The Planned Parenthood clinic in New Orleans was open for over 40 years but stopped seeing patients at the end of September after federal Medicaid funding cuts. Abortion opponents are looking for more ways to pull funds from the organization, despite legal abortion care making up a small portion of the services affiliated health centers provide. (Photo by Greg LaRose/Louisiana Illuminator) 

Anti-abortion organizations and Republican elected officials are searching for more ways to prevent Planned Parenthood from receiving federal resources after congressional Republicans successfully cut off federal Medicaid funding until at least July 2026.

Letters written by activist organizations and Republican elected officials show stated goals of barring Planned Parenthood health centers from receiving federal money of any kind and pulling them from the 340B drug pricing program. With it, Title X-funded centers can receive significant discounts on prescription drugs, allowing the purchase of more medications and the ability to reach more patients.

Anti-abortion activists also expect proposals for further restrictions on Planned Parenthood’s access to Medicaid in health care legislation in early 2026.

In July, Republican members of the House and Senate passed a sweeping budget reconciliation bill that included a one-year provision barring clinics from receiving federal Medicaid reimbursement if they offer abortion services and billed Medicaid more than $800,000 in fiscal year 2023. The rule largely affects Planned Parenthood because of the high dollar amount, but some large independent clinics have also been affected.

Since then, more than 20 Planned Parenthood clinics nationwide have closed their doors, many of which did not provide abortion services. Others have laid off staff, including in Ohio. Maine Family Planning, the state’s largest reproductive health care provider, also offered primary care services at three of its 18 clinics but discontinued those services at the end of October because of the funding loss.

Katie Rodihan, director of state advocacy communications for Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said in a statement that those actions would make medication more expensive and take away access to birth control, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, and cancer screenings.

“These anti-abortion lawmakers are so hellbent on shutting down Planned Parenthood that they’re willing to sacrifice your health care,” Rodihan said. “No matter what attack anti-abortion groups and politicians launch, Planned Parenthood Action Fund will always be ready to fight back for patients.” 

Opposition to the organization receiving federal funding is rooted in a belief that its main purpose is to provide abortion care, when in fact abortion makes up about 4% of the services Planned Parenthood clinics provide nationwide, according to the most recent annual report. But anti-abortion groups and many Republican lawmakers object to federal dollars being associated with legal abortion care in any way, even if it’s not directly paying for the procedure except in limited circumstances under the law.

In late September, Oklahoma Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt sent a letter to the administrator of the federal Health Resources and Services Administration, a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, asking that the agency revoke Planned Parenthood’s 340B drug pricing eligibility and reject any future requests for that designation. The letter is also signed by the Republican governors of Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Ohio, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.

Several Republican-led states, including Ohio and Indiana, have also recently tried to cut Planned Parenthood off of state Medicaid funding.  

“States across the country are acting to ensure taxpayer dollars are not used to fund or promote abortions, and in turn, these clinics are seeking roundabout ways to maintain their funding,” Stitt wrote. “Even if Planned Parenthood affiliates with pro-life laws refrain from using federal funds for abortion, the organization’s national infrastructure still benefits, enabling abortion expansion in states where abortion is legal … .”  

Instead, Stitt suggested that money be allocated to community health centers and rural hospitals.

The letter was sent five days before the government shutdown started on Oct. 1, and no action has been taken by the agency so far since reopening on Nov. 12.

Argument traces back to COVID loans

Students for Life of America, an anti-abortion group with more than 2,000 student chapters nationwide, is leading the effort to pressure Republican President Donald Trump and his administration to disqualify Planned Parenthood as a vendor with the federal government. Called “debarment,” the administrative process usually applies to vendors accused of wrongdoing — such as fraud, embezzlement, failure to perform or tax evasion — and is determined by  the U.S. General Services Administration.

A vendor who is debarred cannot receive federal money of any kind for a period of three years. There is also a lesser penalty of suspension, which lasts up to 12 months.

Kristi Hamrick, Students for Life’s vice president of media and policy, told States Newsroom that members started discussing the idea toward the end of Trump’s first term, but since it involves a long administrative process, there wasn’t enough time to pursue it before Democratic President Joe Biden took office.

Students for Life sent a letter to the U.S. Small Business Administration on Oct. 22, along with a letter to the president’s office signed by more than 50 other anti-abortion groups, encouraging them to start the process of debarment. There has not been a response from the small business agency so far, Hamrick said, but employees only returned to work recently following the 43-day shutdown.  

The letter to Trump is signed by other well-known anti-abortion organizations, including Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, Family Policy Alliance, Americans United for Life, Family Research Council and National Right to Life.

Along with allegations of financial fraud, the letter to the Small Business Administration accuses Planned Parenthood of a host of other violations, and mentions lawsuits filed against the organization led by Republican attorneys general in states like Missouri and Texas.   

Hamrick said the letter went to the agency because Republican U.S. Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Joni Ernst of Iowa wrote a letter of their own in March about alleged fraud committed by Planned Parenthood. They wrote that many of its affiliates — which are independent nonprofit organizations — applied for and received Paycheck Protection Program loans of about $120 million during the COVID pandemic.

The two senators said Planned Parenthood was not eligible for the loans because organizations with more than 500 employees were excluded. Planned Parenthood argued the national organization and the regional affiliates are separate — the affiliates applied individually — and guidance for the loans was later updated by the Biden administration to allow them. Most of the loans were forgiven.

Other entities were also accused of abusing the intent of the Paycheck Protection Program, including Catholic Charities USA, a humanitarian aid arm of the Catholic church with more than 3,000 employees. The Associated Press reported the organization and its member agencies received about 110 loans worth up to $220 million, which were forgiven.

Hamrick said Republicans in Congress should keep up their efforts to bar Planned Parenthood from Medicaid reimbursements, but there’s more that can be done.

“We won’t have to keep voting on whether or not Planned Parenthood can be funded in any one program, such as Medicaid, if they’re not eligible to be funded at all,” Hamrick said.

States still heavily affected by cuts

Hamrick said she hopes to see Republican lawmakers extend the Medicaid cuts for 10 years or more this time around, because this first round of cuts didn’t yield any “dire consequences.”

