative costs and profits, including executive salaries, overhead and marketing, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

‘We all believe we need to reform’

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told reporters separately from the hearing the debate over how to restructure health insurance to bring down costs has highlighted the “differences of opinion” among GOP lawmakers. 

“We’ve got a lot of people who have strong views, but the one thing that unites us is we all believe we need to reform, and we’ve got to do something to drive health care costs down,” Thune said. 

GOP leaders, he added, are “looking for solutions that will lower health care premiums, not increase them. And what we see today is just constant inflationary impacts from some of these policies of the past.”

Trump, who would need to support any health care overhaul bill for it to move through Congress, wrote in a social media post Tuesday that he wants lawmakers to send money straight to Americans, without detail on how that would work. 

“THE ONLY HEALTHCARE I WILL SUPPORT OR APPROVE IS SENDING THE MONEY DIRECTLY BACK TO THE PEOPLE, WITH NOTHING GOING TO THE BIG, FAT, RICH INSURANCE COMPANIES, WHO HAVE MADE $TRILLIONS, AND RIPPED OFF AMERICA LONG ENOUGH,” Trump wrote. “THE PEOPLE WILL BE ALLOWED TO NEGOTIATE AND BUY THEIR OWN, MUCH BETTER, INSURANCE. POWER TO THE PEOPLE! Congress, do not waste your time and energy on anything else. This is the only way to have great Healthcare in America!!! GET IT DONE, NOW. President DJT”

Senate Chambers in the Wisconsin State Capitol. (Baylor Spears | Wisconsin Examiner)

During its last floor session of the year, the Wisconsin Senate passed bills Tuesday that would eliminate the annual $325 per pupil revenue increase for school districts, define abortion to not include treatment for ectopic pregnancies and other emergency medical conditions and block state and local dollars from being used on health care for people not legally in the country.

Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) said she is “dismayed” and “disgusted” that lawmakers were not taking up bills that focused on affordability. She said she is open to working across the aisle on the issue.

“Republicans do not care about affordability, and they have no plan about affordability either,” Hesselbein said. “There are no bills on this calendar that will lower prescription drug costs, increase access to health care, lower housing costs or make child care more affordable.”

Sen. Sarah Keyeski (D-Lodi) noted a few of the more than 60 bills lawmakers were scheduled to take up and questioned whether they addressed pressing matters. 

“Republicans, who determine the issues and bills we focus on, today are addressing things like exempting tobacco bars from the public smoking ban, delaying the implementation of commercial building code rules,” Keyeski said. “While these may be worthy issues to discuss, I would suggest that it does not meet the threshold of emergent need when families are facing dire economic circumstances. GOP legislators are essentially forcing us to sit idly by and watch Wisconsinites suffer.”

Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) said at a press conference that Democratic lawmakers were just “filibustering” and rejected the claim that Republicans weren’t working to help with affordability in the state.

“We passed a budget which had the second largest tax cut in state history to get money back into people’s pockets for utility bills, for retirees on fixed incomes, for middle class tax cuts. We’re doing everything we can to try to keep things affordable, ending the 400-year veto so taxes don’t go up in the next budget process,” LeMahieu said. “We are very concerned. It seems like Democrats can make these statements, but yet they’re introducing bills that let local governments increase their levies to tax, raise property taxes, and everything else, so it seems a little disingenuous.”

Republicans advance bill to eliminate 400-year veto

The Senate voted to pass a bill that would reverse Gov. Tony Evers’ partial veto that extended school revenue limit increases for 400 years. 

Lawmakers during the 2023-25 state budget gave school districts a $325 increase to schools’ revenue limits for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 school years. When the bill reached Evers’ desk, he exercised his partial veto power, striking two digits and a dash from the years to extend the annual increases through 2425, to lawmakers’ dismay. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in April that the partial veto was within Evers’ powers.

In response, lawmakers introduced SB 389 to eliminate the $325 per pupil school revenue limit increase beginning in the 2027-28 school year. It passed along party lines. 

“We’re very concerned with the ruling of the state Supreme Court, but what we want to do is to clarify that the original intent of the Legislature in the budget was to increase school funding for the next budget period,” Sen. Chris Kapenga (R-Delafield), a coauthor of the bill, said. “He changed the bill in a way that no governor in the history of the state of Wisconsin has changed [a bill], and that’s very concerning for us because the Legislature is where the voice of a people is supposed to take place, and the governor is supposed to look at that and use his veto authority to determine where he stands on that, but he went far beyond what’s ever been done before.”

