Lawmakers have given final approval to a moratorium on data centers larger than 20 megawatts — the first statewide ban of its kind in the country.

“What we’re talking about here is an ability for us to absorb and understand the impact of data centers potentially on the State of Maine,” Sen. Mark Lawrence (D-York) said Wednesday ahead of the Senate vote. “The states that have had data centers come in have had tremendous impacts.”

The bill, LD 307, bans data centers larger than 20 megawatts until November, 2027. It also creates the Maine Data Center Coordination Council, and instructs the council to provide strategic input, facilitate planning considerations and evaluate policy tools to address data center opportunities.

The bill was passed in both chambers this week, and is now awaiting funding on the special appropriations table.

“My point here is not that data centers should never happen,” said Sen. Nicole Grohoski (D-Hancock) Wednesday. “The point is we do not have the correct regulatory regime on the books to ensure that a decision like this isn’t neutral, at a minimum, or positive for everyone that would be affected by that decision.”

Discussion in both the Senate and Maine House of Representatives focused on the impact on proposed data center projects, primarily one in Jay and another in Sanford. Lawmakers volleyed back and forth on the potential benefits to a former mill town like Jay, and possible negative impacts to the surrounding areas. They also considered an amendment that would have created an exemption process to the moratorium that was ultimately rejected by both chambers.

“I’m not going to support something that doesn’t support business, the expansion of business in the State of Maine, especially in a community that’s dying for commerce and to get back on its feet,” said Sen. Jeff Timberlake (R-Androscoggin).

Republican lawmakers also raised concerns that Maine would lose out on economic opportunities, but would still feel the negative impacts when the data centers are built in other states.

“These projects are going to happen whether or not we pass this moratorium,” said Sen. Matt Harrington (R-York). “For those who care about the environment, they will be built in states that use 70% coal power, and we will be the tailpipe for that. These data centers will be built in groves in states that don’t have an economic death wish, and we will receive all the negative environmental impacts of that.”

Rep. Steven Foster (R-Dexter) said in March that any data centers are already subject to environmental and local regulations.

“This moratorium is not needed here in the state of Maine,” Foster said. “A lot of fear has been stoked up about an AI data center being built anywhere in Maine, which is contrary to reality. We would not see the facilities here the size of those being built in other states.”

But Democrats countered that Maine residents can’t afford the potential costs from the projects.

“We’re already seeing a tremendous impact from rising gas prices, rising oil prices, and how that feeds into also rising electric energy prices,” Lawrence said. “We don’t need to add an additional risk on energy costs for Mainers when we have time to reflect on this, study this and do this right.”

Grohoski also pointed to the local opposition to data centers, and said if the state doesn’t take the time to build intentional regulations, residents may just continue to stop projects at the local level.

“So I think if we do think that Maine is a place where we would like data centers at some point, if we don’t figure out how to do it right, they’re not going to happen anyhow, because people are concerned that we have not done our jobs to protect them,” Grohoski said.

In March, Rep. Melanie Sachs (D-Freeport) argued that the moratorium is not against innovation.

“Maine has always been a place that embraces new industries and new ideas, but we are also a state that understands the value of stewardship of our land, our water, our communities and our long-term future,” she said.

Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, who is one of seven Democrats vying for the nomination in this year’s primary for governor,  is calling domestic violence a “public health emergency” after learning about the killing of a Kenosha woman, Makayla Plaza, 28, allegedly by her estranged ex-husband. Plaza’s attempts to get a restraining order against her ex-husband were shot down by a Kenosha County judge. 

In February, Plaza told the court she feared for her life and the lives  of her young children. But the judge denied her request for a restraining order. Markus Plaza, her 33-year-old ex-husband, was taken into custody after a 24-hour man-hunt following her death on April 1 TMJ4 reported that law enforcement found the man, Marckus Plaza, hiding in the basement of a salon. 

Makayla Plaza’s boyfriend said that her ex-husband would take her keys from her, lock her inside the house, and listen in on her phone calls. The Kenosha Police Department said that the husband had a history with the department, including an arrest for battery in February which resulted in no charges being filed. 

In a statement released through his campaign, Crowley said that “I have been sitting with this since I heard the news because I am also grieving,” recounting how his own friend Nancy Metayer — vice mayor of Coral Springs, Florida — was allegedly killed by her husband just days ago. Metayer was soon to announce her campaign to run for Congress. “Two women. Two states. The same devastating, preventable outcome. How many more?” Crowley said in his statement.

“I need Wisconsin to understand that this was not a fluke,” Crowley said. “This was not an isolated failure.” Rather, he said, tragedies like Plaza’s death are the result of underfunded shelters, understaffed courts and setting the legal  bar for protection “so impossibly high that a woman has to prove she is already in danger before we will act to prevent it.” He called for treating domestic violence as “the public health emergency it is.” 

Wisconsin has the tools and research it needs to make a difference, Crowley said, as well as the expertise of  social workers, survivors and advocates. “What we have lacked — what Wisconsin has lacked for too long — is the political will to act,” he added.  “I am done waiting.” If he is elected  governor, he said, tackling domestic violence would be a priority, including changing  how restraining orders are processed statewide, ensuring that survivors and their families have legal assistance and investing in mental health and substance use disorder treatment, as well as in domestic violence prevention and crisis support programs in all 72 counties. 

“So to the women of Wisconsin who are living this right now — I see you,” said Crowley. “If you are afraid, if you are trying to find a way out, if you have asked for help and been turned away or doubted or made to feel like what is happening to you isn’t serious enough — I want you to hear this directly from me: You are believed. What is happening to you is real. You deserve a system that fights for your life the way you are fighting for it every single day.” 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

WASHINGTON — First lady Melania Trump said Thursday she was “never involved in any capacity” with the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and that “baseless lies” about her are being circulated.

In a rare solo statement livestreamed on the White House website, Melania Trump also called for a congressional hearing featuring the women who have shared stories of abuse by Epstein, who died in jail in 2019 while awaiting federal trial on sex trafficking charges.

“I call on Congress to provide the women who have been victimized by Epstein with a public hearing specifically centered around the survivors, to give these victims their opportunity to testify under oath in front of Congress,” the first lady said in her nearly six-minute remarks. 

“With the power of sworn testimony, each and every woman should have her day to tell her story in public, if she wishes, and then her testimony should be permanently entered into the Congressional Record,” she added. “Then and only then, we will have the truth.”

Since returning to office, President Donald Trump has repeatedly dismissed the government’s files related to Epstein as a “hoax.” However, throughout the 2024 campaign, Trump promised to make the investigatory materials public.

The scandal has followed the president through most of his first term. While Trump shared a well-documented friendship with Epstein, who pleaded guilty to soliciting a minor in Florida in 2008, he denies any knowledge of Epstein’s criminal activities.

The first lady also reproached individuals who she said are “devoid of ethical standards” for spreading “completely false” stories that she shared relationships with Epstein and convicted sex trafficker Ghislane Maxwell. 

“I was not a participant, was never on Epstein’s plane, and never visited his private island,” she said. “I have never been legally accused or (convicted) of a crime in connection with Epstein sex trafficking, abuse of minors and other repulsive behavior. The false smears about me from meanspirited and politically motivated individuals and entities looking to cause damage to my good name to gain financially and climb politically must stop.”

Free speech suit

It was unclear what spurred the first lady’s statement. 

She specifically mentioned the Daily Beast, James Carville and HarperCollins UK. The three are mentioned in exhibits attached to a lawsuit in New York against Melania Trump by journalist Michael Wolff, accusing her of seeking to intimidate him into retracting statements he’d made alleging a connection between her and Epstein. 

She also mentioned a 2002 email exchange between her and Maxwell that was revealed among the hundreds of thousands of records from the federal Epstein investigation that the Justice Department released beginning in December, as required by law. The first lady defended the email exchange as “casual correspondence.”

All but one member of Congress supported legislation compelling the Justice Department to release the Epstein files. 

The effort gained steam after the department, then under Attorney General Pam Bondi, said in July it would not release anything further related to the case. Bondi had previously claimed she had Epstein’s client list sitting on her desk.

Trump removed Bondi this month.

Dem endorses call for hearing

Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, lauded the first lady’s call for a hearing.

“We agree with First Lady Melania Trump’s call for a public hearing with the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein. We encourage Chairman Comer to respond to the First Lady’s request and schedule a public hearing immediately,” Garcia wrote on X.

The Oversight Committee, led by Kentucky Republican James Comer, is conducting its own investigation into the files and has subpoenaed high-profile figures to testify, including former President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as well as Bondi.

The millions of migrants who were released into the country during the immigration surge that began in 2021 and peaked in 2023 caused a political firestorm when Republican states transported them to Democratic cities. Now, according to a new analysis, many of them are back working in the states that expelled them.

Many of the migrants turned themselves in to immigration officials when they entered the United States illegally, but avoided immediate removal by claiming a “credible fear” of persecution or torture if they returned home, giving them the right to seek asylum. It can take years to receive an asylum hearing. Others seeking asylum arrived with appointments made through a government app or relied on temporary parole programs while pursuing legal status in court.

Now, amid the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, these migrants are under increasing pressure, threatened with arrest and detention even when they appear for their court dates. Currently, they can begin to work legally after waiting six months, but the Trump administration is seeking to extend the waiting period to one year.

A Stateline analysis of court records shows that the largest numbers of recent asylum-seekers are in New York, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Utah, all of which have populations that are at least 1% higher than they were in 2020 because of the new migrants. Also in the top 10: Texas, Connecticut, California, Illinois and Colorado. Republican Govs. Ron DeSantis in Florida and Greg Abbott in Texas led the charge to transport migrants out of state. Stateline’s analysis counts only those migrants who are not being detained.

The country that is the single largest source of recent asylum-seeking migrants is Venezuela, with 363,000 as of February. The next largest is Mexico (251,000), followed by Guatemala (241,000), Honduras (240,000) and Colombia (235,000). But those nationwide numbers are scrambled in individual states: Ecuadorians predominate in five states, Nicaraguans in four, and Brazilians and Cubans in three each.

The influx of migrants that began escalating when President Joe Biden loosened immigration rules in January 2021 generated a political backlash that intensified after DeSantis and Abbott began busing and flying border migrants to Democratic-led cities, putting a significant strain on their finances. New York City, for example, spent a total of $8.13 billion on shelter and services for the more than 223,000 asylum-seekers and other migrants who arrived between the spring of 2022 and the fall of 2024.

Meanwhile, some established immigrant communities resented what they saw as lenient treatment of the newcomers.

Local news accounts reported anger over competition for jobs in Latino communities in New York City. But Ernesto Castañeda, director of American University’s Center for Latin American and Latino Studies, said interviews there showed more resentment over the aid that was offered to the new arrivals.

“For the first time in U.S. history, there were many big programs to temporarily house and feed the newcomers,” Castañeda said. “People (in New York City) talked about the food cards they got, or the free meals, or the hotel rooms, and that took a lot of the media attention locally.”

But many of the new immigrants also have provided much-needed labor, from the streets of New York City and its suburbs to the dairy farms of Idaho.

“All we can do is just work and hope for the best,” said a woman from Ecuador, who asked to be identified only as Rosa. Rosa works in a family food service business in suburban Spring Valley, New York, one of the top five areas in the country for the sheer number of the migrants, with most coming from Ecuador, according to court records.

“It’s hard here but in Ecuador it’s worse — there are gangs blackmailing you,” said another woman who works in a Queens store labeling packets of Ecuadorian herbs. She declined to identify herself.

In suburbs as well as cities, the Trump administration’s mass deportation agenda has immigrants worried. About 22% of the newcomers around the country, in and out of detention, have orders of removal from immigration courts, meaning they could be arrested and summarily deported at any time.

“There were a lot of arrests right around here. People who did everything right got detained,” Rosa said in Spanish, glancing around nervously as she worked making traditional Ecuadorian dishes like corviches, fish fritters, and a fish and onion soup called encebollado.

Many of the new arrivals have stopped socializing and stay home when they’re not working, afraid to be caught up in raids that have swept thousands of them up into detention, according to interviews conducted in New York and the District of Columbia by the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies.

Even when much-hated Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro was arrested in January and removed to the United States for trial, many Venezuelan asylum-seekers stayed home rather than risk being arrested at public celebrations.

Ecuadorians got less media attention than Venezuelans because they came to a more established community in New York, Castañeda said.