Dr. Chelsea Daniels, a member of the Committee to Protect Health Care’s Reproductive Freedom Task Force, disagrees. She moved out of Florida two months ago, where she worked in Miami for Planned Parenthood of Florida, and where she tried to help pass an amendment that would have enshrined a right to abortion into the state constitution. Although 57% of voters approved it, 60% is required by Florida law.

That demoralizing loss on top of many days where she had to tell people she legally couldn’t help them became too much. Florida has a six-week abortion ban, with exceptions for rape, incest, fatal fetal abnormalities and human trafficking. But Daniels said she routinely saw sexual assault victims who weren’t able to get an abortion regardless of any documentation they presented.

“Florida honestly just kind of pulverized me. I felt ground up by the end of it,” Daniels said.

She moved to California, and now practices as a family planning physician at Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties. In her first week of employment there, the affiliate announced it would close its primary care practice because of the Medicaid cuts, laying off 77 staffers and sending 13,000 patients across seven clinics looking elsewhere for basic care such as treatment for high blood pressure, vaccines, annual wellness exams and diabetes management. The final day of service will be Dec. 10.

Daniels wasn’t part of the layoffs, but she said that loss of care for so many patients is devastating.

“I left Florida for good reason, but the state of the country writ large is not good,” Daniels said. “And I don’t think our federal government cares. They think it’s just collateral damage and punishment for anyone who’s ever been associated with Planned Parenthood.”

A California Highway Patrol officer talks to a driver during a traffic stop in October. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security wants access to state driver’s license data as it builds a powerful citizenship verification program. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

The Trump administration wants access to state driver’s license data on millions of U.S. residents as it builds a powerful citizenship verification program amid its clampdown on voter fraud and illegal immigration.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security seeks access to an obscure computer network used by law enforcement agencies, according to a federal notice, potentially allowing officials to bypass negotiating with states for the records.

The information would then be plugged into a Homeland Security program known as SAVE that Trump officials have deployed to search for rare instances of alleged noncitizen voters and to verify citizenship. The plan comes as the Trump administration demands states share copies of their voter files that include sensitive personal data that also is being plugged into SAVE; it is suing some states that refuse.

Trump officials tout the SAVE program as a boost for election integrity. But critics of the program warn the federal government is constructing a massive, centralized information source on Americans. They fear President Donald Trump or a future president could use the tool to surveil residents or target political enemies.

“What this SAVE database expansion will do is serve as a central pillar to build dossiers on all of us,” said Cody Venzke, a senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union.

At the same time, Homeland Security Investigations and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, conducted nearly 900,000 searches for state driver’s license and other motor vehicle data over the past year using the same data-sharing network that Homeland Security wants to link to SAVE, according to information provided to Congress. The network is called Nlets — formerly the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, now known as the International Justice and Public Safety Network.

Dozens of congressional Democrats in mid-November warned Democratic governors that Nlets makes driver’s license data available to ICE, including from states that restrict cooperation with the agency. While ICE, a Homeland Security agency, has long had access to Nlets, some Democrats are voicing renewed alarm amid Trump’s sweeping deportation campaign.

At least five states — Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York and Washington — have blocked Nlets’ ability to share their driver’s license records with ICE, according to the Nov. 12 letter from 40 Democratic lawmakers. Oregon also is taking steps to block access.

In Colorado, state Sen. Julie Gonzales said she is willing to advance bills to block the Nlets data sharing. Gonzales, a Democrat who chairs the Colorado Senate Judiciary Committee, has previously sponsored legislation to limit what personal information is shared with the federal government for immigration enforcement.

“It is like playing Whac-A-Mole, but the Constitution applies to ICE, too,” Gonzales said.

The recent developments underscore the ongoing struggle between Democratic states and the Trump administration over how much access Homeland Security should have to their residents’ personal data. For their part, some Republican state officials have voiced support for the administration’s moves and want to aid the search for noncitizen voters and individuals in the country illegally.

Data and privacy experts told Stateline the current moment could lead to more centralization of personal data by the federal government and an eroding expectation of privacy when it comes to driver’s license information. The federal government is for the first time essentially building a U.S. citizenship database, they said.

Homeland Security is proposing to take Nlets outside its intended use, said John Davisson, senior counsel and director of litigation at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington, D.C.-based research and advocacy group that argues privacy is a fundamental right.

Nlets is a nonprofit organization that facilitates data sharing among law enforcement agencies across state lines. At a basic level, Nlets is the system that allows police officers to quickly look up the driver’s license information of out-of-state motorists they pull over.

States decide what information to make available through Nlets, and which agencies can access it. Each state has an Nlets member, typically that state’s highway patrol or equivalent agency. Several federal law enforcement agencies also are members.

“It appears that DHS is eyeing it for something quite different, for mass extraction of driver’s license information that would be far beyond the sort of targeted enforcement purposes of a system like Nlets,” Davisson said.

Driver data idea floated in May

Homeland Security’s SAVE program — Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements — was originally intended to help state and local officials verify the immigration status of individual noncitizens seeking government benefits. But it can now scan state voter rolls for alleged noncitizen voters.

In the past, SAVE could search only one name at a time. Now it can conduct bulk searches, allowing officials to potentially scan through information on millions of registered voters. Federal officials in May connected the program to Social Security data; linking driver’s license data through Nlets would provide an additional mountain of data on U.S. residents.

The League of Women Voters, a nonpartisan group that advocates for voting rights, filed a federal lawsuit in September against Homeland Security over the transformation of SAVE. In its complaint, the organization accused the department of ignoring federal law to create comprehensive databases of American citizens’ data.

U.S. District Court Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan, a Biden appointee, last week declined to temporarily block SAVE’s overhaul while the lawsuit proceeds. But Sooknanan wrote in an opinion that based on the current record, “the Court is troubled by the recent changes to SAVE and doubts the lawfulness of the Government’s actions.”

Homeland Security publicly confirmed it wants to connect Nlets to SAVE in an Oct. 31 Federal Register notice. The notice said driver’s licenses are the most widely used form of identification, and by working with states and national agencies, including Nlets, “SAVE will use driver’s license and state identification card numbers to check and confirm identity information.”

The agency also privately floated its interest in Nlets months earlier.