Democratic lawmakers defended the revenue limit increases, saying it is helping school districts that have struggled without inflationary increases in state funding.

“As fists clench over the 400-year veto, know this, it doesn’t even make up for inflation. What it does is, it provides a minimum increase for what people can expect,” Sen. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee) said. “Unfortunately, with this vote, it is trying to go back and trying to actually make a horrible budget even worse by saying not only are we giving you zero dollars in general aid increase…, but more than that, we’re also going to bar the local school district from making up for that gap by being able to allow them to vote for an increased property tax.”

Larson said that the law could have been changed during the 2025-27 state budget process and that it is the state’s fault that property taxes are bearing the brunt of the increases.

“Everybody who voted for the budget, in essence, voted for the continuation of the $325 dollars per pupil increase to be passed on to local taxpayers to make up the difference,” Larson said. “If you had wanted to change it, there were two things that you could have done. One, you could have voted to have that ended and substituted with a different per-pupil increase. Second thing is, you could have had the state actually fund those increases using funds from the increasing general aid or using the vast surplus that we have, taking money from the agriculture manufacturing tax credit [or] anywhere else, and you could have actually funded our kids.”

Redefining abortion

The Senate also passed SB 553, which seeks to redefine abortion to exempt treatments for certain medical conditions including the removal of a dead embryo or fetus, an ectopic, anembryonic or molar pregnancy.

Bill coauthor Sen. Romaine Quinn (R-Birchwood) said during a press conference that he wanted to remove confusion from state statute, saying he is “pro-life” and hasn’t wanted to stop women from being able to receive the medical care that they need. 

“Women who need medical attention due to situations of stillbirths, miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies or other related issues, can and should receive the care that they need. That has always been the pro-life position,” Quinn said. “This bill before us today does not ban abortions. It does not restrict abortions, it simply clarifies our laws so that both women and medical providers can do what is necessary in those situations.”

Wisconsin has a web of abortion restrictions in place, including a 20-week ban, but confusion soared in the state after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. An 1849 law interpreted as a near-total abortion ban led health care providers afraid of felony charges to deny care to women who faced miscarriage and life-threatening pregnancy complications.

Recently, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, the state’s largest abortion provider, stopped providing abortion care in part due to federal changes.

Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) said the lawmakers were trying to distance themselves from “the horrors that we are seeing in states that have banned and restricted abortion.” The Assembly coauthor, Rep. Joy Goeben (R-Hobart) said in September that she introduced it in part because Republicans are getting “killed” on the abortion issue during elections, although she said she favors a total abortion ban.

“Women being turned away from hospital emergency rooms repeatedly, being left to bleed out in Walmart parking lots. In fact, women are dying because they are denied timely abortion care that could easily have saved their lives, and their children left orphaned,” Roys said. “That’s the reality of what it looks like when you ban and restrict access to abortion in this country.”

Recent polling done by Marquette Law School found that abortion policy has declined as a “most important” issue among voters across all partisan groups in 2025 as compared to 2022, although 50% of respondents still said they were “very concerned” and 23% said they were “somewhat concerned” about the issue. 

Another recent poll found that 78% of voters support protecting health care professionals from criminal charges related to providing abortion care and 72% of voters favor allowing advanced health care providers like nurse practitioners and midwives to provide abortion care.

Roys said she was also concerned that the bill could push physicians to do emergency C-sections rather than terminate pregnancies as a way of addressing health issues. 

“Abortion is a necessary medical procedure that sometimes pregnant people need to save their lives, to preserve their health, to preserve their future fertility, and nothing in this bill is going to change that,” Roys said. “This bill will instead push physicians to force women to have unnecessary C-sections or to induce delivery rather than providing them with abortion. A C-section is much more dangerous. It is much more invasive. It’s major abdominal surgery that takes weeks or months to recover from, and it also impairs a woman’s future ability to be pregnant to have the labor and delivery that she wishes.”

The bill will now go to the Assembly for consideration. 