“(Ecuadorians) already had networks, so they were not staying in shelters. They were not in the streets,” he said. “They could work and they were becoming part of the fabric of New York, but now they’re being deported by Trump because ICE knows who they are, where they live and their status is very easy pickings. They’re low-hanging fruit.”

Many Venezuelans would like to go home but face even more chaos after the fall of Maduro, said Héctor Arguinzones, organizer of a Venezuelan immigrant group in New York City.

“Many of us fled Venezuela because our own neighbors were our persecutors,” said Arguinzones. “We’re not trying to, you know, sneak into the United States. A lot of us want to go back. We are full of hope. But we cannot think that this crisis in Venezuela will be solved in three months. We must be patient. What we really need is humanitarian treatment.”

Texas has ended up with the largest number of Venezuelans, an irony noted in a book written by the American University research team. After initially receiving aid in more sympathetic areas such as Colorado, New York City and Washington, D.C., many of the Venezuelans traveled around the country looking for work, but trickled back to Texas where jobs were available and the cost of living was lower.

Living in the U.S. with an immigration court date is a tenuous existence for people fleeing gangs and political oppression in South America and Central America. Fear of returning to a home country can be a valid legal reason to avoid deportation, but it requires legal help and doesn’t prevent detention and pressure to “self-deport.”

“Unfortunately, having an asylum case is not a legal status,” Arguinzones said. “We tell people to keep up with their court cases and keep the paperwork with them, so at least they have something to show. At least it’s something.”

Robin Nice, a Boston attorney, said six of her clients with pending asylum cases were detained in a January sweep called Operation Catch of the Day, and only one had had a brush with the law in the form of a year-old traffic case.

“They were typically on their way to or from work, sometimes just getting into their car after finishing a shift,” Nice said.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in an unattributed statement to Stateline, said: “A pending asylum case does NOT confer any type of legal status in the United States. If a person enters our country illegally, they are subject to detention or deportation.”

Some of the asylum-seekers pursuing legal status through the courts have already been detained, but they make up a small fraction of the 2.8 million total cases.

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

Millions of women could face new challenges to voting under President Donald Trump’s SAVE America Act, which would require voters to prove their citizenship before casting a ballot.

The federal legislation would mandate that most Americans show a birth certificate or passport to register to vote. But people with names that don’t match their birth certificate in some instances could have to produce additional documents like a marriage certificate or divorce decree linking their past and current identities.

The proposal holds potentially outsized consequences for millions of married and divorced women, transgender individuals and others who have changed their names. 

As many as 69 million American women have birth certificates that don’t match their current name, according to an analysis by the liberal Center for American Progress. 

“The fact that the majority of women upon marriage do change their name already means that this is going to be completely unequal in how the law is applied,” said Letitia Harmon, senior director of policy and research at Florida Rising, a racial and economic justice nonprofit.

Harmon, 43, has personal experience with the issue because of state proof-of-citizenship laws, which have become more common in recent years. 

The Florida resident used to live in Kansas, which required individuals to show documents like a birth certificate or passport to register to vote until federal courts struck down the law as unconstitutional. Ahead of the 2014 election, Harmon was unable to locate her birth certificate before the registration deadline and couldn’t vote.

More recently, Florida, Mississippi, South Dakota and Utah have all enacted proof-of-citizenship measures this year, in addition to Wyoming in 2025. Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the Florida SAVE Act last week.

A dozen years later, Harmon worries she could again face additional hurdles to voting — this time because of multiple name changes. Harmon, who changed her name when she married but later divorced and changed it back, voiced concern that if election officials ever check her registration, it will be flagged.

“It’s heartbreaking and it’s infuriating. It feels like we’re going backwards,” Harmon said.

Debate in D.C.

In Washington, the U.S. Senate has been debating the SAVE America Act, Trump’s signature elections initiative, after a version of the legislation passed the House. The bill doesn’t appear to have enough support to survive a filibuster, but Trump and his allies have pressured senators to end the filibuster to pass it before the midterm elections.

Supporters of the bill describe it as an election integrity measure and say it’s necessary to prevent noncitizen voting, though studies have shown that’s extremely rare. The measure reflects a long-running effort by Trump to assert more federal control over elections that includes a campaign by the Department of Justice to obtain sensitive state voter data and an executive order signed last week restricting mail-in voting.

Opponents condemn the legislation as unneeded and poorly drafted. If enacted, the bill would take immediate effect, throwing the election process into chaos in a midterm election year as millions of people registering to vote attempt to prove their citizenship. The new requirements would risk disenfranchising American voters struggling to obtain the documents they need in time.

Disproportionate effect on married women

Critics have especially focused on the disproportionate effect the legislation could have on women. Eighty-four percent of women in opposite-sex marriages take either their husband’s last name or hyphenate their name, according to a 2023 Pew Research Center survey. By contrast, less than 6% of men took their wife’s last name or hyphenated their name.

“Given that 85% of American women change their name when they get married, the impact on women is going to be huge and it’s going to be very problematic,” Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, said in a February interview.

The House-passed version of the bill says that when individuals applying to register have names that don’t match the name on their proof-of-citizenship documents, they could provide “additional documentation as necessary to establish that the name on the documentation is a previous name of the applicant” or sign an affidavit affirming that the name on the documents is their previous name.

According to the bill, each state would establish a process to carry out this provision, in line with guidance from the federal Election Assistance Commission, a bipartisan independent commission that aids election officials.

Affidavit provision unclear

Some election and legal experts have said the affidavit provision is unclear. It comes immediately before another provision that allows individuals without proof-of-citizenship documentation to register if they sign an attestation that they are a citizen and an election official signs an affidavit saying the person has sufficiently established citizenship. The Election Assistance Commission would create a uniform affidavit for use in that situation.

“Who knows what sort of process they’ll say,” said Alison Gill, director of nominations and democracy at the National Women’s Law Center, a progressive legal advocacy group. “So there is language there, but it’s still very vague and conflictual.”

Because states would be responsible for setting procedures to vet those with different names on their documents, Gill said some states would probably try to make the process easier than others. But election officials would likely err on the side of strict enforcement because they could be prosecuted for registering individuals who don’t provide citizenship documents.

“Ultimately, this puts the burden on election officials, who face criminal and civil liability under the bill, potentially to decide whether to risk registering a person with mismatching documents,” Gill said.

‘Frankly insulting’

White House officials and some congressional Republicans have denied that individuals who change their name would face greater difficulty registering to vote. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in March that there was “zero validity” to claims that the legislation would stop women from voting or make it harder for them to vote.

Married women who have changed their name and are already registered to vote would be unaffected by the legislation, Leavitt said. She added that for the “small fraction” of individuals who go on to change their name or their address, they would have to go through their state’s process to update their documentation.

“I think it’s frankly insulting that the Democrats are saying that there are certain groups of people in this country who aren’t smart enough to update their documentation to allow them to vote,” Leavitt said.

But Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski has raised concerns about how the SAVE America Act would affect married women. Murkowski, who opposes the bill, said in a floor speech that an estimated 155,000 female citizens in Alaska age 15 and older have names that don’t match their birth certificates.

“Again, is it impossible? No,” Murkowski said. “Is it going to be really challenging? Absolutely, yes.”

Lawsuits ensured

The SAVE America Act would almost certainly face legal challenges if it became law and the Supreme Court would come under immense pressure to weigh in because of the sweeping, nationwide changes in the legislation.

Some federal courts have ruled against proof-of-citizenship voter registration requirements. In 2020, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Kansas’ law, finding that it violated federal voting laws as well as the Constitution’s equal protection clause. The Supreme Court at the time declined to take the Kansas case.

The provisions on name changes alone could face their own legal challenges. 

Tracy Thomas, a constitutional law professor at the University of Akron School of Law in Ohio, said opponents could argue the bill’s impact on people who change their name amounts to voting discrimination in violation of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law.

Courts have affirmed some election restrictions, like requirements to show a photo ID at the polls, as acceptable rules that don’t overly burden voters. However, Thomas suggested the SAVE America Act may go too far if it delays people from registering, requires multiple steps and forces them to pay for needed documents.

“That starts to sound like more than minimal inconvenience,” Thomas said.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s threats to destroy power plants and bridges in Iran before saying he was prepared for a “whole civilization” to die have renewed questions about what constitutes an illegal order and what, if any, repercussions officials could face for committing war crimes.  

The issue originally surged to the forefront last year when the Trump administration repeatedly struck boats in the Caribbean officials alleged were carrying illegal drugs. Democratic lawmakers with backgrounds in the military and intelligence community then published a video reminding troops they “can” and “must refuse illegal orders.”

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

The issue of legal versus illegal military orders surfaced again this week when Trump escalated his threats against Iran, leading to bipartisan condemnation from members of Congress before he gave that country’s leaders two more weeks to negotiate.

But what exactly violates international law or rises to the level of a war crime is often murky, as is who would be willing to prosecute U.S. troops, according to experts interviewed by States Newsroom. 

Rachel E. VanLandingham, professor of law at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles and a former judge advocate in the U.S. Air Force, said that “at the end of the day, the law of war does allow for a great deal of violence and a great deal of civilian suffering.” 

But several of the threats Trump has made, including to destroy power plants and bridges in Iran, would likely violate the law if the military were to carry them out, she said. 

“Under no stretch of interpretation would that be lawful, right? Because that just fails to distinguish whatsoever the civilian objects versus lawful military objectives, even if we stretch the definition of what’s a lawful military objective,” VanLandingham said. 

The boat strikes in the Caribbean, including the decision to order a second strike on two survivors, could also have been illegal, she said. 

VanLandingham doesn’t expect the Trump administration will hold anyone accountable for actions the military has already taken or may take. But she noted there is no statute of limitations on the charges that would likely apply under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for military members or the War Crimes Act for anyone not subject to the military justice system.

“The next administration could come in and investigate our service members for alleged war crimes. And they should, to demonstrate renewed fidelity to U.S. law, to the law of war,” she said. 

Congress doesn’t have the authority to prosecute anyone for violating the law, but could hold oversight hearings with Defense Department officials, a scenario that would become more likely if one or both chambers return to Democratic control following the November midterm elections. 

“They can have public, open hearings and drag in every single military member that was involved in the chain of command of orders for striking Iran, if they wanted to,” VanLandingham. “That’s not a criminal prosecution, but it’s transparency.”

Lawmakers could also provide more funding and require the Pentagon to reinstitute the Civilian Harm Mitigation Program, which she said “the Trump administration has gutted.”

Geneva Conventions

Leila Sadat, the James Carr Professor of International Criminal Law at WashU Law School in St. Louis, Missouri, said that in a situation where the president directs the military to violate the laws of war, it’s highly unlikely military commanders or the Department of Justice would then turn around and prosecute those actions. 

Even if a prosecutor were to try, Trump would likely be insulated from any domestic prosecution for “official acts.” And as president he could issue preemptive pardons for any military members he believes could face future prosecution, either in the military or civilian justice system.

Trump has a history of absolving military members accused of violating military law, including in 2019, when he pardoned two officers in the Army for actions in Afghanistan and restored the rank of a Navy SEAL who had been demoted for his conduct in Iraq. Trump later pardoned four contractors for killing more than a dozen Iraqi civilians in 2007.

But those protections only apply within the United States. 

The Geneva Conventions’ provision on universal jurisdiction would apply internationally and any country could choose to prosecute. 

“Now you still have to catch them, you have to get the evidence, but every state in the world is a party to the Geneva Conventions,” Sadat said. “So committing violations of the Geneva Conventions by attacking civilian objects, by attacking marketplaces, or hospitals, or schools, or electrical infrastructure, those kind of crimes can be prosecuted by every country in the world. So people should think about it before they do it.”

France, Germany and Sweden have all used the principle of universal jurisdiction to prosecute Syrians for crimes they committed during the war in their home country, she said. 

“The one debate is, do you have to have the person on your territory before you can go forward? Or can you do an investigation even if the person is not on your territory?” Sadat said. “And many have argued that you can do the investigation even if the individual is not on your territory. Different countries have different rules on whether they accept trials in absentia.”

Sadat said that gets a bit more complicated when the Status of Forces Agreements that give the U.S. jurisdiction over alleged wrongdoing by U.S. troops in dozens of countries come into play. 

Sadat, who was a special adviser on Crimes Against Humanity to the International Criminal Court Prosecutor from 2012 through 2021, said if the U.S. military were to carry out some or all of the threats Trump posted to social media, that could have led countries to reconsider those agreements. 