According to minutes of a May virtual meeting of the National Association of Secretaries of State Elections Committee, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) official Brian Broderick told the group that his agency — the Homeland Security agency that administers SAVE — was seeking “to avoid having to connect to 50 state databases” and wanted a “simpler solution,” such as Nlets.

The minutes were contained in records from the Texas Secretary of State’s Office obtained by American Oversight, a nonpartisan transparency group that frequently files records requests. Mother Jones magazine first reported on the records.

Nlets and the Texas Secretary of State’s Office didn’t respond to requests for comment.

On Friday, National Association of Secretaries of State spokesperson Brittany Hamilton wrote in an email to Stateline that at that time, “we have not received specific updates from USCIS on this aspect of driver’s license data potential usage.”

In a statement, USCIS spokesperson Matthew Tragesser encouraged all federal, state and local agencies to use SAVE.

“USCIS remains dedicated to eliminating barriers to securing the nation’s electoral process. By allowing states to efficiently verify voter eligibility, we are reinforcing the principle that America’s elections are reserved exclusively for American citizens,” Tragesser wrote.

State restrictions flawed, lawmakers say

Some Democrats are separately pushing to limit ICE’s access to driver’s license data through Nlets. The Nov. 12 congressional letter warned that while some states have restrictions on data sharing with immigration authorities, the limits are often ineffective because of major flaws.

State limits sometimes apply only to state motor vehicle agencies, which don’t connect to Nlets — and often don’t apply to state police agencies that do connect, the letter said. And even though state restrictions target data-sharing for immigration enforcement, Nlets doesn’t indicate the purpose of a request.

“Because of the technical complexity of Nlets’ system, few state government officials understand how their state is sharing their residents’ data with federal and out-of-state agencies,” wrote U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, U.S. Rep. Adriano Espaillat of New York and 38 other Democrats.

Homeland Security didn’t address Stateline’s questions about ICE’s access to state driver’s license data through Nlets.

Advocates for immigrants have long raised concerns about ICE access to state driver’s license data through Nlets. Nineteen states allow residents to obtain driver’s licenses regardless of immigration status, according to the National Immigration Law Center, an immigrant advocacy group. Those driver’s license records represent a wealth of information on noncitizens.

While ICE can’t use Nlets to obtain records of all noncitizens issued licenses, the agency can use the search tool to obtain a variety of information on individuals, such as date of birth, sex, address and Social Security number, according to the law center. Sometimes a photo is also available — a particular concern for immigrants and their advocates amid reports that ICE has deployed facial recognition tools in the field.

“I think that for many years, folks around the country that are concerned about privacy, that are concerned about immigrants, have been trying to sound the alarm about this issue,” said Matthew Lopas, director of state advocacy and technical assistance at the National Immigration Law Center.

Stateline contacted all 50 state governors to ask about Nlets. Forty-one offices didn’t respond and most others provided high-level statements or referred questions to other agencies.

But Maryland indicated it was taking “proactive measures” to ensure that federal agencies’ access to its data through Nlets complies with state and federal law. A 2021 state law limits the sharing of driver’s license data with federal immigration authorities.

Maryland “is working with Nlets to ensure that Marylanders’ data is not misused for civil immigration enforcement absent a valid judicial warrant, and we intend to share more information on that effort as we are able,” Rhyan Lake, a spokesperson for Maryland Democratic Gov. Wes Moore, said in a statement to Stateline.

The South Dakota Department of Public Safety, which is overseen by Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden, cautioned against limiting data-sharing among law enforcement. Records obtained through Nlets include data on wanted individuals and other information that can help identify potential threats to officers and agents, the department said in a statement provided by Director of Communications Brad Reiners.

“We reject the concerns outlined in the [Democratic lawmakers’] letter and remain deeply concerned about the potentially dangerous consequences of limiting access to this information,” the statement says.

In Oregon, state officials plan to cut off ICE’s Nlets access to its driver’s license data, but no date has been set, Oregon State Police Capt. Kyle Kennedy, an agency spokesperson, wrote in an email.

“We are working with other states to assist in considering a path forward,” Kennedy wrote.

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

The Lyndon Baines Johnson Department of Education Building pictured in November 2024. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — A coalition suing to block President Donald Trump’s efforts to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education expanded its lawsuit Tuesday to include objections to recent interagency agreements to shift the department’s responsibilities to other Cabinet-level agencies.

The alliance of unions and school districts also added a major disability rights advocacy group to its ranks in the amended complaint that detailed how the department’s Nov. 18 announcement of six interagency agreements could harm students.

The agreements to transfer several Education responsibilities to four other departments drew swift backlash from Democratic officials, labor unions and advocacy groups, who questioned the legality of the transfers and expressed concerns over the harms that would be imposed on students, families and schools as a result. 

“Scattering Department of Education programs among agencies with no expertise in education or lacking key agency infrastructure will reduce the efficiency and effectiveness of these programs and will prevent the type of synergy that Congress intended to achieve by consolidating federal education activities in one cabinet level agency,” the coalition, represented by the legal advocacy group Democracy Forward, wrote in the amended complaint. 

The expanded suit asks for declaratory and injunctive relief against what it describes as the administration’s “unlawful effort to dismantle the Department of Education,” pointing to the interagency agreements, mass layoffs at the department earlier this year and implementation of an executive order that called on Education Secretary Linda McMahon to facilitate the closure of her own department.  

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

Axing the Education Department

Trump has sought to take an axe to the 46-year-old department, saying he wants to send education “back to the states.” Much of the funding and oversight of schools already occurs at the state and local levels.

The original lawsuit, filed in March in Massachusetts federal court, was brought by the American Federation of Teachers, its Massachusetts chapter, AFSCME Council 93, the American Association of University Professors, the Service Employees International Union and two school districts in Massachusetts. 

The Tuesday filing adds The Arc of the United States, an advocacy group for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, as a plaintiff. 

Earlier this year, the case was consolidated with another March lawsuit from Democratic attorneys general in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and Wisconsin.  

“It’s no surprise that blue states and unions care more about preserving the DC bureaucracy than about giving parents, students, and teachers more control over education and improving the efficient delivery of funds and services,” Madi Biedermann, a spokesperson for the department, said in a statement shared with States Newsroom.