Restricting health care for immigrants

The Senate concurred 21-12 in AB 308, which would prohibit state, county, village, long-term care district and federal funds from being used to subsidize, reimburse or provide compensation for any health care services for a person not lawfully in the United States. Sens. Sarah Keyeski (D-Lodi), Brad Pfaff (D-Onalaska) and Jamie Wall (D-Green Bay) joined Republicans in favor. 

Bill coauthor Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine) said the bill would ensure that Wisconsin doesn’t begin spending large amounts of money on people who aren’t legally in the country. He noted that other states, including Minnesota and California, have rescinded or paused providing coverage for people not legally in the U.S. 

“[Illinois] did an audit and found that they had spent nearly $900 million on health care benefits for illegal aliens, about a 200% increase, and then in Minnesota, the Legislature, by bipartisan vote, they voted to end the eligibility for illegal immigrants due to questions about their state’s financial well-being, and then, lastly, wonderful, California. Gov. [Gavin] Newsom recently froze enrollment of illegal immigrants into the state’s medical programs, citing California’s $12 billion budget deficit,” Wanggaard said at a press conference. “We’re looking at something that is really a no-brainer.”

Wisconsin already doesn’t allow immigrants without legal authorization to apply for the state’s Medicaid program, BadgerCare.

There are two programs available to those without legal status outlined on the Department of Health Services website: Medicaid Emergency Services, which provides short-term medical coverage for people who have a medical emergency and aren’t eligible for BadgerCare Plus or Wisconsin Medicaid, and BadgerCare Plus Prenatal Plan, which provides health care coverage for pregnant mothers who are not eligible for BadgerCare Plus due to immigration status or being in prison or jail.

Democratic lawmakers accused Republicans of seeking to make a political point and neglecting to address health care costs and accessibility.

“We are not in an affordability crisis because of less than 1% of BadgerCare funds that are used to save lives,” Sen. Dora Drake (D-Milwaukee) said. “This is cruel, it is a mean-spirited bill that is attempting to score cheap political points off of a group that’s already marginalized enough.” 

Advocates have warned that the bill could have a “chilling effect,” discouraging people from seeking care when they need it.

“Why is this sort of thing even coming up for discussion? Are we that heartless? Have we really lost our vision for this country?” Sen. Jeff Smith (D-Brunswick) asked. “These are all messaging to somebody’s base. Terrible people who are coming here to work in our factories, in our fields without the proper papers need to be punished… How heartless are we to make political points? Go ahead and make your god dang political points.”

The Assembly passed the bill in September, so it will now go to Evers for consideration. 

Other bills passed by the Senate Tuesday include:  

• AB 165, which would ban local governments from using tax money to create guaranteed income programs without a work or training requirement. The Assembly passed the bill along party lines in April and the Senate concurred in it 18-15 so it will now go to Evers for consideration. 
• AB 265, which would require judges to sentence people convicted of human trafficking to at least 10 years in prison, or at least 15 years for trafficking a child, was concurred in in an 18-15 party line vote. Democratic lawmakers expressed concerns about young victims of sex trafficking potentially facing mandatory minimums if they are forced to participate in trafficking, while Republicans brushed away those concerns. 
• SB 498 passed 17-16 with Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) joining Democrats against it. The bill would place specific freedom of speech requirements into state statute, including barring campuses from restricting speakers on campus, and implement new penalties, including a tuition freeze, if a campus violates any parts of the bill.
• SB 394 would make it a Class I felony to damage or graffiti structures, plaques, statues, paintings or other monuments on public property or that is maintained by the state or any county or municipality. It passed 18-15 along party lines.
• SB 11, which would require school districts to provide an opportunity for certain federally chartered youth membership organizations, including the Girl Scouts, to give students information about their organizations. It passed by a voice vote. The Assembly is scheduled to vote on the bill on Wednesday.
• SB 16, which would make the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association subject to open records and open meeting laws, passed 22-11.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Photo by Getty Images

In an ever-changing world, it’s nice to know that some things stay the same – my annual health insurance premium increase just came through for the 20th year in a row! For 2026, my company’s small-group policy will rise roughly 10%. And believe it or not, in the world of American health care, that’s considered a modest increase.

For my own family — myself, my wife, and our four kids — our health insurance plan costs about $1,800 per month with a $12,000 annual deductible. That is about $34,000 per year. 