“It could create a huge security problem for the United States eventually. And that’s why I hope calmer heads are prevailing. Saying, ‘You know, there’s an entire complex web of treaties and agreements,'” she said. 

Trump would also likely pressure countries not to try U.S. military members for violating international law, but he may not always be successful, she said.  

“Eventually there’s going to be a country in which that’s not going to work,” Sadat said. “And so that’s why you really do have to think of this a little bit differently, because there are external forces and external actors that could decide we’re going to enforce the law, even if the United States is not going to enforce the law.”

Investigating US forces

Susana Sacouto, director of the War Crimes Research Office at American University’s Washington College of Law, said the Geneva Conventions require the U.S. to “investigate and … deal with alleged violations of the law of war by its own forces.”

How well that works in practice has “varied over time,” she said. 

“The problem is, we have an architecture, but those cases, particularly the criminal cases, are really exceptional, and they’re really exceptional, especially regarding senior officials,” Sacouto said. “So there’s been a lot of criticism about whether that architecture that exists is actually functioning to routinely investigate our own military actions for potential war crimes or (international humanitarian law) violations.” 

There is the possibility a future presidential administration may have defense officials or the Department of Justice look into allegations that emerge during the Trump administration. But Sacouto said, “past history with respect to accountability for U.S. officials, especially senior officials, is not very encouraging.”

Congressional investigations into the Central Intelligence Agency’s use of torture in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks is one example Sacouto pointed to of a long-term investigation that did not lead to any high-level prosecutions. 

“Even then, no senior officials were really ultimately held accountable for their role in that program,” she said. “There were lower-level Abu Ghraib prosecutions, but no senior-level folks were found accountable.”

WASHINGTON — House Democrats on Capitol Hill Thursday slammed President Donald Trump’s rhetoric on Iran as “beyond the pale” and urged House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to reconvene Congress and rein in the president’s war powers.

The eight Democrats, who represent districts in California, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington state, made a largely symbolic attempt to bring a War Powers Resolution to the House floor during the morning’s pro forma session — a short, routine meeting that occurs when Congress is out of session. The House is not scheduled to return until April 14.

“The pro forma speaker ignored us, which was a tragedy, but we will keep fighting,” Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., said.

U.S. House Democrats discuss the Iran war on April 9, 2026. (Video by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

Efforts to limit Trump’s military actions in Iran failed last month in both the House and Senate.

Rep. Glenn Ivey, D-Md., who led a press conference afterward on the steps outside the House of Representatives, said Trump’s war with Iran is on “the wrong track.”

“He’s been terrible at the wheel. The threats of total annihilation were beyond the pale. It’s time for Congress to step in and take control of the wheel,” Ivey said.

Threats and then a ceasefire

Trump threatened Tuesday to wipe out Iran’s “whole civilization” if the regime did not open the Strait of Hormuz, a major maritime passageway for one-fifth of the world’s oil and liquid natural gas. 

The United States and Iran entered a tenuous two-week ceasefire agreement roughly 90 minutes before Trump hit his self-imposed deadline to begin bombing civilian infrastructure, likely a war crime.

One day into the ceasefire Wednesday, the pause in fighting was punctuated by Iranian drones and missiles striking Gulf nations. Israeli forces reported launching 100 strikes in Lebanon in 10 minutes. The wave of intense bombardment killed roughly 300 and injured just over 1,100, according to health officials cited by the United Nations.

Trump’s post urging violence on his social media platform, Truth Social, followed his Easter Sunday profanity-laced message threatening to bomb Iran’s power plants and bridges unless they lifted their blockade on the strait.

The regime has for weeks only allowed a trickle of tankers and cargo ships from certain friendly countries to pass, routing the traffic through Iranian waters and reportedly charging steep tolls. Islamic Republic officials told the Financial Times Wednesday that they planned to charge tankers $1 per barrel of oil, to be paid in cryptocurrency, going forward. 

Prior to the war, roughly 140 ships a day flowed freely through the strait. The chokepoint has rocked the global oil market.

Ivey called the situation “out of control.”

“In fact, Iran’s in a better place with respect to the strait than they were before this war started,” he said.

Pentagon reports 380 injured troops

The war has claimed thousands of lives across the Middle East, and scores of civilians have been injured. Thirteen U.S. service members were killed in the fighting, and as of Thursday the Pentagon reported 380 injured.

“Look at us now in a war of his choosing, egged on by Mr. (Benjamin) Netanyahu for his purposes, a war that has proved deadly to 13 members of the American military,” said Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Pa., referring to the Israeli prime minister.

“The speaker must live up to his constitutional responsibilities. Call us back in, consider the War Powers Resolution, let the American people and their representatives in Congress weigh in. The words and actions of this president have proved that he is unhinged and unwell,” Scanlon said.

Johnson’s office did not immediately respond for comment.

In late March, a handful of Black faith leaders gathered on the steps of the Alabama State House to protest a bill that could allow the state to seize control of the police force in the capital of Montgomery.

Supporters of the Republican-sponsored proposal cast it as a response to Montgomery’s police officer shortage and public concern over unchecked crime.

Opponents called it a power grab aimed at a Democratic-led, majority-Black city, pushed by Montgomery’s white Republican state senator over the objections of the city’s mayor, police chief and its other state senator, a Black Democrat who represents a larger swath of the city.

“We’ve seen this before. This is nothing new,” Richard Williams, lead pastor of Metropolitan United Methodist Church in Montgomery, told reporters and others gathered for the news conference. The bill “empowers the state to remove elected Black officials from their operational control of the Montgomery Police Department.”

The following day, the Alabama Senate’s Republican supermajority shut down any debate on the bill and approved it. Kirk Hatcher, Montgomery’s Black state senator, and other Democrats were not allowed to speak on the Senate floor until after it passed. The measure now awaits a vote in the House.

Similar efforts have played out in recent years in other states — including Missouri, Mississippi and Tennessee — as Republican lawmakers push for state takeovers of police departments and other municipal agencies in Democratic cities that often have significant Black populations.

Conservative lawmakers frame their proposals as necessary for improving public safety or financial accountability. Critics say the takeover efforts undermine democracy by overriding local control, exceeding the traditional bounds of state power while perpetuating racist stereotypes.

Many of the nation’s big cities with the highest murder rates are located in Republican-led states but are governed by Democrats — a dynamic that fuels tension between state and local leadership.

“It’s frustrating for the citizens of Montgomery whenever they’re the victims (of crime) and their neighbors are victims,” Alabama Republican state Sen. Will Barfoot, who represents a slice of Montgomery, told fellow legislators on the Senate floor in March. “You know that at the very least that it’s partially because Montgomery doesn’t have the law enforcement officers that they need.”

Barfoot did not respond to Stateline’s request for comment.

The Montgomery Police Department hasn’t publicly released its staffing figures. Barfoot said on the floor that while he hadn’t been able to get those numbers, he estimated the department has around 220-230 officers, which he said falls short of the roughly 400 it would need to be staffed effectively.

In Missouri, Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe put the St. Louis police department under the control of a state-appointed board last year. Kansas City, Missouri, is the only other major city police department under state control. That arrangement dates from 1939, when the state assumed authority to combat corruption.

In 2023, Mississippi’s white Republican supermajority gave the state-run Capitol Police expanded jurisdiction over the state capital of Jackson, which has been called the “Blackest City in America,” and created separate appointed courts for the affluent, whiter parts of the city.

In Tennessee, state lawmakers are trying to create a state-controlled tourism board to oversee millions in surplus cash generated by Nashville. It’s the latest in a line of moves by the Republican-controlled state legislature to exert more influence in Democratic-led Nashville, including over its metro council, airport authority, electrical utility, and even its sports authority.

“Society is collectively tolerating the loss of democracy in these limited pockets,” said Louise Seamster, a sociologist at the University of Iowa whose research has focused on politics and urban development. “They don’t understand it’s going to come for them eventually.”

Echoes of division

The state-local power struggle over the St. Louis police department dates to the eve of the Civil War. White secessionist leaders in Missouri took control of the St. Louis police to keep its officers from fighting against the Confederacy. Kansas City’s arrangement dates back to post-Civil War Reconstruction, when state lawmakers were trying to limit Black political influence and civil rights gains. Kansas City briefly regained control in 1932 before the state reasserted itself seven years later.

At the time of Reconstruction, the growth of Black governance was seen as a major threat to white political power at the local and state levels, Seamster said.

“All kinds of political arrangements, up to legalized and unsanctioned violence, were carried out to reset things to what white people in power thought was the norm, which was them in charge,” she said.

Fast-forward to the Obama era: In a 2012 ballot initiative, Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved returning control of the St. Louis police department to the city.

But Republican state lawmakers tried in 2023 to repeal the measure, claiming St. Louis’ leaders at that time couldn’t decrease crime on their own. The effort failed after a nine-hour Democratic filibuster.

GOP lawmakers got it passed in 2025 with the backing of Kehoe, who’d made the effort a priority of his first year in office. He said state control would give law enforcement the tools it needed to combat high crime rates.

Missouri Democrats, noting that crime rates were decreasing, called the measure racist; Black Democrats held the city’s major offices at the time.

St. Louis has one of the highest homicide rates in the nation, though police officials said their data shows the murder rate dropped to its lowest level in two decades during the first three months of 2025.

In Michigan, researchers found, financial stress alone didn’t explain municipal takeovers. Residents’ race and economic status, as well as a city’s reliance on state funding, were better predictors of state intervention, according to a 2021 study from University of Michigan researchers.

“Black communities show signs of being successful or having access to resources that might increase their autonomy or ability to develop,” said Seamster, who has studied city-state conflicts over resources. “Then it is often a trend where, formally or informally, white communities step in to take it back.”

In 2019, the Republican-led Georgia state legislature tried to take over operation of the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, one of the busiest in the world, citing concerns over safety and corruption. Atlanta City Hall had been embroiled in a sprawling corruption scandal that eventually resulted in federal charges against multiple city staffers.

Then-Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms denounced the move as an “act of war” against the Democratic city, long a national hub of Black culture and business.

Many of the cities targeted for state intervention struggle with the kind of persistent poverty and structural disadvantages that contribute to higher crime rates.

Cities’ finances and power get siphoned away in myriad ways, Seamster said, from reduced state financial support or required power-sharing with a larger county, to more subtle changes, such as state decisions on how federal block grant funding is distributed that give cities less to work with.

Taking back power

Baltimore regained control of its police department last year after voters twice approved a ballot measure in the wake of a decade-long fight for local control. The police department had been under some form of state control since the Civil War.

Lifelong resident Ray Kelly became interested in the issue when a student in his community was arrested. He soon learned that to lobby for changes in the department, he’d have to leave Baltimore for the state capitol in Annapolis, nearly an hour’s drive south.

“Accountability starts at home, so the first place we naturally think we should go if we have an issue in our community is to our local representative,” he said, “and for 160 years the local representative had no authority, so it was like banging your head against the wall.”

Kelly is now executive director of the Citizens Policing Project, a nonprofit that was part of a coalition of Maryland organizations that worked for years to get the ballot initiative passed.

In the year since Baltimore gained control of its police, the Baltimore City Council has been holding regular public hearings on public safety.

They’re “packed,” Kelly said, adding that one hearing had such a huge turnout that both the hearing room and the overflow room were full, with even more residents standing outside to listen.

Kelly counts that as one visible and positive result of getting local control restored.

“The ultimate goal is to have local people be able to shape how the operations of the police department happen on a day-to-day basis, and not have to travel all the way to Annapolis to do it,” he said.

“People will be more involved as they learn we don’t have to write the state senator anymore, and we can just go to City Hall.”

Missteps and breathing room

Barfoot, the Alabama Republican state senator who represents a portion of Montgomery, told lawmakers he’s gotten more calls and messages about his bill proposing a takeover of the Montgomery police department than any other piece of legislation in his eight years in office.

Most of them have been supportive, he said.

Montgomery citizens, he said on the Senate floor, are “tired of turning on the news and hearing about the violence that we’ve had here in Montgomery. We’re tired of having the thefts that are occurring. We’re tired of having the robberies, the home invasions. And believe me, that is across Montgomery.”

He pointed to other large cities in Alabama that he said had a much higher number of officers per 1,000 residents than Montgomery, and criticized the city for going through five different police chiefs in the past seven years.