Supreme Court temporarily greenlit Trump plan

In May, a federal judge in Massachusetts granted a preliminary injunction in the consolidated case, blocking the administration’s efforts, including a reduction in force effort at the agency that gutted more than 1,300 employees, Trump’s executive order calling on McMahon to facilitate the closure of her own department and a directive to transfer some services to other federal agencies.

A federal appeals court upheld that order in June, prompting the administration to ask the Supreme Court to intervene. 

The nation’s highest court in July temporarily suspended the lower courts’ orders, allowing the administration to proceed, for now, with those dismantling efforts.  

Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., rehearses the Democratic response to President Donald Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress on March 4, 2025 in Wyandotte, Michigan. (Photo by Paul Sancya – Pool/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Democratic members of Congress who released a video in mid-November telling members of the military that they are not required to follow illegal orders announced Tuesday the Federal Bureau of Investigation has asked to speak with them about the matter. 

Four House members, Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly and Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin wrote the inquiry will not deter them from publicly stating their concerns about the Trump administration. 

“Last night, the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division appeared to open an inquiry into me in response to a video President Trump did not like,” Slotkin wrote in a statement published on social media. 

“The President directing the FBI to target us is exactly why we made this video in the first place,” Slotkin added. “He believes in weaponizing the federal government against his perceived enemies and does not believe laws apply to him or his Cabinet. He uses legal harassment as an intimidation tactic to scare people out of speaking up.”  

Kelly’s office said it had “received this inquiry via the Sergeant at Arms.”  The House members said the FBI has contacted the House Sergeant at Arms office requesting interviews.

“Senator Kelly won’t be silenced by President Trump and Secretary Hegseth’s attempt to intimidate him and keep him from doing his job as a U.S. Senator,” the spokesperson said. 

Reps. Jason Crow of Colorado, Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania and Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire separately issued a joint statement alleging that “Trump is using the FBI as a tool to intimidate and harass Members of Congress.”

“No amount of intimidation or harassment will ever stop us from doing our jobs and honoring our Constitution,” they wrote. “We swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. That oath lasts a lifetime, and we intend to keep it. We will not be bullied. We will never give up the ship.”

President Donald Trump after learning of the video posted on social media that he believed the statement from six Democratic lawmakers represented “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH.”

The FBI declined to comment. 

Illegal orders

Those six lawmakers posted a video on social media on Nov. 18 telling members of the military and intelligence community that 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 Defense Department announced Monday that it was looking into “serious allegations of misconduct” against Kelly, a former Navy captain and NASA astronaut, for his participation in the video. 

The statement said defense officials may recall Kelly “to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures.” 

Kelly wrote in a statement responding to the investigation that he had “given too much to this country to be silenced by bullies who care more about their own power than protecting the Constitution.”

“If this is meant to intimidate me and other members of Congress from doing our jobs and holding this administration accountable, it won’t work,” Kelly wrote.

Hegseth asks for briefing

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth posted on social media Tuesday that he wants the Secretary of the Navy to brief him “on the outcome of your review by no later than December 10, 2025.”

Members of Congress’ official actions are generally protected under the speech and debate clause of the Constitution. 

A report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service states the judiciary’s “immunity principle protects Members from ‘intimidation by the executive’ or a ‘hostile judiciary’ by prohibiting both the executive and judicial powers from being used to improperly influence or harass legislators.”

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development headquarters. (Photo by HUD Office of Public Affairs)

Nineteen attorneys general and two governors filed suit in Rhode Island on Tuesday to stop the Trump administration from shifting nearly $4 billion in housing grants they say could place as many as 170,000 formerly homeless people back out on the streets.

The group co-led by Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha is accusing the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development of violating “congressional intent” in its plan to dramatically reduce the amount of grant funds that can be spent on permanent housing, along with other conditions placed in its latest Notice of Funding Opportunity for Continuum of Care grants.

Enacted Nov. 13, HUD’s new policy instead shifts Continuum of Care funding toward transitional housing and other short-term interventions to the nation’s ongoing homelessness crisis. Only 30% of funds from the $3.9 billion grant program would be allowed to be used for permanent supportive housing — units that provide a subsidized, stable residence for formerly homeless people, often those who have experienced mental illness or spent years on the streets.  

HUD has previously directed approximately 90% of Continuum of Care funding to support permanent supportive units as part of its “Housing First” philosophy, according to the 55-page lawsuit.

“Addressing the crisis requires urgent action from our communities, institutions, and government,” the lawsuit states. “But instead of investing in programs that help people stay safe and housed, the Trump Administration has embraced policies that risk trapping people in poverty and punishing them for being poor.”

HUD’s latest Continuum of Care grants opportunity is open though Jan. 14, 2026. Grant awards are expected to be made May 1.

The new grant rules also eliminate funding for diversity and inclusion efforts, support of transgender clients and use of “harm reduction” strategies that seek to reduce overdose deaths by helping people in active addiction use drugs more safely.

“Individually, these conditions are unlawful and harmful,” the 55-page lawsuit states. “Together, they are a virtual death blow to the CoC Program as it has operated for decades and will lead to predictably disastrous results.”

If the policy isn’t blocked, Neronha warned the cuts would “further exacerbate already dire conditions for homeless Rhode Islanders.” Indeed, Rhode Island’s homeless care providers project a little over 1,000 formerly unhoused people across the state could wind up back on the streets under HUD’s new funding focus.

“This administration continues to punch down by targeting the most vulnerable Americans, and unfortunately this most recent attack on homeless individuals is consistent with their modus operandi,” Neronha said in a statement. “The president and his administration don’t care about making life easier or better for Americans; they only care about political capitulation, consolidating power, and further enriching the wealthy.”

The HUD Press Office said the agency stands by its Continuum of Care reforms in an emailed statement, calling Biden era homelessness assistance policies “an abject failure.”

“In fact, Biden’s policies harmed the vulnerable people that HUD intends to serve through the grant program,” the statement reads. “This new framework is the first step toward righting those failures with increased funding for those high performing programs that have demonstrated real success and accountability. HUD is dismayed that the plaintiffs have chosen to misuse the Courts and pursue this delaying tactic to serve their own personal political agenda at the expense of the homeless individuals, youth and families now living on our Nation’s streets.  Their use of the courts for political means seeks to prevent nearly $4 billion of aid to flow nationwide to assist those in need. HUD intends to mount a vigorous defense to this meritless legal action. HUD is confident that it will prevail in Court and looks forward to implementing the new Continuum of Care framework after it has done so.”