If your household earns around $110,000 a year, you’re actually doing extremely well: that puts you in the top 15% of earners in states like Wisconsin.

But even at that income, a $34,000 annual healthcare bill eats up 40% of your post-tax income.

Let’s put that in perspective:

• That $34,000 is almost six times what that same family pays in Medicare taxes — taxes that help cover the oldest, sickest people in the country.
• That $34,000 is more than my family spends on food, mortgage, property taxes, and utilities combined.
• And the gap between what we pay and what we use has become downright comical: I’m at Hy-Vee four times a week, but I haven’t been to a doctor in over three years.

But here’s the bigger problem: When premiums go up 7% per year — again, considered “moderate” — the magic of compound interest turns that into a doubling of price in just a decade.

At only 7% increases, by 2037, a family earning $110,000 will be paying a $45,000 annual premium for a small-group plan. Add a $15,000 deductible, and private insurance would consume 80% of their after-tax take-home pay.

No household, no matter how responsible or hard-working, can withstand that. 

We’ve been promised reform for nearly a decade. Donald Trump began talking about fixing healthcare back in 2016. By 2024, the country still had nothing more than “concepts of a plan.” And temporary patches — tweaked subsidies, tinkering with tax credits, or tossing out $2,000 checks — are not even in the neighborhood of a real solution. 

At the very least, Congress should make sure those price spikes don’t devastate families on Jan. 1, but the fact that those tax credits are needed speaks to out of control costs within the health care system. 

We are out of time for small fixes. The system doesn’t need polishing — it needs structural change. 

What we need is bold leadership and big ideas. And in my view, the fastest, most practical path forward is a public option — Medicare-for-all-who-want-it. Let individuals and small businesses buy into Medicare. If my family could get coverage for anything less than $34,000 a year, that’s an immediate savings! And we’re far from alone. That’s why I’m advocating with other small business owners, including those at the Main Street Alliance, to get it done. 

You can’t solve an economic problem with partisan politics. That’s why Rep. Derrick Van Orden must come to the table to negotiate on health care. He said he would protect rural health care earlier this year, then turned his back on folks on Western Wisconsin and voted for the ‘Big Ugly Law’. The system is broken and we need serious people to address health care in a serious way. The math has already made the case. Now we need you to have the courage to follow it. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Health insurance claim form. (krisanapong detraphiphat/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Two leading Democrats on a U.S. House panel called on the head of an agency within the U.S. Department of Labor responsible for protecting workers’ benefits to take action to address improper health insurance claim denials, in a Tuesday letter provided exclusively to States Newsroom.  

Reps. Bobby Scott of Virginia and Mark DeSaulnier of California — the respective ranking members of the House Committee on Education and Workforce and its Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions — offered three recommendations to Daniel Aronowitz. He is the assistant secretary of the DOL’s Employee Benefits Security Administration, or EBSA. 

“Improper claim denials impose substantial health and financial hardships on individuals, leading to delays in necessary treatments, worsened health outcomes, and high out-of-pocket costs,” Scott and DeSaulnier wrote.

“In far too many tragic cases, denials lead to the unnecessary deaths of people who have earned benefits through their plan, but are nonetheless denied the care that could have saved their lives,” they added. 

Improvements called for in collecting data on denials

As head of EBSA, Aronowitz is responsible for administering, regulating and enforcing Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, which is intended to protect participants’ and their beneficiaries’ interests when it comes to benefit plans under their employers. 

DOL estimated roughly 136 million participants and beneficiaries were covered by approximately 2.6 million ERISA-covered group health plans in 2022.  

As part of their recommendations, Scott and DeSaulnier called on Aronowitz to “implement long-delayed transparency requirements to collect data on health claim denials by insurance companies and group health plans.”

The two suggested building upon Form 5500, ERISA’s annual reporting requirement, to “improve data collection from group health plans.” 

Staffing at agency, Trump budget cuts cited

Scott and DeSaulnier also urged Aronowitz to “commit to fully enforcing the law and to ensuring that EBSA is adequately staffed to fulfill its mission,” pointing to a decline in more than a fifth of the agency’s staff under President Donald Trump’s administration. 