Montgomery Mayor Steven Reed and Hatcher say Barfoot never consulted them before introducing the bill. Barfoot acknowledged those “missteps” on the Senate floor, but said he’d since held a public hearing and said those leaders didn’t reach out to him, either. The current police chief spoke against the bill before lawmakers.

Montgomery leaders say the bill unfairly singles out their city. As written, it applies only to Montgomery and Huntsville, a Republican-led city. It would give law enforcement in those cities five years to have a certain number of police officers per resident before the state steps in.

After Huntsville leadership approached lawmakers with concerns about the bill, sponsors lowered the staffing requirements to 1.9 officers per 1,000 residents to give Huntsville some “breathing room,” Barfoot told local media. Huntsville now meets the requirements.

But Montgomery is about 150 officers short of the bill’s mandate, Barfoot estimated. If it doesn’t hire the required number of officers within five years, the state can take over and charge the city for filling those vacancies.

Williams, the Montgomery pastor, called that restitution clause a “financial weapon.”

After the Senate passed the bill, Hatcher chastised his Republican colleagues for withholding resources from people who need it and voting against public safety measures that law enforcement wants. An Alabama law enacted in 2022 allows gun owners to carry a handgun without a permit, background check or safety training.

“What I’ve come to believe is that when everybody around you has everything they need, that’s the safest we will be,” Hatcher said. “When people have health care, when people have food, SNAP benefits, that’s the safest we’ll be.”

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

Under a bill signed Wednesday by Gov. Tony Evers, Wisconsin will seek health care coverage from the federal government for certain services for incarcerated people. 

A statement from Evers’ office said that AB 604 — now Wisconsin Act 233 — aims to improve health outcomes and reduce disruptions in care and rates of people committing new crimes. 

As people with substance use disorders return to the community from jail or prison, they are especially vulnerable to dying from an overdose. Supporters of the new law hope it will aid them.

A federal “inmate exclusion policy” limits incarcerated people’s ability to use Medicaid, but under the new law the state will apply for a waiver, taking advantage of an exception outlined by the federal government. 

The Wisconsin Department of Health Services will submit a request for a waiver to conduct a demonstration project to provide incarcerated people with health care coverage for certain services for up to 90 days before release. 

The department will request coverage for case management services, medication-assisted treatment for all types of substance use disorders and a 30-day supply of prescription medications. If the waiver is approved, incarcerated people would have to be otherwise eligible for coverage under the Medical Assistance program in order to qualify. 

As of Nov. 21, 19 states have approved waivers and nine states including Washington D.C. have pending waivers. 

The Wisconsin Department of Health Services must submit the waiver request by Jan. 1, 2027. The department told the Examiner in November that it needed the authority that the bill would provide before it starts work on putting together the details of the waiver. 

‘The care they need to live’

Rep. Shelia Stubbs (D-Madison), one of the lawmakers who introduced AB 604, said in a statement Wednesday that the bill gives incarcerated people “a greater chance of maintaining sobriety, preventing overdose, and remaining healthy after they rejoin the community.” 

The criminal justice advocacy organization WISDOM was among groups that expressed support for the bill. Tom Denk, the co-president of one of WISDOM’s affiliates, said in an emailed statement that this law is very personal to him and called it “a step forward.”

Denk, who was released from prison to extended supervision in 2022, said he’s had friends in and out of facilities and had too many die because of a lack of services. 

He said that “my own struggles, the trauma, and the deaths of some of my best friends are what motivated me to get involved in advocating for a better system.”

“Medications, and access to medical care, will literally save lives,” Denk said. “Too many people don’t have either, when they’ve left facilities.” 

Denk also emailed the Examiner a statement signed by Bev Kelley-Miller, who wrote that she lost her 22-year-old daughter, Megan Kelley, to a preventable heroin overdose. Kelley-Miller wrote that her daughter had an ankle bracelet “but that didn’t stop her from using.” 

Kelley-Miller, who expressed support for AB 604, wrote that substance use disorder is a medical condition and that using substances is not a choice once you are addicted. 

“I wish Megan was still here,” Kelley-Miller wrote. “Since she’s not, I advocate for others to receive the care they need to live.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Democrats seeking the party’s nomination for governor talk about many of the same goals when it comes to Wisconsin’s health care system: expanding access, reducing costs and ensuring quality.

Some of their proposals to those ends are almost identical. But key details vary. 

“If there’s one thing that’s a certainty, the context will change between now and when one of us takes office and has a Legislature that hopefully is going to work with us,” said Joel Brennan, former secretary of the Department of Administration, at a forum Wednesday conducted by Wisconsin Health News. “That context will change in the next nine to 10 months and we better be ready to change with it too.”

Brennan said his campaign’s health care policy will rest on four principles: broadening access to health care, particularly in rural areas; reducing costs; fostering a pathway to increase the health care workforce; and ensuring that mental health is “a basic part of health care.”

Other candidates have issued more detailed plans.

Former Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. CEO Missy Hughes announced a list of 10 proposals Wednesday.

“I’m really wanting to make sure that we’re addressing a very, very complicated problem in every different way,” Hughes said at the Wednesday forum.

Expanding Medicaid

Almost all of the seven major Democratic hopefuls have endorsed expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act — opening up the health insurance plan for low-income Americans to people with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty guideline.  When the ACA was enacted the federal government paid states that accepted expansion 90% of the additional cost.

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers made repeated attempts to enact expansion after he took office in 2019, but couldn’t do it without the support of the Republican majority in the state Legislature because of a law passed the month before Evers was sworn in.

Former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes has made Medicaid expansion the central focus of his health care policy pitch. He has promised to veto the state budget if it doesn’t include Medicaid expansion.

“The fact that so many folks aren’t covered right now is a problem for everybody,” Barnes said at a forum Monday, because health care providers pass the cost of uncompensated care on to other patients or their insurance companies. The Monday forum was conducted by ABC for Health, a nonprofit law firm that assists low-income Wisconsinites trying to navigate health care coverage and medical debt.

Hughes also lists expanding Medicaid — referred to as BadgerCare in Wisconsin — among her 10 proposals. She would connect BadgerCare expansion to the creation of a public option health insurance plan that Wisconsinites could purchase through the ACA marketplace, HealthCare.gov.

Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley also favors combining expanded Medicaid with a public option for people to buy into the plan. “We already have the BadgerCare infrastructure that is already in place,” Crowley said at the Wednesday forum. “So I think it’s our responsibility to expand the people’s ability to actually pay into a BadgerCare public option.”

Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez favors BadgerCare expansion as well as a public option health plan. Rather than combining them, however, she lists them as two of three health care initiatives she would pursue as governor. The third initiative is to institute a stabilization fund program to support struggling rural providers.  

The public option plan, to be sold on the ACA marketplace, “would be able to put downward pressure on costs across Wisconsin and have some price transparency within that,” Rodriguez said at the Monday forum. She pointed to examples in other states, including Colorado, where a public option health plan is also required to reduce its premium costs by 5% each year.

“Secondly, I do think that we should expand Medicaid in the state of Wisconsin,” Rodriguez said, noting Wisconsin is one of just 10 states that have not done so.

Rodriguez also observed that the 2025 “big, beautiful” tax and spending bill enacted by the Republican majority in Congress and signed by President Donald Trump on July 4, 2025, “makes it a little harder” for the state to expand Medicaid.

State Rep. Francesca Hong also included BadgerCare expansion and “a robust public option” health plan in a longer list of priorities during the Monday forum. Along with those, she called for lowering prescription drug costs, acting to “crack down on private insurers,” among other goals.

A Medicaid expansion dissent

An exception on Medicaid expansion is Sen. Kelda Roys. Although she has advocated Medicaid expansion going back to her years in the Assembly a decade ago, she argues now that it’s no longer practical.

An August 28 memo from the Wisconsin Department of Health Services declares that the 2025 tax and spending law includes “several traps making it cost and policy prohibitive for Wisconsin to expand Medicaid.”

The law requires Medicaid participants to prove they’re eligible every six months instead of annually as now — which advocates argue will lead more qualified recipients to be kicked out of the program. In addition, a $1.3 billion boost that Wisconsin would get for expanding Medicaid will end Dec. 31.

Expansion “is not feasible given the changes that the Trump administration has made right now,” Roys said Wednesday.

Instead, she has proposed allowing the general public to buy into the state health insurance plan that covers state employees. Wisconsin employers could buy into the plan to cover their workers, or individual Wisconsin residents could buy into it as an alternative to other private health insurance plans.

“We can lower costs, reduce uncompensated care, expand access to coverage, especially for small businesses,” Roys said.

Brennan has also proposed opening the state plan to the public, because it has broad participation as well as higher reimbursement rates for health providers, he said Wednesday. 

But he added that he thinks details on the public option should wait until the next governor takes office, so that experts in the state as well as from other states that have instituted a public option “can be part of that conversation.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

There were over 70 school referendum questions on ballots across Wisconsin Tuesday, and according to preliminary results, about 62% passed and 38% failed.

The results determine whether school districts can keep up with costs, will need to make difficult decisions about cuts or even put themselves on a path to consolidation or dissolution. April ballot measures are just the latest round of school funding requests as school districts continue to struggle under the state’s current funding system.

Department of Public Instruction (DPI) Superintendent Jill Underly said in a statement that the slate of referendum requests this spring is a “clear signal” that the state is falling short of providing every child in Wisconsin with a quality education. 

“Years of chronic underfunding from the state, combined with rising costs, have pushed too many districts into an unsustainable cycle, forcing communities to repeatedly turn to voters just to meet simple, basic needs like keeping schools staffed and the lights on,” Underly said. “This is unfair to students, educators, and taxpayers alike, and it is placing an increasing strain on communities across our state.”

Underly called on the state to reinvest in students and the state’s public schools to ensure districts can “deliver the high-quality education students deserve, without being forced to rely on repeated referendums to survive.”

School districts in Wisconsin go to referendum in order to exceed state-imposed revenue caps by getting approval from voters. The practice became a part of Wisconsin’s school funding equation in the 1990s when lawmakers put caps on school revenue as part of an effort to control local property taxes. School districts’ revenue limits used to be tied to inflation, but that ended in the 2009-11 state budget, instead leaving increases up to state lawmakers and the governor, who have not provided predictable increases budget to budget. 

As a result, school districts have increasingly gone to referendum to secure funding through local property tax increases.

There were 56 nonrecurring operational requests on the ballot in April, which are revenue limit increases with an end date. In addition, there were six recurring operational requests, which do not have an end date — totaling over $1 billion in requests.

Of the nonrecurring requests, 32 passed and 24 were rejected. Of the recurring requests, five were successful and only Sauk Prairie School District’s request was rejected. 

There were 12 capital funding requests this April. Nine passed, including Howard Suamico’s $147 million funding request, and three failed, including Whitefish Bay School District’s $135 million request. 

The passage rate is a slight increase from the last election year and comes as Wisconsinites have become more concerned about property taxes, according to recent polling. In the spring of 2024, there was a passage rate of 60.2% with 103 requests on ballots. A Wisconsin Policy Forum report notes that passage rates tend to be higher amid the higher voter turnout of presidential and midterm election years. 

Some districts’ results were decided by thin margins. Butternut School District’s $2 million nonrecurring referendum request passed by one vote. Lena School District’s $6 million nonrecurring request failed by 17 votes. The Hustisford School District sought a two-year nonrecurring referendum for $1.875 million each year. It failed by about 200 votes and now the district is looking at possibly dissolving. 

A third attempt for an operational referendum by Dodgeville School District, one of three districts the Examiner profiled before the election, was rejected in a 1,680 to 1,619 vote. 

District Administrator Ryan Bohnsack said in a Facebook post that the failed referendum is not the “end of the conversation.” He told the Examiner ahead of Election Day that the district was already looking at going to referendum in November if the April request was rejected, and the request then will likely be higher. 

“It is a continuation of our next steps together,” Bohnsack wrote. “The financial challenges we face remain, and we will need to continue working through them thoughtfully and responsibly. Our focus will be on developing a plan that prioritizes our students and our staff.” 

Bohnsack also encouraged community members to advocate at a statewide level as Dodgeville’s challenges aren’t unique. 

“I encourage you to stay in contact with our state legislators and continue to ask for clear communication, transparency and long-term solutions to how schools are funded in Wisconsin,” Bohnsack wrote.