In addition to Neronha, Washington Attorney General Nick Brown and New York Attorney General Letitia James are co-leading the lawsuit. 

Also joining the complaint are the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, Wisconsin, along with the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.

The coalition is asking Judge Mary S. McElroy, who was appointed to the bench during Trump’s first term, to declare the new conditions unlawful and reinstate language from prior funding notices.

HUD framed its new funding policies as a way to promote “self-sufficiency among vulnerable Americans” and align with President Donald Trump’s July 24 Executive Order titled “Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets.”

But the lawsuit filed Tuesday argues that Congress created the Continuum of Care program to ensure stability so providers can reliably serve people whose lives depend on it. The coalition says HUD’s changes are arbitrary and capricious because officials offered no explanation for abruptly reversing longstanding policies.

“HUD has failed to supply any rational explanation for these newly proposed conditions that are entirely unrelated to (and in some cases even inhibit) the statutory purpose of addressing homelessness,” the lawsuit states.

Ryan Strnad, who promoted recycling when he announced earlier this summer that he would seek the Democratic nomination to run for governor, ended his campaign Tuesday. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Democratic hopeful Ryan Strnad, an American Family Field beer vendor from Mukwonago, announced Tuesday he is ending his campaign for governor. 

“I want to thank every person who supported this campaign,” Strnad said in a statement. “I ran to give working class families a voice and to deliver results for communities that have long been overlooked.”

Strnad launched his campaign for the Democratic nomination in August, acknowledging  he was polarizing and a longshot for the position. He told the Examiner at the start of his campaign that his mother thought he should “run for something smaller.”

He launched his campaign saying that he would seek to improve conditions for workers by repealing Act 10 and getting rid of “right to work” — the law that lets workers who are represented by unions decline to pay union dues without giving up their right to the union’s representation. He said he supported police and allowing access to abortion in Wisconsin. 

Strnad said he is endorsing Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley in the crowded race and encouraged his supporters to support him as well. He said Crowley “is the candidate who can hit the ground running, fight for families, and begin delivering those results for Wisconsin starting on day one.”

Other Democratic hopefuls include Lt. Gov. Sarah Rodriguez, state Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison), state Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison) and former Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation CEO Missy Hughes.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Democrats and pro-democracy organizations held a rally Oct. 16 to call for the creation of an independent redistricting commission. On Tuesday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued an order for two judicial panels to hear arguments against Wisconsin's current U.S. House maps. (Photo by Henry Redman/Wisconsin Examiner)

The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered a pair of three-judge panels to hear arguments in two lawsuits challenging the state’s congressional maps. 

The challenges to the maps come as fights play out all over the country over the dividing lines of congressional districts ahead of next year’s midterm elections. After Texas legislators worked to draw Democratic seats out of existence at the behest of President Donald Trump and a number of other Republican-led states followed suit, California voters elected to temporarily undo their state’s independent redistricting commission and allow Democratic leaders to wipe out Republican-leaning seats. 

Similar efforts have followed to varying degrees of success in states including Arkansas, Indiana and Virginia. 

Wisconsin’s political maps have been at the center of its divided government for more than a decade, with the Supreme Court undoing the partisan gerrymander in the state Legislature two years ago. 

Since then, the focus has turned to Wisconsin’s congressional maps, where Republicans control six of the state’s eight districts. More than once, the Supreme Court has declined to hear cases that request the Court directly take up challenges to the congressional maps. 

A lobbying effort in the state is also ongoing to establish an independent, nonpartisan process for creating the state’s legislative and congressional maps. 

On Tuesday, the Court ruled that the challenges to the maps must follow a 2011 law, passed by the GOP-controlled Legislature and signed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker, which requires that challenges to the state’s congressional districts be heard by a panel of three circuit court judges. 

Republicans had argued that law shouldn’t apply in this case. In a 5-2 decision, in which the court’s four liberal justices were joined by conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn, the Court ruled the law applies and the panels should be created.

In the majority decision, the Court’s liberals also appointed the panels — of which all the members were appointed by Gov. Tony Evers or endorsed liberal Justice Susan Crawford in this spring’s election. 

Hagedorn dissented on the appointment of the panels, arguing the panel members should’ve been appointed randomly. 

“Given the nature of this case and the statute’s implicit call for geographic diversity and neutrality, a randomly-selected panel and venue would be a better way to fulfill the statutory mandate,” Hagedorn wrote. “To be clear, I am not suggesting the judicial panel will fail to do its job with integrity and impartiality. But this approach is an odd choice in the face of a statute so clearly designed to deter litigants from selecting their preferred venue and judge.” 

Justices Annette Ziegler and Rebecca Bradley dissented from the decision, arguing the majority chose the judges on the panel to further the goals of the Democratic party. 

In several previous lawsuits over political maps, Bradley and Ziegler have issued rulings that benefited the Republican party or further entrenched the partisan gerrymander that has allowed the Republican party to retain control of the Legislature for 15 years. 

“Hand picking circuit court judges to perform political maneuvering is unimaginable,” Ziegler wrote. “Yet, my colleagues persist and appear to do this, all in furtherance of delivering partisan, political advantage to the Democratic Party.” 

On Tuesday, Crawford and Justice Janet Protasiewicz also issued orders denying requests from Republican members of Congress and GOP voters that they recuse themselves from the redistricting cases. Since the two justices’ elections in recent years, the state’s Republicans have regularly accused the pair of making statements on the campaign trail that show pre-judgment of cases involving the state’s political maps. 