Trump’s fiscal 2026 budget request for DOL also called for $181 million in funding for EBSA, a $10 million proposed cut from the prior fiscal year. 

The Senate Appropriations Committee passed its annual bill to fund DOL, including EBSA, back in July and maintained funding for the program in fiscal 2026 at $191 million. 

The corresponding panel in the House also approved its bill to fund DOL in September, aligning with the administration’s request of cutting funding for EBSA by $10 million in fiscal 2026. 

The Democrats also recommended Aronowitz take steps to “improve consumers’ ability to appeal wrongfully denied health benefits.” 

They encouraged the assistant secretary to consult the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans and to “reverse” DOL’s current posture regarding the council. 

Scott and DeSaulnier noted that DOL took several steps to “undermine” the council, including “delaying public release of its report, purging documents such as testimonies from consumer advocates from the Department’s website, and, to date, failing to convene the Council for any of the four statutorily-mandated meetings.” 

The department did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday. 

Sky Roberts, left, brother of Virginia Giuffre, who was abused by Jeffrey Epstein, and his wife Amanda Roberts hold up a photo of Giuffre during a news conference on the Epstein Files Transparency Act outside the U.S. Capitol on Nov. 18, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

This story contains mention of sexual abuse and suicide. If you or a loved one are in crisis, help is available 24 hours a day by dialing 988 or visiting 988hotline.org.

WASHINGTON — A bill is heading to President Donald Trump’s desk compelling the release of unclassified investigative files from the case against convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a friend to the rich and powerful who died in a Manhattan jail cell in 2019 awaiting federal trial on sex trafficking charges.

Senate Republicans on Tuesday night did not object to a unanimous consent request from Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to accept and pass the legislation, as is, after the U.S. House overwhelmingly approved the measure earlier in the day.

The Senate did not receive the bill from the House before adjourning Tuesday night.

A senior administration official told States Newsroom the president will sign the bill “whenever it gets to the White House.”

The lawmakers in the lower chamber voted 427-1 to compel the Department of Justice to release materials related to the government’s investigation of the financier who harmed over 1,000 victims, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., was the lone “no” vote.

Survivors and their supporters watched the vote from the chamber’s gallery seats. Among them was Sky Roberts, the brother of the late Virginia Giuffre, who sued Epstein’s co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell and the British royal family’s Andrew Windsor, who recently was stripped of his title of prince. Giuffre died by suicide in April.

“I’m very happy with the outcome, but this is just the beginning, and we have a lot of work ahead of us, a lot more to do,” Haley Robson told States Newsroom in an interview after the vote. Robson is prominent among those who have shared their stories of abuse by Epstein.

The bill now goes to Trump, who said Monday he will sign it.

‘Courage and advocacy’ of survivors cited

Schumer, a New York Democrat, wrote on social media earlier the vote would “not have been possible without the courage and advocacy of Jeffrey Epstein’s survivors. They made this vote possible. They risked their safety coming out of the darkness to share their stories and to tell the truth.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said earlier Tuesday he expected the bill to move through the Senate “fairly quickly” and likely without changes, according to reporting by CNN.

The legislation compels the Justice Department to publicly disclose “all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in its possession that relate to Epstein or Maxwell.” They include records related to Epstein’s detention and death; flight logs from Epstein’s planes; names of those connected with Epstein’s alleged crimes; records of civil settlements, and sealed and unsealed immunity deals and plea bargains; records pertaining to entities with ties to Epstein’s trafficking or financial networks; and internal DOJ communications “concerning decisions to investigate or charge Epstein or his associates.” 

The bill carves out exceptions for records containing victims’ identities, images of death or physical abuse, and information that could jeopardize a federal investigation. 

The bill also notes that the “DOJ may not withhold or redact records on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity.”

Trump, Johnson opposition

Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson opposed the House effort to release the files until this week.

Johnson said Tuesday morning that he will vote for the measure that has been forced to the floor after Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., gathered enough signatures on a discharge petition to override leadership.

The Louisiana Republican told reporters at his regular House leadership press conference that the “forcing mechanism here prevents the very deliberate, professional, careful manner in which Congress is supposed to do this.”

“But having now forced the vote, none of us want to go on record and in any way be accused of not being for maximum transparency,” Johnson said.