In February, a group of Wisconsin teachers, parents, students and other stakeholders represented by progressive firm Law Forward and the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the state’s largest teachers union, sued the state Legislature over the school funding formula in Eau Claire County Circuit. The lawsuit argues that the current system is unconstitutional because it does not meet the state’s constitutional obligation to provide educational opportunities to all students.

Voters rejected the $5.8 million four-year nonrecurring request by Necedah Area School District, one of the parties to the lawsuit, that was aimed at replacing the district’s last nonrecurring referendum which was first approved in April 2022 and was expiring. The request would have allowed the district to access $1.2 million in the first year, $1.4 million in the second year and $1.6 million in the third and fourth year.

Tanya Kotlowski, who has served as superintendent of the district for nine years, told the Examiner that the district has been “blessed” to pass two referendums in the past, but the recent result is “disheartening.” 

“To have this one fail after that kind of devotion we’ve tried to create, it’s hard, it’s heartbreaking, but I also am very aware of the burden that we’re placing on our taxpayers because of how schools are funded,” Kotlowski said. 

Kotlowski said the school board has not had a conversation about whether they will try again, but that cuts are likely.

“We do not have enough fund balance or enough savings to offset the costs that we’re going to have the next two years, so if, you know, if our board doesn’t have that, and we can’t run a deficit budget because we don’t have enough money in our savings account to run a deficit budget, it forces them to have to make decisions, so they will be in that position, for sure,” Kotlowski said. “Certainly we will have that conversation in April and beyond when we’re talking reductions and what the next game plan will be.”

Kotlowski said her district’s previous referendum was helping cover the full costs of special education, which are federally mandated services. The state currently picks up a little over a third of special education costs for public schools, despite promises during the state budget cycle to cover 42% this school year.

Even with the referendum, Kotlowski said her district will need to pull some money from savings to balance the budget. Now that the referendum has failed, the district will be looking at cuts, including to staff and programming. 

“We’re going to come up with as much as we can,” Kotlowski said. “If we came up with $1.4 million in one year of reductions, it would be pretty devastating, so we will come up with what we can. We’ve had conversations already today… I can say with certainty, everybody’s going to be impacted in our community.”

Kotlowski said the referendum result and the school district’s circumstances are one example of why the state’s funding formula is unsustainable and why the lawsuit is needed. 

“We’re really trying to figure out a path to financial stability, where we can anticipate and plan and predict adequate funding for the needs that we have of children within our school district,” Kotlowski said.

Wisconsin has fallen to 26th in the nation in per pupil K-12 education spending and is spending 10% below the national average, according to 2023 census data. In 2002, the state was ranked 11th and spent 11% above the national average.

“For our Necedah School District, when you look at our revenue limit, which is the authorized revenue we can bring in annually based on state law, when you look at the percentage our local taxpayers pick up and what percentage the state picks up, we have a significant gap. Our taxpayers are picking up almost 80% and the state’s picking up 20[%],” Kotlowski said. “Is it a state responsibility or local taxpayer responsibility?”

Kotlowski said that since the announcement of the lawsuit, a group of about 40 residents in the county have formed a taxpayer advocacy group. She said she thinks that the residents, who will show up to vote in November, will have a louder voice when it comes to advocating for a change in the way the state funds schools. In November, Wisconsin voters will decide who should fill the governor’s office as well as who should control the state Assembly and Senate.

“I had a taxpayer who said to me, ‘My first question for anybody who’s running for office is, How are you going to change the formula for how you fund public schools?’ That’s their first question, and depending on your answer, will decide if I vote for you,’” Kotlowski said. “We are at a breaking point, and if our community doesn’t represent that … I don’t think there’s any story that can express the lack of tolerance we have right now to fund schools the way that we have done it now for decades.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The hotel ballroom in downtown Madison was packed with cheering supporters as Chris Taylor gave her victory speech Tuesday night after her huge, 20-point win over her conservative opponent Maria Lazar, cementing a 5-2 liberal majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The four other liberal women on the Court high-fived Taylor as she took the stage. The deliriously joyful crowd repeatedly interrupted Taylor’s remarks with shouting and applause, including to chant the name of her dog when she mentioned it during a lengthy list of thank-yous: “Ollie! Ollie!” 

Democrats are so hungry for success they are ready to throw their arms around any champion, including canines — yellow, blue, whatever. 

Eager to catch that wave of enthusiasm, many of the seven gubernatorial hopefuls in the Democratic primary field hovered around the ballroom. After the results were tabulated, party operatives began circulating statistics showing Taylor’s big margins of victory in Republican-leaning counties, using those results to forecast a crushing blue wave in November. Democratic Party Chair Devin Remiker called Taylor’s win “an indictment of Trump and Tom Tiffany,” the GOP candidate for governor.

Without question, Taylor’s 60-40 percentage point drubbing of Lazar is good news for Democrats, who poured money and organizing energy into the nominally nonpartisan race. And it’s a serious loss for Republicans, who backed Lazar, an anti-abortion election skeptic. But Taylor’s lopsided victory does not mean that Wisconsin has turned, overnight, from a 50-50 purple state that narrowly elected both Presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump into a liberal stronghold where Democrats can expect to run the table in November. 

The reality is that Republicans gave up. After repeated, double-digit losses in the last three Supreme Court elections in a row, including the 2025 record-breaking $100 million race — when Elon Musk proved that all the money in the world and even outright bribery couldn’t convince Wisconsin voters to embrace the Republican-backed candidate Brad Schimel — they threw in the towel. This year, the state Republican party gave $64,000 to Lazar, compared to the $775,000 the Democratic party gave to Taylor. Republican donors also held onto their wallets. Final fundraising reports ahead of the election showed Taylor had raised more than $2 million while Lazar reported about $472,000. 

The Wisconsin GOP has concluded that spring judicial elections are a lousy bet, especially in the Trump era. Democratic voters are energized for these races, while Republican voters, especially the MAGA base, turn out in low numbers. The voters who care about April judicial races are disproportionately college educated liberals, as political analyst Craig Gilbert explains. 

All of these are reasons to take Democratic optimism pegged to Tuesday’s results with a grain of salt. After all, liberal Justices Jill Karofsky and Janet Protasiewicz posted big wins in the Wisconsin Supreme Court elections of 2020 and 2023, followed by Trump’s 2024 Wisconsin victory. 

Still, Taylor’s 20-point triumph matters. For one thing, the failure of the Republicans to put up much of a fight for Lazar comes at the same time that the GOP leaders of both chambers of the Legislature have announced they are calling it quits, along with several key members of those bodies who would face tough reelection battles now that the state’s voting maps are no longer rigged in their favor. The whole Wisconsin Republican Party seems to be in retreat. 

The only thing that got legislative Republicans off the couch recently was the UW Regents’ decision to fire their ally, University of Wisconsin President Jay Rothman. They are so outraged they’re planning to hold long-delayed confirmation hearings this week just to fire the regents. Nothing motivates Wisconsin Republicans like spite, and the defense of their own diminishing power. 

After steadfastly refusing to confirm most of Gov. Tony Evers’ appointees during his entire two terms in office, they are coming back into special session, not to strike a deal to fund schools or lower property taxes or address any of the other issues that matter to voters they didn’t get around to by the end of the session, but to take revenge on the regents and showcase their own pettiness. It’s their last power grab before they lose their gerrymandered power altogether. The regents were apparently willing to take the risk to get rid of Rothman, who is no longer needed to make nice with a soon-to-depart Republican majority.

Taylor’s huge win on Tuesday bolsters the growing sense among Wisconsinites that the Republicans are about to lose more than one judicial race. By not fighting harder, the Republicans showed their own lack of confidence. And who can blame them? As Taylor’s victory party kicked off, the news was all about whether Trump would make good on his pledge to annihilate an entire civilization in Iran — a threat so unhinged even Sen. Ron Johnson felt compelled to renounce it. 

Trump’s approval numbers are in the toilet. He is, as investigative reporter Ken Kippenstein points out on Substack, the first president in U.S. history to get no public approval bump at all for going to war. Members of Congress and even some former Trump supporters are openly discussing the need to invoke the 25th Amendment to put the Republican Party’s national leader in a straitjacket.

Add to that the cost of gas, groceries, and the deliberate destruction of affordable health care and you have a recipe for a massive midterm rebellion. The Wisconsin Supreme Court race is part of that picture, even if it’s a lopsided measure of Democratic energy and Republican depression.

Plus, the new, now locked-in majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court will be a bulwark against GOP efforts to limit voting rights and interfere with fair elections.

All in all, it’s pretty terrible news for Republicans. That barking dog that’s chasing them might have a nasty bite.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

At least 2.5 million low-income people quickly lost help affording groceries under a Republican-passed law that added new requirements for the nation’s largest nutrition program and shifted hundreds of millions of dollars in costs from the federal government to states, according to a study the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities published Wednesday.

Some 6% of the 41 million Americans enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, when President Donald Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on July 4, 2025, were no longer receiving benefits by the end of the year. 

The left-leaning think tank’s report was based on U.S. Department of Agriculture and state agency data from July to December 2025. 

Arizona was the largest outlier in the data, with a whopping 47% of people in the program — about 424,000 Arizonans — losing benefits in 2025, according to the think tank, which cited more recent state agency data in addition to last year’s USDA numbers.

Full-year 2025 data from the USDA, which operates the federal side of SNAP, shows an even bigger drop of 3.4 million people, or roughly 8% of the program’s total, CBPP said. SNAP is federally funded and administered by states, though that cost-share will change under the law.

In a late Wednesday email, a USDA spokesperson applauded the drop in SNAP participation, noting the program’s rolls had fallen below 40 million for the first time since the pandemic. The spokesperson said the program would continue “to serve those with the greatest need while also strengthening program integrity.”

“This change reflects several factors, including the most comprehensive work requirement reform since 1996, the One Big Beautiful Bill of 2025, as well as USDA initiatives that expand access to employment services, career and technical education, and case‑management support through USDA’s More Than a Job campaign,” the spokesperson wrote.

Incentives for states

The study did not intend to find a cause for the decline, co-author Joseph Llobrera, CBPP’s senior director of research for food assistance, said in an interview. But he noted the law created incentives for states to limit participation in the program. 

Under a provision of the law that is not yet in force, the share of the program’s cost that states must shoulder is tied to the state’s “error rate” — payments a state makes that were either more or less than the beneficiary should have received.

That motivates states to restrict access to the program, without providing a corresponding reward for expanding access, Llobrera said.

“So the incentive structure that’s in place, it really pushes states to make it harder to get onto the program for people who need that assistance,” he said.

The drop in participation happened without improving economic conditions, such as a decline in the unemployment rate, the researchers said. 

That indicates people are moving off the rolls due to changes in the program, not because their circumstances have improved to the point they no longer need food assistance, the study said.

Many provisions of the law have not yet gone into effect. The error rate penalties, for example, start in fiscal year 2028.

Design, not a bug

In part, though, that restriction is by design, as the law’s supporters intended to cut SNAP benefits for recipients who met certain criteria and to control what they portrayed as fraud and waste at the state level. 

The cuts in the federal share of SNAP funding helped pay for massive tax cuts and a boost to military spending in other parts of the megabill, which Republicans passed without any Democratic support through a process known as budget reconciliation.

The proponents of the agriculture section of the megabill championed provisions to make beneficiaries report their eligibility more often, boost work requirements, disqualify certain categories of legal immigrants, raise the age of children at which parenting would cease to qualify as work and otherwise tighten the availability of the program.

The provisions would help ensure only those who truly needed the federal assistance would get it, advocates said. 

It would also create an incentive for states to control erroneous payments, which was not the case when the federal government took on the entire cost of the program before the bill’s enactment.

“It is a disservice to the truly needy to rely on SNAP,” House Agriculture Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson, a Pennsylvania Republican, said as the committee marked up the bill last year. “Clearly, SNAP is not working as Congress intended. We must ensure the proper incentives are in place for states to administer the program more effectively for those it serves.”

Llobrera said he understood members of both parties would engage in rhetoric about restrictions on SNAP, but that the center at the time was “raising the alarm that the bill was going to hurt people.”

A spokesperson for Thompson did not respond to a request for comment Wednesday.

Arizona

The CBPP report included a breakout section on Arizona, where the SNAP enrollment dropped much further than any other state.

As in other states, economic gains did not explain the changes in Arizona, the case study said.