“The Congressmen’s recusal theories are overbroad, impracticable, and rife with unintended consequences,” Crawford wrote. “Individuals and organizations have the right to contribute to judicial campaigns and to express their beliefs about the effect judicial elections will have on issues of importance to them. Demanding that a justice recuse from a case because third parties who made campaign contributions have expressed their views on high-profile issues improperly implies that the judge had endorsed or adopted such views. This insinuation is inappropriate, particularly where the judge has expressly disclaimed such an endorsement, and undermines judicial impartiality. Further, it would chill protected speech and undermine this court’s central role of deciding cases of statewide importance.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

President Donald Trump addresses undecided Latino voters during a Univision Noticias town hall event in Doral, Florida, during the closing weeks of the 2024 presidential campaign.  (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images) 

WASHINGTON — A majority of U.S. Latinos have grown pessimistic since the 2024 presidential election and increasingly disapprove of the immigration and economic policies of the second Trump administration, according to a new report from the Pew Research Center.

About 70% of Latinos in the U.S. disapprove of President Donald Trump’s record, with 65% disapproving of his handling of immigration and 61% saying his policies have worsened the economy, according to the report.

The report found Latinos’ views are still divided by how they voted in the last presidential election, though even Trump voters’ opinions of the president have declined.

“Those who voted for Trump express strong support for the president and his policies, while those who voted for Kamala Harris hold deeply negative views,” according to the report. 

Latinos were among the groups with the largest shifts toward Trump. In his first campaign in 2016, 28% backed him. In 2020, about 36% of Latinos voted for Trump and that support again grew in 2024, when nearly 48% supported him. Latinos are among the fastest growing demographic groups in the U.S., and are the second largest racial group in the country. 

The Nov. 24 Pew Research Center report analyzed survey responses from more than 5,500 Hispanic adults conducted from Sept. 22-28 and Oct. 6-16. The study used the terms Latino and Hispanic people interchangeably.

Disapproval on immigration 

The study found deep disapproval of the Trump administration’s immigration policies, amid aggressive immigration enforcement operations in areas with large Latino immigrant populations.

More than half of Latino adults reported that they worry that they, a family member or a close friend could be deported. Almost 59% of Latinos said they have seen or heard of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids or arrests in their community in the past six months. 

“About seven-in-ten (71%) say (the Trump administration) is doing too much when it comes to deporting immigrants living in the country illegally, up from 56% in March,” according to the study.

In his 2024 campaign, Trump promised to conduct mass deportations and end temporary legal status given to newly arrived migrants under the Biden administration.

Economic outlook worrying

Two-thirds of Latinos said their overall situation has worsened since last year.

“This is the first time that most Hispanics say their situation has worsened in nearly two decades of Pew Research Center Hispanic surveys,” according to the report. 

Inflation and the economy were major policy concerns for Latinos, like most voters, in the 2024 presidential election.

The Pew Research Center study found that in the last year, 1 in 3 Latinos struggled to pay for groceries, medical care and rent or a mortgage.

“Many Latinos also have a negative outlook on the economy’s future,” according to the study. “About half (49%) say the nation’s economy will worsen over the next year, up substantially from 2024. Another 23% say economic conditions will be about the same as now.”

WisconsinEye's coverage includes livestreams of committee hearings, floor sessions and press conferences. Rep. Alex Dallman speaks at a press conference in June that was livestreamed by WisconsinEye. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

WisconsinEye — the independent, nonprofit service that provides coverage of Wisconsin state government similar to C-Span — is set to halt its coverage on Dec. 15 without sufficient funding and is turning to lawmakers as well as donors for help.

The service’s coverage includes livestreams of committee hearings, floor sessions and press conferences. It also has an extensive video archive of more than 30,000 hours of state government proceedings, candidate interviews and other programming. 

“We operate on a shoestring budget, but we exceed our contractual agreement with the Legislature,” WisconsinEye President Jon Henkes said, noting that they are required to cover all floor sessions as well as a certain percentage of committee hearings. “For 18 years, we have far exceeded those expectations and requirements, so we’re doing a remarkable job.”

All of that could stop — live coverage eliminated and the video archive at risk of going offline — if the organization doesn’t raise $887,000, enough to cover its 2026 annual budget, it warns in a popup message on its website. In a November press release, the organization warned of this possibility.

“It’s clear to us that the current funding model is not working. We can continue to knock on doors. We continue to connect with potential donors,” Henkes said. “The fact is by the end of December, we will run out of money — and that is the reason why we sounded the alarm a week ago — if we cannot bridge this gap in the short term.”

Since starting in 2007, WisconsinEye has operated independently with the majority of its funding coming from charitable, nonprofit donations. Henkes said that the organization, similar to other nonprofits, has faced a tough fundraising environment since the COVID-19 pandemic. 

He said there has been “a very palpable donor skittishness” due to economic uncertainty and an increase in competitiveness as nonprofits that were more dormant during the pandemic have reemerged.

“We’re such a small nonprofit, relatively young in the world of philanthropy, we’re never first in line. We’re lucky to be third in line at times,” Henkes said.

“We are not grounded and deeply rooted in a local community meeting basic human needs,” he continued. “We’re not feeding the homeless, we’re not providing shelter, we’re not disaster relief… then we’re also faced with a recent trend, which is record-breaking political fundraising, so donors who are interested in the inputs and outcomes of government are more inclined to give to candidates, campaigns and causes, but yet they put WisconsinEye into that same general bucket of politics, and we’ve got to fight our way through that fog, because that’s not us. We don’t advocate. We’re the neutral ground.”

Henkes said WisconsinEye is continuing to make inquiries and raising $250,000 could get the organization through the first quarter of 2026.

As first reported by WisPolitics, the organization is also looking to the Legislature for assistance. 

The state has provided grant funding on a few occasions, including during the pandemic. In the 2025-27 state budget, Wisconsin lawmakers and Gov. Tony Evers extended WisconsinEye’s opportunity to access $10 million in state funds to build a permanent endowment fund until June 2026. 

The state had initially set aside the money in the previous budget, which required WisconsinEye to raise the entire $10 million in order to get the state-funded match. The organization wasn’t able to access the state’s portion because it didn’t meet the full amount.

In the new budget, the organization is able to collect the state portion on a dollar-by-dollar basis that matches WisconsinEye’s own fundraising.

Currently, $250,000 is available with no match requirement. That will cover expenses through Dec. 15.

The organization can receive the other $9.75 million if it raises an equal amount from private sources. Henkes said that those match dollars would not help with current operating costs, however.