The vote comes less than a week after lawmakers on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released some 20,000 pages of emails from Epstein’s estate that repeatedly mentioned Trump’s name. 

In one email from Epstein to Maxwell, the financier and sex offender claimed Trump “knew about the girls.”

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

During a press conference in the Oval Office Tuesday alongside the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Trump told reporters, “As far as the Epstein files, I have nothing to do with Jeffery Epstein. I threw him out of my club many years ago because I thought he was a sick pervert.”

Trump added, as he has repeatedly said before, that the files are a “Democratic hoax.”

Plaskett text messages

The thousands of documents released by Epstein’s estate revealed the sex offender’s correspondence with academics, journalists, lawmakers and at least one spiritual leader. 

Among the revelations were text messages between Epstein and U.S. Democratic Delegate Stacey Plaskett, who represents the U.S. Virgin Islands, where Epstein owned a residence.

An effort by Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., is underway to formally reprimand Plaskett for texting with Epstein during a 2019 congressional hearing that featured testimony from Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen. News of the text exchange was originally published by the Washington Post.

The official censure would remove Plaskett from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. A vote was expected Tuesday night.

Plaskett defended herself on the House floor Tuesday afternoon, saying, “We all know that Jeffrey Epstein’s actions were absolutely reprehensible as a constituent, as an individual who gave donations to me. When I learned of the extent of his actions after his investigation, I gave that money to women’s organizations in my community.”

Stories of abuse 

Women who told stories of being abused by Epstein as teens rallied outside the U.S. Capitol Tuesday morning, alongside Massie, Khanna and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., whom Trump attacked online this weekend, nicknaming her a “traitor.”

Robson told the crowd that as a Republican herself, the advocacy from Massie and Greene is “unbelievable to watch, and we are so grateful.”

“And to the president of the United States of America, who is not here today, I want to send a clear message to you: While I do understand that your position has changed on the Epstein files, and I’m grateful that you have pledged to sign this bill, I can’t help to be skeptical of what the agenda is,” Robson said.

In a Sunday night post on his own social media platform, Trump told Republicans to vote in favor of the bipartisan legislation Tuesday, which lawmakers have named the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

Greene, who also spoke at the press conference, said the administration’s refusal to release what are collectively referred to as the Epstein files “has ripped MAGA apart.”

“The only thing that will speak to the powerful, courageous women behind me is when action is actually taken to release these files, and the American people won’t tolerate any other b- – – -t,” Greene said.

GOP Reps. Nancy Mace of South Carolina and Lauren Boebert of Colorado were the other Republicans to join Massie, Greene and all Democrats to sign the petition.

Grijalva signature

In a second press conference outside the Capitol later Tuesday morning, the House’s newest Democratic member, Arizona’s Adelita Grijalva, spoke alongside sexual abuse prevention advocates. 

“The momentum behind this did not come from politicians. It came from survivors and the public who demanded answers. This is why the discharge petition crossed 218 signatures, despite Speaker Johnson doing everything in his power to prevent this from happening, including calling an early summer release, and delaying myself my swearing in for seven weeks,” Grijalva said.

Grijalva became the petition’s 218th signature on Wednesday, immediately after her swearing-in ceremony. 

Johnson refused to swear in Grijalva, who won her seat on Sept. 23, during the government shutdown despite precedent of other representatives swearing an oath while the House is out of session.

U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., also spoke at the press conference, warning that Senate leadership should not “delay this any further.”

“They need to schedule a vote on this so this can get passed into law,” Kelly said.

Trump told NBC News Monday he would sign the legislation.

Roughly a dozen public protesters stood outside the police barricade surrounding the press conference, holding signs demanding the release of the Epstein files.

Robin Galbraith, 61, of Maryland, held a sign protesting Johnson’s refusal to allow an earlier floor vote to disclose the files.

“These survivors deserve justice. And you know, all women and girls deserve justice,” Galbraith told States Newsroom in an interview. “Like when you have the richest people in the world trafficking girls, I mean, as somebody who has daughters and sons, we all want to see that children are not victims like this anymore.”

FBI memo 

In July, the FBI issued a memo stating the department would not publicly release any further information on the Epstein case.

The sudden reversal, after Trump and his supporters campaigned on releasing the files, sparked upheaval among the president’s base and trained a magnifying glass on Trump’s well-documented friendship with Epstein.