“This dramatic drop cannot be explained by a rapid improvement in people’s economic well-being or reduced need for help affording food,” the report said, noting that Arizona’s unemployment rate rose over the period of the study, while the cost of groceries rose about 4% in 2025.

The state’s Democratic governor, Katie Hobbs, and state agency spokespeople have blamed the GOP law for the drastic reduction in benefits, the study said, but the decline goes beyond what would be expected based on the law’s provisions. 

That suggests that state administrators — even under Democratic leaders — are going beyond the minimum requirements of the law to restrict access, the authors said.

“Thus, it appears that a combination of factors, including the megabill and the state’s response to it, are contributing to the sharp decline in the number of Arizona families getting SNAP,” they wrote.

Because the law also raises the costs to states of administering the program, in addition to requiring states pay for some portion of benefits, some, including Arizona, cut staff ahead of the law’s enactment, Llobrera said. 

“With the cuts to the administrative funding for states due to that megabill, those are only just going to accelerate,” he said.

Shutdown

Such changes to SNAP rules added to an already tumultuous period for the program’s recipients. Over the course of a then-record-long partial government shutdown last year, benefits were constantly turned off and on as the Trump administration said it could not spend SNAP funds during a shutdown and federal courts held that benefits must be paid.

Spokespeople for the White House did not return messages seeking comment Wednesday.

WASHINGTON — The United States and Iran both claimed victory Wednesday, a day after agreeing to a two-week conditional ceasefire, though doubts loomed following continued strikes across the Gulf nations and an indication by Iran that it will continue to control the Strait of Hormuz, a major passage for one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas. 

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said during an early-morning briefing the U.S. achieved an “historic and overwhelming victory,” but also troops are “prepared to restart at a moment’s notice.”

“We’ll be hanging around. We’re not going anywhere. We’re going to make sure Iran complies with this ceasefire, and then ultimately comes to the table and makes a deal,” Hegseth said.

Oil prices dropped sharply after news of the ceasefire, with Brent crude, the international standard, sitting at $95 a barrel before noon Eastern Wednesday. That’s down from the previous day’s price of nearly $110 per barrel. 

U.S. stocks shot up Wednesday, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average, S&P 500 and Nasdaq Composite all on the rise.

U.S. and Iranian delegations were set to arrive in Islamabad Friday for negotiations, according to Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who in part brokered the pause in fighting.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters at an afternoon briefing that Vice President JD Vance, special envoy Steve Witkoff and the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner will attend a first round of talks Saturday morning.

Nuclear material

President Donald Trump said early Wednesday morning that the U.S. “will work closely with Iran, which we have determined has gone through what will be a very productive Regime Change!”

“There will be no enrichment of Uranium, and the United States will, working with Iran, dig up and remove all of the deeply buried (B-2 Bombers) Nuclear ‘Dust,’” Trump wrote on his platform, Truth Social, referring to Iran’s buried enriched uranium following heavy U.S.-Israeli bombing in June.

When pressed at the briefing, Hegseth said of the nuclear material: “We’re watching it. We know what they have, and they will give it up, and we’ll get it, and we’ll take it if we have to. We can do it in any means necessary. So that’s something the president is going to solve for.”

Hegseth ended the press conference saying the Iranian public has been “oppressed by the previous regime, and they’ll have a new opportunity with this regime that remains to be seen,” adding that a civilian uprising was “not our objective.” 

“We wish them the best,” Hegseth said. 

Hegseth’s claim about a civilian uprising directly contradicted Trump’s message to the Iranian people on Feb. 28, when the U.S. and Israel began the bombing.

Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, is the son of the slain Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who led the Islamic Republic from 1989 until U.S. and Israeli strikes assassinated him hours into the conflict. Experts point to Mojtaba Khamenei as being a conservative hardliner with close ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Reports across Iranian state media and Middle East regional news outlets Wednesday quoted the regime’s Supreme National Security Council as declaring an “historic and crushing defeat” over the U.S. and Israel.

Calls for invocation of 25th Amendment

Hegseth’s victory declaration came after Trump on Tuesday threatened Iran’s “whole civilization will die tonight” if the regime did not meet his self-imposed 8 p.m. Eastern deadline to open the Strait of Hormuz. 

The comments drew intense criticism, with some — from progressive Democrats to former Trump loyalists — calling for the president’s removal under the Constitution’s 25th Amendment.

Two Senate Republicans, John Curtis of Utah and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, denounced Trump’s rhetoric and actions in recent days. One House GOP member, Nathaniel Moore of Texas, also joined them Tuesday. 

The offices of Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., did not respond to States Newsroom Tuesday for comment on Trump’s remark that he would wipe out Iran’s “whole civilization.” Neither have posted anything regarding Trump’s comments on their X social media feeds, where they regularly communicate to the public.

Others continued to support Trump. Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., told local media Tuesday “I take it with a grain of salt,” when asked about Trump’s vow to wipe out Iran’s civilization.

Leavitt told reporters at the White House briefing Wednesday, “The world should take his word very seriously.”

“He said that they would face very grave consequences … by the 8 p.m. deadline if they did not agree to reopening the Strait of Hormuz. And what did they do last night? They agreed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz,” she said.

Roughly 90 minutes before his deadline to order strikes on Iran’s power plants and bridges, the president agreed to stop the bombardment for two weeks, after receiving a 10-point plan from Iran that “is a workable basis on which to negotiate,” he wrote on his social media platform, Truth Social.

In a statement released early Wednesday morning Tehran time, Iran appeared to retain control of the narrow passage in and out of the Persian Gulf.

“For a period of two weeks, safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz will be possible via coordination with Iran’s Armed Forces and with due consideration of technical limitations,” the country’s foreign minister, Seyed Abbas Araghchi, said in a written statement posted on social media. 

Iranian drones and missiles

Strikes continued across the Gulf region, with Kuwait’s defense ministry reporting “an intense wave” of Iranian drones and missiles that damaged oil infrastructure, power stations and water desalination plants.

“Violations of ceasefire have been reported at (a) few places across the conflict zone which undermine the spirit of peace process. I earnestly and sincerely urge all parties to exercise restraint and respect the ceasefire for two weeks, as agreed upon, so that diplomacy can take a lead role towards peaceful settlement of the conflict,” Sharif warned on X just after 10 a.m. Eastern. 

The Pakistani prime minister tagged in the post Trump and numerous administration officials, as well as Iranian leaders.

Israel continued bombardment on southern Lebanon, launching widespread strikes across the region and in the capital city of Beirut Wednesday. By noon Eastern, which is evening in Lebanon, health authorities said 89 people were killed in the strikes and over 700 had been injured. An official with Doctors Without Borders reporting from a large public hospital in Beirut cited a higher death toll.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed on social media early Wednesday that “The two-weeks ceasefire does not include Lebanon.”

When asked during the White House press briefing Wednesday, Leavitt echoed Netanyahu.

“Lebanon is not part of the ceasefire that has been related to all parties involved in the ceasefire,” she said.

MIAMI — Midwife Sheila Simms Watson leaned to gently press on the pregnant woman’s belly. Me’Asia Taylor lay on a bed fitted with tie-dyed purple printed sheets in the corner of the RV.

Far from a typical camper, this RV houses a mobile midwifery clinic for prenatal, postpartum and women’s general health care.

“Roll when you’re getting up, and we can help you. You can sit there for a moment, all right, so you’re not lightheaded, not dizzy,” said Watson, whom patients and doulas call “Mama Sheila.”

Calm and slow, led by Watson’s soothing and attentive demeanor, the appointments are unrushed.

Run by the Southern Birth Justice Network, the mobile midwifery clinic brings care to majority-Black and Latino neighborhoods across Miami-Dade County several times a month. The clinic aims to offer a more relaxed setting, where women are comfortable and heard, their cultures are integrated, and they can connect with doulas from diverse backgrounds.

On the half-moon bench inside the RV, Watson, a doula and a midwife in training sit with patients. They take blood pressures and draw blood. They ask the women about their lives: How is their mental health and sleep? Do they have support at home? Do they want to give birth at a hospital or birth center with a midwife?

Taylor said pre-eclampsia, a dangerous pregnancy condition, runs in her family. She wanted to make sure she had space and time to express her concerns about her first pregnancy.

Taylor said she wants a midwife for her delivery. Many women of color have reported feeling marginalized or dismissed in medical settings. “I’ve just seen too many people have bad experiences,” Taylor told Watson.

The U.S. has markedly higher maternal mortality and infant mortality rates compared with other high-income countries, and women and babies of color fare the worst. Black women’s maternal death rates are three times higher than those of white women, and American Indian and Alaska Native women’s rates are twice that of white women. Researchers point to implicit bias, less regular access to prenatal care and higher rates of poverty.

OB-GYN shortages and labor and delivery units closing continue to make getting care harder. Last year, more than two dozen hospital labor and delivery units across the nation closed, including some in South Florida. And pregnant patients living miles away, or feeling uneasy about going to the doctor, may even forgo care.

Midwives can help fill gaps, maternal health equity advocates say, and mobile clinics can meet patients where they are.

“It really helps to disrupt this idea that patients must navigate these complex systems to receive care — and instead, (mobile midwifery) reimagines care as something that should be responsive to the needs of patients and should be community-centered,” said Tufts University professor and maternal health scholar Ndidiamaka Amutah-Onukagha.

But mobile units are not as common for midwifery as they are for other areas of care, such as dentistry or family medicine, the American College of Nurse-Midwives told Stateline. Other prenatal mobile outreach efforts in the state include an OB-GYN-run mobile unit by the University of Florida that serves areas around north-central Alachua County and an operation called The Midwife Bus in Central Florida.

To increase access to care, maternal health advocates are also pushing states to change regulations that restrict midwifery. The American College of Nurse-Midwives recently filed a lawsuit against Mississippi for requiring nurse-midwives to have agreements with physicians in order to practice. This week, Jamarah Amani, a midwife and the executive director of the Southern Birth Justice Network, joined other plaintiffs in filing a lawsuit against Georgia over its restrictions. But supporters of the rules say they are meant to protect patients and foster communication between clinicians.

Offering culturally centered prenatal care that women are more inclined to use can help address inequities in maternal health, Amani said. The group trains doulas, offers telehealth, provides referrals such as to mental health therapists, and advocates for equitable policies across the South.

Most of the mobile clinic’s clients — about 70% — are on Medicaid or uninsured, and the clinic is funded through federal and university grants, as well as donations.

“(Midwifery) presents like a luxury concierge-type of service,” Amani said. “Our goal is to really change that and to bring it back to the community in a very grassroots way.”

Preserving tradition

The Southern Birth Justice Network keeps a small drum on a table at a nearby booth. It represents the heartbeat, and ancestral reverence, Amani said. Drums are a universal language, and the instrument is meant to symbolize culture.

For doulas and many midwives like Amani and Watson, bringing their profession to communities today is the continuation of a significant part of Black American heritage.

Throughout history, Black midwives were venerated in their communities. Many practices were rooted in West African traditions. These midwives were the keepers of Black ancestral records, and delivered many white women’s babies. Enslaved women who were midwives traveled for deliveries. Some routes, long and traversed by foot, were dangerous in the deep rural South. During the Jim Crow era, Black Americans were denied care at hospitals or given inferior care.

“They only had protection if someone would send a carriage for them if they were going to deliver a white woman’s baby. But to care for the Black families, they often had to go in the middle of the night, alone,” Amani said. “We talk about the legacy of Black midwives as health care providers, but also as social pillars, as community leaders, as resistors of oppression.”

In the 20th century, medical institutions began to oppose midwifery, sometimes using racist and sexist campaigns to target the practice. They argued it was unhygienic and lobbied across states to dismantle midwifery. At the same time, while developing the field of obstetrics, doctors conducted gynecological experiments on Black women. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has acknowledged this history and said it’s committed to fighting racism and inequities.

Dr. Jamila Perritt, an OB-GYN and president and CEO of Physicians for Reproductive Health, said that in order to address structural barriers and close gaps, policies have to prioritize access to care, such as allowing midwives to expand their practices. Throughout the South especially, states still restrict midwives from practicing independently, despite widespread maternal health care deserts. She also pointed to research showing midwifery is associated with fewer C-sections, less preterm labor and better patient satisfaction.

“Expanding access to midwifery care, and expanding collaborations between physicians and midwives, only improves outcomes,” Perritt said.