“We could raise a half million dollars and the state would match that, but those dollars, by law, then would have to go into an endowment account — could not be spent for operating current budget needs, and could only be used as the income off of that investment is generated,” Henkes said. “Really, in a sense, we are competing against ourselves.” 

However, even still, Henkes says the organization has made “well qualified, well cultivated” donation requests totaling more than $9 million. None of those requests have led to donations.

“We’re trying to raise money for the operating budget. At the same time, we’ve got this wonderful opportunity to raise $10 million to create a $20 million endowment, which would solve the funding need once and for all,” Henkes said. “The priority right now is meeting month-to-month obligations and keeping the lights on, and not losing staff and having to rebuild if we do lose staff, so the pressure is on us right now.”

The organization is turning to Wisconsin lawmakers for some help with addressing its funding gaps by eliminating the match requirement or finding a way to release some of the state funding to support its operating budget.

In a letter to lawmakers, WisconsinEye identified three alternative routes they could take:

• Provide annual funding of $1 million dollars per year to fund and maintain WisconsinEye’s live and produced content; 
• Provide $1 million per year for each of the next three years, carrying WisconsinEye through the 2027-28 budget cycle; 
•  Provide $1 million for 2026 and have the next Legislature consider the 2027-28 WisconsinEye Budget Request. 

Under the third option, the 2027-28 session would not be broadcast until funds are appropriated.

Henkes said he and the rest of WisconsinEye’s management are hopeful that lawmakers will be open to helping. He said there are many champions and supporters of WisconsinEye in the Legislature, including Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester), Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg), Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine) and Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton). He also noted that bipartisan effort led lawmakers and Gov. Tony Evers during the budget process to extend the availability of the $10 million. 

“This is not like we’re asking for new money. This money has already been earmarked for WisconsinEye. We’re simply asking for release of those funds, or part of those funds, in a way different from the endowment,” Henkes said. “The best case scenario would be if the Legislature would release a minimum of one year, so $1 million, essentially to carry us forward, and we can focus 100% over the next several months through June, to really hammer down and see if we can’t raise some endowment dollars. We think that’s a very viable option, and we’re hopeful.” 

Henkes said WisconsinEye provides accountability for the state government — providing a view of how decisions are made that affect every citizen and community. He said that is the message the fundraising team is taking to potential donors. 

“There’s this current cry out there right now — and a legitimate cry — to save our democracy, and that is a painting that is being colored by different voices,” Henkes said. “Some of those voices are saying we need election integrity. Those who are eligible to vote should have every opportunity, and we need to guard against those who don’t. We need to guard against gerrymandered legislative districts. We need to tone down the partisan rhetoric and all this negative campaign stuff.” 

WisconsinEye is able to meet those demands, he argued. 

“At the heart of all that is WisconsinEye and providing transparency and access to what really happens,” Henkes said. “What we are is a network where truth takes its rightful place. If you really want to know what happened, without partisan spin, without sensational headlines, then you come to WisconsinEye.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A California Highway Patrol officer holds an evidence bag after taking a suspect into custody during a stop in Oakland, Calif. Many factors can influence a police agency’s clearance rate, including how quickly evidence is processed by crime labs. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Police departments’ “clearance rates” — the percentage of cases they declare closed — are one of the most widely cited benchmarks for how effectively they combat crime. Lawmakers reference clearance rates in hearings, mayors cite them during police budget debates, and community members often use them to judge how well their local department is functioning.

But the figures can be confusing — and in some cases misleading.

State lawmakers are pushing to better understand and improve clearance rates, as crime remains top of mind for many Americans and a defining issue in statehouses nationwide.

Efforts to help solve more crimes and support victims have become a rare area of bipartisan agreement. This year, lawmakers in Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania and Texas have considered or enacted measures that would boost police investigative capacity or improve crime data and clearance rate reporting.

A new law in Illinois will require all law enforcement agencies to publish routine clearance data on nonfatal shootings and homicides starting in July 2026.

Missouri enacted a similar law, which will go into effect in 2026, that directs the state’s Department of Public Safety to publish clearance rates statewide and create a new grant program to help police departments solve violent crimes. And Texas lawmakers established a pilot program to set up rapid DNA testing facilities in two counties.

Lawmakers and police officials in some of these states say raising clearance rates is both a public safety priority and a matter of providing closure for victims and families. Research suggests that the likelihood of being caught is one of the strongest deterrents to committing a crime — making clearance rates a closely watched indicator of how well the justice system is working.

Clearing crimes is critical for public safety because it takes repeat offenders off the streets, helps resolve cases that never made it into official reports, delivers justice for victims, and strengthens the community trust that helps police solve future cases, said Thaddeus Johnson, an assistant professor of criminal justice and criminology at Georgia State University. Johnson, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan think tank Council on Criminal Justice, also served as a police officer in Memphis, Tennessee, for a decade.

“Clearance rate reflects police actions, but also the vibe and how the community feels –– the confidence and faith they have in the police,” Johnson said.

Across the country, clearance rates for violent crimes — including homicide, rape and aggravated assault — have declined for decades. The national homicide clearance rate, for example, has fallen from 72% in 1980 to 61% in 2024, the most recent year with FBI data available.

The decline is similar across other major crime categories. In 1980, police cleared 49% of rapes and 59% of aggravated assaults. By 2024, those figures had fallen to 27% and 49%, respectively. Robbery clearance rates also shifted over time, rising from 24% in 1980 to 30% in 2024.

But those figures reflect national averages. At the local level, clearance rates vary widely, with some departments solving a large share of cases while others struggle with consistently low numbers.

Police departments in Vermont, Delaware and Idaho had the highest violent crime clearance rates in 2024, while New Mexico, Georgia and Mississippi had the lowest, according to a 50-state crime data analysis by the nonpartisan, nonprofit Council of State Governments Justice Center.

Some experts say there are several reasons clearance rates can swing in either direction. Chronic staffing shortages, overwhelmed detective units, rising caseloads and strained community relationships can push rates down. Strong victim and witness cooperation, better investigative technology and clearance of older backlogged cases can push them up.

At the same time, clearance rates — like most crime statistics — have limitations and can be difficult to understand.