Trump denies any wrongdoing.

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

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

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

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

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

This report has been updated.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s administration took major steps Tuesday in trying to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, announcing six interagency agreements signed with other departments that will transfer several of its responsibilities to those agencies. 

The announcement was immediately met with intense backlash from Democratic members of Congress, who questioned its legality, and labor unions. 

The agreements — with the departments of Labor, Interior, Health and Human Services and State — come as Trump has sought to take an axe to the 46-year-old department in his quest to return education “back to the states.” 

The move further fulfills a pledge Trump heavily campaigned on and later tapped Education Secretary Linda McMahon to carry out. 

“The announcement really follows the plan that President Trump has had since Day One, and that is returning education to the states — he fully believes, as do I, the best education is that that’s closest to the child and not run from a bureaucracy in Washington, D.C.,” McMahon told Fox News on Tuesday following the announcement. 

The secretary likened the initiative to a “test run” and said her department wants to see “if what we think to be true is that they will function much more in a streamlined fashion and much more efficiently if we relocate those programs into other agencies.” 

McMahon added that the agency would “move it,” “see how it works” and deliver the “outcomes” to Congress. 

She said her department hopes Congress would then vote to codify the permanent move of those programs to those agencies. 

But any effort would face a difficult path in the Senate, which requires at least 60 senators to advance most legislation. Republicans hold just 53 Senate seats.

The announcement also came as the U.S. Supreme Court in July allowed the Trump administration to temporarily proceed with mass layoffs and a plan to dramatically downsize the Education Department ordered earlier this year.

That plan — outlined in a March executive order Trump signed — called on McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure” of her own department. 

How Education agreements will work 

The Education Department clarified in fact sheets it would “maintain all statutory responsibilities and will continue its oversight of these programs” regarding all six interagency agreements.

A senior department official could not yet say how many Education Department employees would be transitioning to these other agencies, and noted that there will be “a bit of a lag” between the signing and when the agreements are fully executed. 

The official said the department is “still exploring the best plan” for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office for Civil Rights and Federal Student Aid.

The Department of Labor will take on a “growing role” in administering elementary and secondary education programs currently managed under the Education Department’s Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, per a fact sheet. 

The Education Department said that “with proper oversight by ED, DOL will manage competitions, provide technical assistance, and integrate ED’s programs with the suite of employment and training programs DOL already administers.”

In another agreement, the Labor Department will also take on a greater role in managing the Education Department’s higher education grant programs, such as TRIO and the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, or GEAR UP.

This also includes the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund, the Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need program and the Strengthening Historically Black Graduate Institutions program, among others. 

The Interior Department will also take on a “growing role” in administering the Education Department’s Indian Education programs, per a fact sheet. 

Under an agreement with HHS, that agency will oversee the National Committee on Foreign Medical Education and Accreditation’s work. 

HHS will also “manage existing competitions, provide technical assistance, and integrate” the Education Department’s Child Care Access Means Parents in School Program, the department said. 

That program, according to the Education Department, “supports the participation of low-income parents in postsecondary education through the provision of campus-based child care services.” 

The Education Department’s agreement with the State Department will let that agency “oversee all foreign education programs,” per a fact sheet. 

‘Outright illegal effort’

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, blasted the move as an “outright illegal effort to continue dismantling the Department of Education.” 

Murray said “it is students and families who will suffer the consequences as key programs that help students learn to read or that strengthen ties between schools and families are spun off to agencies with little to no relevant expertise and are gravely weakened — or even completely broken — in the process.” 

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, ranking member of the House Appropriations panel, said  “any attempt to unilaterally remove programs from the Department of Education will fundamentally alter their purpose,” in a Tuesday statement.

“This is not about efficiency — it is about creating so many needless bureaucratic hurdles that the Department of Education is rendered useless — a death by a thousand cuts. Imposing massive, chaotic, and abrupt changes on a whim will waste millions of dollars in duplicative administrative costs and impose wasteful burdens on the American education system,” the Connecticut Democrat said. 

Rep. Bobby Scott, ranking member of the House Committee on Education and Workforce, decried the move in a Tuesday statement and called on congressional Republicans to “work with Democrats to stop this assault.”