Cultivating trust

On a recent breezy and brisk Saturday morning, the Southern Birth Justice Network’s midwives and doulas were stationed in the parking lot of the Freedom Lab, a local community center that hosts food and clothing distribution and a free urgent care center.

At the booth by the mobile clinic, under the shade of a royal-purple awning, meditation music, low-key and mellow, reverberated from a small speaker. There was a cooler filled with oranges, water and other snacks for the clinic’s pregnant patients.

“I’m going to keep giving you food. You need to eat enough,” one doula told a patient, handing her an orange and a liter of spring water.

Staff had surveys to help assess a new patient’s needs, and Florida-specific pamphlets on pregnant patients’ rights. The group is working on other state-specific guides for Louisiana, Massachusetts, Tennessee and Texas.

The table also held a portrait of the late midwife Ada “Becky” Sprouse, who started the mobile midwife clinic around 2008. She’d drive it to the city of Homestead, an agricultural hub in Miami-Dade County. There, she offered free midwifery care to migrant farmworkers, many of whom couldn’t afford care throughout their pregnancies.

Sprouse passed the clinic on to Amani, who relaunched the mobile unit and broadened the scope of the Southern Birth Justice Network.

Patients told Stateline trust was one of the main reasons they sought out the clinic. One patient said she spent 2 1/2 hours on public transit that day so that she could see the team.

For now, deliveries take place at hospitals or neighboring birth centers, where some of the group’s midwives also work. But the organization recently bought a building to open its own freestanding birth center, aiming for next year, along with a larger RV.

One patient, Isis Daaga, turned to Amani to deliver her other children after her first birth at a hospital. Despite the pressure she felt and her need to push during labor, Daaga recalled, hospital staff prevented her from delivering.

“They literally held my knees together,” Daaga said. “They were like, ‘the doctor’s not here yet,’ and the nurses were scared to deliver the baby.” In many hospitals, protocol is to wait for the doctor in case an emergency occurs.

By the time the doctor came, Daaga had a severe perineal tear, and she delivered the baby in one push. She had been in labor for 15 hours.

“I was in pain, I was upset,” said Daaga, a mental health therapist who is 35 weeks pregnant.

At the mobile clinic and with the midwives, Daaga said she feels supported.

“They make me feel the way I try to make my clients feel, like, it’s a safe space. You’re not judged here. I have a lot going on,” she said. “If I’m MIA or something, most of them will call and text me and (say), ‘Girl, you need to come in.’”

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

Chris Taylor, an appeals court judge and former Democratic lawmaker, was elected to an open seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court Tuesday, securing a 5-2 majority for the Court’s liberal wing and ensuring that control remains intact until at least 2030. 

With nearly 80% of the vote counted shortly before 10 p.m., Taylor had a massive 20 point lead over Appeals Court Judge Maria Lazar, marking a four-election winning streak for the liberal candidates running for Wisconsin’s highest court. It also gives an early signal on the mood of the state’s voters ahead of this year’s midterm elections, when the governor’s office, majority control of the Legislature and a few competitive congressional seats will be up for grabs. 

With ideological control of the body not at stake, the 2026 Supreme Court race was markedly lower energy this year. After the more than $100 million spent on last year’s race set national fundraising records for a judicial campaign, Taylor was able to win the race with $8 million in spending from her campaign and outside advocacy groups. 

Turnout on Tuesday fell far short of the mark set last year, when the election’s stakes, its spot on the calendar shortly after President Donald Trump’s inauguration and Elon Musk’s effort to sway the race with millions of dollars of spending supercharged turnout among the state’s liberals. 

Throughout the race, Crawford polled several points ahead of Lazar; however, a large portion of the electorate, about 50%, continued to tell pollsters they remained undecided. 

At an election night watch party at Madison’s Concourse Hotel, Taylor was surrounded by her family and introduced by Chief Justice Jill Karofsky. 

In her victory speech, Taylor said she would help “move Wisconsin forward.” 

“We live in an incredible state, and people are hungry for a government that works for them,” she said. “People are hungry for a judiciary that prioritizes them, that protects our rights, that affords all Wisconsinites equal justice under the law. That is exactly what I will do as your next state Supreme Court justice.”

Throughout the campaign, Taylor sought to define herself as a careful judge who despite her history as policy director of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin and a Democratic state lawmaker would act as an independent voice on the bench. She often sought to position herself as a potential bulwark on the Court against efforts from Republicans and President Donald Trump to interfere with Wisconsin’s election system during the 2028 presidential race. 

Taylor will now join Justices Jill Karofsky and Susan Crawford to be the third former Dane County Circuit Court judge to sit on the state Supreme Court. Under its current liberal majority, the Court overturned Wisconsin’s 1849 criminal abortion ban and declared the state’s gerrymandered legislative maps unconstitutional. 

At the watch party, Ana Wilson, an early education major at Mount Mary University, told the Wisconsin Examiner she believed Taylor was going to care for Wisconsin people from the bench.

“As much as there’s chaos with the Trump administration, I want what’s best for Wisconsinites,” Wilson said. “Health care, abortion access, human rights that people deserve. I’ll take these small wins at the state level.” 

Lazar’s campaign, while endorsed by the state Republican Party, received less financial support from the state GOP and its allied donors than recent conservative candidates for the Court — Dan Kelly and Brad Schimel — had received; both lost by double digits. But Lazar’s campaign message that she was the true independent in the race while her opponent would act as a partisan on the bench was similar to the conservative message in 2025 and 2023. 

Taylor’s win also continues the success that Democratic and liberal candidates have had in off-cycle and non-presidential elections in recent years — particularly since Trump took office last year. 

After the race was called, Democrats said the win represented the first steps in the effort to win up and down the ballot in November. 

“The victory Wisconsinites delivered tonight is an indictment of Trump and Tom Tiffany, who are using the federal government to bully and intimidate people into submission,” Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chair Devin Remiker said in a statement. “Our state Supreme Court has repeatedly shown it is the last line of defense against the federal government’s unconstitutional overreach, and with tonight’s election, we have secured a pro-freedom, pro-democracy majority on the Court through 2030. This victory is only the beginning of the fight ahead to win a Democratic trifecta in November and deliver real, lasting change for the working people of Wisconsin.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The University of Wisconsin Board of Regents voted unanimously to fire UW President Jay Rothman on Tuesday, ending his tenure as the leader of UW system campuses and launching the process of finding a new leader. 

The regents’ decision to oust Rothman became public last week after the Associated Press obtained letters from Rothman to regents telling them that he would not be resigning from his position after  the regents told him to resign or be fired. 

The regents convened in a virtual meeting at 5 p.m. Tuesday and immediately entered closed session for about 25 minutes. Once they returned to open session, Regent President Amy Bogost read the statement she released Monday about the action.

Bogost said that over the last several months while conducting the annual review of Rothman in accordance with her responsibilities as regent president, she met with UW stakeholders including regents, chancellors and other members of UW communities. She said the results were shared with Rothman. 

“President Rothman was not without notice, nor was this process sudden. The Board has engaged with President Rothman in good-faith discussions over the past several months,” Bogost said, adding that the decision doesn’t “diminish the President’s many contributions.” 

“At a time of profound change in higher education, this decision is about the future,” Bogost said. “The Universities of Wisconsin must be led with a clear vision that both protects and strengthens our flagship, supports our comprehensive universities and ensures we are meeting the evolving needs of our students, workforce and communities across all 72 counties.”

No other regents spoke about the decision before voting for Rothman’s termination. Regent Joan Prince was not present at the meeting.

In a statement, the Board of Regents said that Rothman had “worked hard to bring the best to the campuses, students, faculty and staff” and those efforts are appreciated, but “despite these accomplishments, based on the annual performance review and subsequent discussions, the Board has lost confidence in President Rothman’s ability to lead the UWs moving forward.” 

The Board is also “immediately” moving forward in its work to identify the successor with more details about the process to be shared in the coming weeks. Chris Patton, UW’s vice president for university relations, will serve as acting executive-in-charge prior to the appointment of interim president.

In a statement released ahead of the Board of Regents’ meeting, Rothman said that regents have “repeatedly declined to cite a specific reason for finding no confidence in my leadership” and told him they “would have to meet as a full board to discuss the issue.”

“It is disappointing that the first I heard any sort of defense of their position was when they communicated with the media. I am left to conclude that, at best, this reflects an after-the-fact rationalization of a decision that was previously made,” Rothman said. “At no point in the last six months was it ever indicated to me that an evaluation could lead to termination and, in fact, the most recent evaluation delivered to me by Regent President Bogost was noted by her as being ‘overwhelmingly positive.’”

Rothman also noted some of his accomplishments from his tenure. Rothman was an attorney in Milwaukee and CEO of the law firm Foley and Lardner before being selected by the UW Board of Regents in January 2022 to be president. He was chosen after the UW system did not have a permanent leader for two years. In the position, he is responsible for overseeing the vice presidents and chancellors who run the systems campuses, including flagship UW-Madison. 

“While the board’s apparent decision to move to terminate me is disappointing, I am incredibly proud of our bold, transformative accomplishments during my time as president,” Rothman said. “We secured the largest revenue increase from the state in two decades, eliminated structural deficits at our universities, maintained affordability, increased student enrollment for three consecutive years, secured funding for student mental health services, focused on the First Amendment rights of our students, expanded continuing education programs to meet workforce needs, and more. If those achievements do not reflect strong leadership and a vision for the future, I really don’t know what would.” 

While the specifics of what prompted regents to seek his resignation are not public, Rothman once floated the idea of resigning in 2023 while working on a deal with Republican lawmakers in which he agreed to cuts to the UW’s diversity programs in exchange for releasing previously allocated funds for building projects and staff cost-of-living adjustments. Under the terms of the deal, the UW system schools changed their approach to diversity, equity and inclusion programs (DEI). Regents initially rejected the deal, then reversed their decision.

Republicans may seek consequences for regents

After the news broke that the regents were seeking to remove Rothman, Republican lawmakers  came to the defense of the president, and it appears they may seek to remove unconfirmed regents who voted to oust Rothman. 

On Monday, Sen. Patick Testin (R-Stevens Point) suggested that lawmakers consider firing regents for voting  to fire Rothman. 

There are 18 members on the Board of Regents with 16 appointed by the governor and subject to Senate approval, along with the state school superintendent and the president or a designee of the Wisconsin Technical College System Board. Only six of Gov. Tony Evers’ appointees have been confirmed. The other 10, including Bogost, have not received a confirmation hearing.

“If the Board of Regents remove President Rothman without just cause, the Senate should reject every one of their nominations,” Testin wrote in a post on X on Monday evening. “Their actions should have consequences.”

This is not the first time a Republican state senator has threatened consequences against regents making choices they don’t agree with.

In 2024, the Republican-led Senate fired two of Evers’ appointees to the Board who had voted against the deal between lawmakers and Rothman: John Miller and Dana Wachs. Ahead of the floor session, Sen. Chris Kapenga (R-Delafield) posted on X that a vote against the DEI deal could cost the regents their confirmation.

The Senate Universities and Technical Colleges committee noticed a public hearing and executive session on Tuesday ahead of the meeting to consider the appointments of 10 regents on Thursday. 

Rep. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield), who chairs the committee, said in a statement reacting to the vote that the Board of Regents “once again appears to be distracted by politics and unable to concentrate on addressing the big picture challenges the UW System faces.”

“Instead of focusing on major structural and curriculum reforms throughout the entire system, the Regents seem determined to stray into backroom maneuvering that further diminishes the reputation of the UW brand and undermines its long-term mission of preparing our students for an ever-changing marketplace,” Hutton wrote. “The Regents owe the Wisconsin citizens, employers, and students who rely on a strong, stable UW system an explanation for why they chose to throw the system into turmoil.”

Rep. Dave Murphy (R-Hortonville), who chairs the Assembly Colleges and Universities committee, said ahead of the meeting that he plans to hold a hearing on the action. He said the regents “owes Wisconsin taxpayers, students and families a full explanation.” 

“I am troubled by the lack of transparency surrounding these reports,” Murphy said in a statement. “President Rothman deserves to know exactly why the Board has lost confidence in his leadership. At the hearing, members of the Board of Regents will be called to testify and explain their reasons for pursuing his removal.”

A date and time for the hearing will be announced in coming days, according to Murphy.

Ahead of the regents’ vote, the Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the state’s largest business lobby, also issued a statement expressing support of Rothman and urging the regents to reconsider, saying the effort appeared to be “capricious, unfair and possibly partisan.” 

WMC said Rothman has helped to enhance the UW’s reputation and “that reputation will be severely tarnished by the Board of Regents if it votes to remove Jay from his position without justification.”

Evers, who previously sat on the Board when he served as state schools superintendent, did not take a position on whether Rothman should be ousted. 

“[Rothman] works for the board and if the board is dissatisfied, they have the right to do this,” he told reporters on Monday morning. “It’s their call.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Ten Democratic state legislators  wrote Republican U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil Tuesday urging him and the GOP majority in Congress to take control of the war in Iran in reaction to President Donald Trump’s social media threats against the country.

The lawmakers sent the letter after Trump posted on his social media platform Tuesday morning that “a whole civilization will die” if Iran doesn’t meet his deadline to open the Strait of Hormuz. The post followed Trump’s threat on social media Sunday to bomb bridges and power plants if Iranian leaders don’t open the waterway to ship traffic.

“We are writing to you with an urgent request and to express our grave concerns for the safety of our country and civilians around the world,” the lawmakers wrote in the letter to Steil (R-Janesville), led by Assembly Minority Leader Rep. Greta Neubauer (D-Racine).

“Earlier today, President Donald Trump warned the world through a social media post that ‘a whole civilization will die tonight’ if Iran fails to meet his deadline,” the letter states. “This appears to be an explicit threat to commit unimaginable atrocities against civilians. Congress must act and stop the president’s actions.”

The letter continues: “We are calling on you and the Congress of the United States to assert your authority and enforce congressional war powers as laid out in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. The president and his administration are letting this conflict spin out of control. It’s time for Congress to step in.”

The president’s threats target non-combatants, the letter notes.

“Threatening millions of civilian lives is fundamentally un-American and violates the core values that both Democrats and Republicans share. Whether President Trump intends to follow through on his threat or not, his statement demonstrates he is not fit to be commander-in-chief,” the letter states.

“It’s time for you to summon your courage, recognize the gravity of this moment, and do the right thing for our shared future. We must rise above partisanship and call out the president’s recklessness immediately.

“Reassert congressional control over the conflict in Iran and put an end to the president’s erratic and dangerous actions before it is too late.”

In addition to Neubauer, the letter was signed by Democratic state Reps. Christine Sinicki, Brienne Brown, Ann Roe, Clint Anderson, Angelina Cruz, Tip McGuire and Ben Desmidt, and Democratic Sens. Mark Spreitzer and Robert Wirch.

Trump agreed Tuesday evening to a two-week ceasefire with Iran and said the countries were near a long-term peace agreement.

Letter to U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil re_ Congressional War Powers

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A federal judge on Monday denied the appeal of former Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan, who was seeking to overturn a jury’s guilty verdict against her. 

Dugan was convicted last year of obstructing federal immigration enforcement efforts for helping an undocumented man who was appearing in her courtroom go out a side door to evade immediate detection by federal agents. After a trial in December, she was found guilty of felony obstruction of justice and not guilty of a misdemeanor charge alleging she concealed an undocumented person from arrest. 

On Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Lynn Adelman ruled against Dugan’s appeal in a 39-page order. He also again rejected a claim that she was immune from prosecution because her actions were taken while she served as a judge. 

Dugan’s legal team indicated in a statement that they plan to appeal Adelman’s ruling. That appeal will take that case to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. 

“We continue to maintain that Hannah Dugan acted lawfully and within her independent authority as a judge,” Dugan’s attorneys stated. “The inconsistent jury verdicts demonstrate that the trial proceedings were flawed, and we plan to appeal.”

A date for sentencing Dugan has not yet been set.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump agreed Tuesday evening to a two-week ceasefire with Iran, at least delaying his threat of a catastrophic attack on the country’s civilian population as he said the countries were near a long-term peace agreement.

The ceasefire was negotiated with Pakistani leaders as intermediaries, Trump said in a post to his social media site, Truth Social. The deal was conditional on Iran agreeing to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping lane for the global supply of oil, Trump wrote.

“Based on conversations with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshal Asim Munir, of Pakistan, and wherein they requested that I hold off the destructive force being sent tonight to Iran, and subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran agreeing to the COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz, I agree to suspend the bombing and attack of Iran for a period of two weeks,” he wrote. 

Trump added that he had received “a 10-point proposal from Iran” that would form the basis of a long-term agreement. 

“Almost all of the various points of past contention have been agreed to between the United States and Iran, but a two week period will allow the Agreement to be finalized and consummated,” he said.

A day of global outrage

Earlier Tuesday, Trump had escalated his rhetoric against Iran, even as some Republicans in Congress began to back away from his declarations, threatening that “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.”

“I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will,” he wrote. 

He ended the 85-word message with “God Bless the Great People of Iran!”

The threat drew intense opposition throughout the day, including from Pope Leo XIV.

Trump posted the early-morning message roughly 12 hours before his self-imposed deadline for Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz or otherwise face U.S. strikes on the country’s bridges and power plants, he wrote Sunday in an expletive-laden Truth Social post. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y, denounced Trump as “an extremely sick person.” 

“Each Republican who refuses to join us in voting against this wanton war of choice owns every consequence of whatever the hell this is,” he wrote on X Tuesday morning.

Some Democrats in Congress said it’s time to invoke the 25th Amendment to the Constitution and remove Trump from office.

Threats followed rescue operations

Trump’s flurry of fresh threats followed Iran’s downing of two U.S. military aircraft. U.S. forces and intelligence officers launched a major operation to rescue one of the plane’s weapons system officers, which proved successful Sunday, according to the president and U.S. officials. Two pilots had already been rescued.

As of Tuesday, the United States struck Kharg Island, Iran’s main oil export terminal, according to The Associated Press, and Israeli forces struck eight bridges, according to a post on X by Israel’s military. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday forces had also struck railways. “Yesterday, we destroyed transport planes and dozens of helicopters. Today, we attacked the train tracks and bridges used by the Revolutionary Guards,” he wrote on social media.

Speaking in Hungary, Vice President JD Vance said he hopes Iran chooses “the right response” by Trump’s evening deadline. 

“We’ve got tools in our toolkit that we so far haven’t decided to use. The president of the United States can decide to use them, and he will decide to use them if the Iranians don’t change their course of conduct,” Vance said.

Sharif n a statement prior to Trump’s post announcing the ceasefir urged all parties to continue negotiations, and for Trump to abandon his Tuesday night deadline.

“To allow diplomacy to run its course, I earnestly request President Trump to extend the deadline for two weeks. Pakistan, in all sincerity, requests the Iranian brothers to open Strait of Hormuz for a corresponding period of two weeks as a goodwill gesture,” Sharif wrote on social media.

Trump repeated the threat to bomb Iran’s civilian infrastructure Monday during a lengthy White House press conference. Targeting civilian infrastructure violates international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions that were updated following World War II.

U.S. cybersecurity officials alerted critical infrastructure operators to “urgently review” cybersecurity protocols and take measures to disconnect certain components from the internet after indications that Iranian hackers have begun exploiting water and energy systems. 

The advisory Tuesday from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency, and a host of other federal agencies including the FBI and Department of Energy, did not provide details on locations.

Sens. Ron Johnson, John Curtis express objections

Republicans on Capitol Hill, with the exception of Kentucky’s Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Thomas Massie, have blocked efforts to rein in Trump’s war on Iran, but three more GOP voices against the conflict emerged in recent days. 

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., told conservative commentator John Solomon Monday that he is against Trump’s threats to bomb civilian targets in Iran.

“I hope and pray that President Trump is just using this as bluster,” he said on the “John Solomon Reports” podcast, produced by Just the News. “… We are not at war with the Iranian people. We are trying to liberate them.”

Sen. John Curtis, R-Utah, declared opposition Friday to funding the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran. 

“I stand by the President’s actions taken in defense of our national security interests in the Middle East. But we must be clear-eyed about history and the Constitution. While I support maintaining our readiness and replenishing stockpiles, I cannot support funding for further military operations without a formal declaration of war from Congress,” he wrote on X.

On Tuesday afternoon, Rep. Nathaniel Moore, R-Texas, joined the opposition, posting on X that “what sets America apart is not only our strength, but how we use it.”

“I do not support the destruction of a ‘whole civilization.’ That is not who we are, and it is not consistent with the principles that have long guided America,” Moore wrote in a statement on X.

The U.S. and Israel began a joint bombing campaign on Iran on Feb. 28, killing  Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and numerous other senior officials of the Islamic state. 

In response, Iran has targeted global oil trade by effectively choking off the Strait of Hormuz, a major maritime passage for one-fifth of the world’s petroleum and liquid natural gas. 

The conflict has killed thousands of civilians across the Middle East and injured thousands more. Thirteen U.S. service members have died, and 372 have been injured since the start of fighting, according to the Pentagon’s Defense Casualty Analysis System.

25th Amendment

Trump’s rash threat to wipe out Iran’s “whole civilization” sparked numerous calls to remove the president from office.

Former U.S. House GOP lawmaker and Trump loyalist, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, swiftly denounced Trump’s latest threat.

“25TH AMENDMENT!!! Not a single bomb has dropped on America. We cannot kill an entire civilization. This is evil and madness,” she posted on X.

Nearly two dozen Democratic lawmakers, including several progressive members, also turned to social media to appeal for the 25th Amendment, which authorizes the vice president and a majority of Cabinet members or Congress to deem the president unfit for office. The amendment has never been invoked.

Rep. Yassamin Ansari, D-Ariz., accused Trump of threatening “massive war crimes” and also implicated Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

“In the last 48 hours alone, the rhetoric has crossed every line. Pete Hegseth is complicit. I’ve called for the 25th Amendment and am introducing Articles of Impeachment against Hegseth,” said Ansari, an Iranian-American.

Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., said “removal is the top priority.”

In a video message posted on X, Markey urged the House to “immediately” come back into session and pass articles of impeachment against Trump, and for the Senate to remove him from office.

“He is completely unstable and dangerous,” Markey said.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., countered the calls, saying, “The president is facing serious mental decline; I’m with you on that.”

“But unfortunately, invoking the 25th is not realistic right now, given his oddball cabinet of sycophants and eccentrics, and Republican ‘spines of foam.’ We’re going to have to buckle down and win this the old-fashioned way.”

Rep. Marcy Kaptur, whose seat in red northwest Ohio is under threat, stopped short of mentioning the 25th Amendment, but urged GOP congressional leadership to act as Trump is “recklessly threatening to commit atrocities and war crimes.”

“This is unhinged saber rattling that follows consistent threats over the past week to violate international law. The President is using the might of the United States military to wage war without constitutionally mandated approval from Congress. Until Congress reasserts itself as a co-equal branch of government, he will remain unchecked and the security of our nation will continue to be at risk,” she said in a statement.

Illegal orders

Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., reminded American service members in a statement Tuesday that attacking civilians en masse “puts them in very real legal jeopardy,” as the action is not only in violation of the Geneva Conventions, but also the Pentagon’s Law of War Manual.

Slotkin, a former CIA analyst, and five other congressional Democrats who served in the military or national security roles, published a video in November stating that members of the armed services are not obligated to follow illegal orders. The video came during the height of the administration’s strikes on small alleged drug-running boats in the Caribbean.

“It’s moments like these that are why we made the video to service members last year. And I hope and believe our troops — especially those in command — will have the moral clarity to push back if they are given clearly illegal orders,” Slotkin said in a statement Tuesday.

Rep. Jason Crow, a Colorado Democrat who appeared in the video with Slotkin, said House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., must bring the House back into session and vote to end the war.

“Members of our Armed Forces must remember their oaths to the Constitution. As I have said before, if servicemembers are asked to carry out illegal orders, they have a solemn duty to follow the law,” said Crow, a former paratrooper and Army Ranger.

Pope Leo XIV, during a press gaggle outside his summer residence near Rome, appealed to Americans to contact Congress and express opposition to the Iran war.

“I would invite the citizens of all countries involved to contact the authorities, political leaders, congressmen, to ask them, tell them to work for peace and to reject war always,” he said.

The offices of Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and Johnson did not respond for comment on Trump’s latest statements.

A general social media account for the Senate Republican Conference posted mid-day Tuesday: “Iran would be wise to take President Trump at his word. They can choose the easy way or the hard way.”