The Virginia Democrat said “the mass transfer of these programs is not only extremely inefficient and wasteful, but it will result in inconsistent enforcement of federal education policy.” 

He added that “instead of protecting the civil rights of students of color, students with disabilities, English as a Second Language (ESL) students, and low-income students, and closing achievement gaps, the Secretary of Education has spent her tenure dismantling ED.” 

Unions slam move

Rachel Gittleman, president of American Federation of Government Employees Local 252, which represents Education Department workers, said “this latest ploy by the Trump Administration to dismantle the Congressionally created U.S. Department of Education is not only unlawful — it’s an insult to the tens of millions of students who rely on the agency to protect their access to a quality education.” 

She added that “students, educators and families depend on the Department’s comprehensive support for schools, from early learning through graduate programs” and “that national mission is weakened when its core functions are scattered across other federal or state agencies that are not equipped or positioned to provide the same support and services as ED staff.” 

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, one of the largest teachers unions in the country, said “spreading services across multiple departments will create more confusion, more mistakes and more barriers for people who are just trying to access the support they need.” 

Weingarten added that “it’s a deliberate diversion of funding streams that have helped generations of kids achieve their American dream” and “will undermine public schools as places where diverse voices come together and where pluralism, the bedrock of our democracy, is strengthened.”

“We are now watching the federal government shirk its responsibility to all kids. That is unacceptable,” she said, adding that “Congress must reclaim its authority over education during upcoming federal funding battles.” 

State Rep. Matt Morgan, R-Richmond, surveys a map of proposed new congressional districts in Texas, as Democratic lawmakers, who left the state to deny Republicans the opportunity to redraw the state's 38 congressional districts, began returning to the Texas Capitol in Austin on Aug. 20, 2025. REUTERS/Sergio Flores

Texas cannot use its new congressional map for the 2026 election and will instead need to stick with the lines passed in 2021, a three-judge panel ruled Tuesday.

“The public perception of this case is that it’s about politics,” U.S. Judge Jeffrey Brown, a Trump appointee, wrote in the ruling. “To be sure, politics played a role in drawing the 2025 Map. But it was much more than just politics. Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map.”

Brown ordered that the 2026 congressional election “shall proceed under the map that the Texas Legislature enacted in 2021.” The case will likely be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but time is short: Candidates only have until Dec. 8 to file for the upcoming election.

The decision is a major blow for Republicans, in Texas and nationally, who pushed through this unusual mid-decade redistricting at the behest of President Donald Trump. They were hoping the new map would yield control of 30 of the state’s 38 congressional districts — up from the 25 they currently hold — and help protect the narrow GOP majority in the U.S. House.

The map cleared the GOP-controlled Legislature in August and was quickly signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott. Several advocacy groups sued over the new district lines, saying lawmakers intentionally diluted the voting power of Black and Hispanic Texans and drew racially gerrymandered maps. Over the course of a nine-day hearing in El Paso earlier this month, they aimed to convince the judges that it was in voters’ best interest to shelve the new map until a full trial could be held.

It was not immediately clear if the state still has a legal path to restoring the new map in time for 2026. Unlike most federal lawsuits, which are heard by a single district judge and then appealed to a circuit court, voting rights lawsuits are initially heard by two district judges and one circuit judge, and their ruling can only be appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The decision comes 10 days into the monthlong period when candidates can sign up for the March primary. The filing deadline is Dec. 8.

This is just the opening gambit in what promises to be a yearslong legal battle over Texas’ congressional map. A lawsuit over the state’s 2021 redistricting — including its state legislative and education board seats — went to trial earlier this summer and remains pending before the same three-judge panel. The judges have indicated they may want to see how the U.S. Supreme Court rules on a major voting rights case before issuing their full ruling on Texas’ maps.

But for Trump, and many of his Republican supporters in Texas, the short-term goal of having this map for the 2026 election was as important as the long game.

“I’m convinced that if Texas does not take this action, there is an extreme risk that [the] Republican majority will be lost,” Sen. Phil King, R-Weatherford, said on the floor of the state Senate before the new map passed. “If it does, the next two years after the midterm, there will be nothing but inquisitions and impeachments and humiliation for our country.”

This article first appeared on The Texas Tribune, a States Newsroom partner