Clearance rates, explained

A clearance rate is meant to show how often police solve reported crimes in a given year. The formula is simple — cleared cases divided by reported cases — but the definition of “cleared” is broad.

Under federal rules, cases can be cleared either by arrest or by “exceptional means.” Arrest clearances are straightforward: Police make an arrest, file charges and hand the case to prosecutors.

Exceptional clearances apply when police say they have enough evidence to arrest someone but cannot do so for reasons outside their control — for example, when a suspect has died, fled the country, is being held in another jurisdiction that won’t extradite, or when prosecutors decline to bring charges or victims choose not to move forward.

Since agencies have wide discretion in using exceptional clearances, similar cases may be counted as “solved” in one community and remain open in another. High exceptional clearance rates can give the impression that more arrests have been made than actually have.

Timing also complicates the statistics. Clearances are counted in the year a case is closed, not the year the crime occurred. For crimes that routinely take months or years to investigate, such as homicides or sexual assaults, this is common.

As a result, departments that focus on long-term investigations or suddenly receive new evidence may clear a batch of older cases, making their current-year rate look higher even though more recent cases remain unresolved.

Most agencies do not publicly break down how many of their annual clearances involve older cases, but that doesn’t mean they are intentionally manipulating their statistics.

National reporting isn’t airtight either. The FBI’s crime reporting program is voluntary, and some police departments may submit crime data but skip clearance data altogether.

Other measures of effectiveness

A clearance does not guarantee that prosecutors filed charges or that a case resulted in a conviction — outcomes that often matter most to victims and their families. It also doesn’t capture whether the right person was apprehended.

“It’s an imperfect metric for the performance of our criminal justice system,” said Marc Krupanski, the criminal justice policy director at Arnold Ventures, a philanthropic research organization.

Clearance rates also say little about investigative quality, how consistently police update families, how quickly officers respond or whether residents feel comfortable coming forward with information in the first place.

For these reasons, experts recommend looking at other measures, including prosecutorial outcomes, police response times, victim satisfaction and levels of community trust.

Some experts say clearance rates are most meaningful when analyzed over time — ideally 10 to 20 years — and adjusted per capita or per 100,000 residents. Breaking out clearances by arrest and exceptional means also adds important context, as does examining how many arrests lead to charges or convictions.

These outcomes, experts say, reflect both police work and community cooperation — from gathering witnesses to processing crime scenes and maintaining evidence — offering a clearer picture of investigative effectiveness.

Michigan’s proposal

Just last month, Michigan lawmakers introduced bipartisan legislation aimed at boosting the state’s clearance rates. Last year, Michigan police solved 48% of violent crimes, according to the Council of State Governments Justice Center’s analysis.

The House and Senate versions of the Violent Crime Clearance Act are sponsored by Republican state Rep. Sarah Lightner and Democratic state Sen. Stephanie Chang. The legislation would create a statewide grant program for police departments, allowing them to use the funds to hire and train investigators or crime lab personnel, upgrade evidence-collection equipment or record-management systems and support witnesses in violent crime investigations. It would also establish strict clearance rate reporting requirements.

“Regardless of where you sit on the political spectrum, I think there’s just a general belief that we want crimes to be solved,” Chang told Stateline.

Rural police departments, which often have fewer staff and limited investigative resources, sometimes face challenges in solving certain types of cases. To help address this, the bill would require that grants be distributed across the state, and that no single agency receive more than 20% of the total program funding in a given year.

Supporters, including Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard, say the legislation would provide much-needed help for overburdened departments.

“These aren’t just statistics. These are people. … They were dragged into the criminal justice system as a victim, and so for us, each case — and trying to find and bring closure, whether it’s an armed robbery, a rape or a murder — is critically important,” Bouchard said.

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at ahernandez@stateline.org.

U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., speaks to reporters at the U.S. Capitol on March 25, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The Department of Defense announced on social media Monday it’s looking into “serious allegations of misconduct” against Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly, one of several lawmakers who posted a video last week telling military members they are not required to follow orders that violate the law. 

The video spurred anger from President Donald Trump, who posted, also on social media, that he believed the statement from six Democratic lawmakers represented “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

The claim led to safety concerns on Capitol Hill, especially after a year that included numerous acts of violence against lawmakers and key political figures. 

The Defense Department announcement didn’t detail exactly how Kelly may have violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice but stated that “a thorough review of these allegations has been initiated to determine further actions, which may include recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures.” 

It was unclear how the military review and threat of court-martial proceedings would fit with the constitutional protections held by members of Congress for speech and debate.

Kelly wrote in a statement the Defense Department’s post was the first time he’d heard about the inquiry. 

“If this is meant to intimidate me and other members of Congress from doing our jobs and holding this administration accountable, it won’t work,” Kelly wrote. “I’ve given too much to this country to be silenced by bullies who care more about their own power than protecting the Constitution.”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Kelly and the other senators in the video were encouraging “disorder and chaos within the ranks.”

“Not a single one of them … can point to a single illegal order that this administration has given down because it does not exist,” Leavitt said. “They knew what they were doing in this video and Sen. Mark Kelly and all of them should be held accountable for that.”

Kelly military background

Kelly served as an aviator in the United States Navy from 1987 until 2012. He was deployed as part of Operation Desert Storm during the first Gulf War. He received several awards throughout his military career, including the Legion of Merit and the Distinguished Flying Cross. 

Kelly reached the rank of captain before his retirement from military service. 

Kelly, who was also a NASA astronaut, was first elected to the U.S. Senate in November 2020. 

The Defense Department’s post announcing an investigation into Kelly said military officials wanted to remind people that “military retirees remain subject to the UCMJ for applicable offenses, and federal laws such as 18 U.S.C. § 2387 prohibit actions intended to interfere with the loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline of the armed forces.”

The statement added that all service members “have a legal obligation under the UCMJ to obey lawful orders and that orders are presumed to be lawful.  A servicemember’s personal philosophy does not justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.”

The statement appeared somewhat similar to the one Kelly, Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, Colorado Rep. Jason Crow, Pennsylvania Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan, and New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander gave in the video they published Nov 18. 

The Democrats, all of whom served in the military or worked in intelligence agencies, said they wanted “to speak directly to members of the military and the intelligence community who take risks each day to keep Americans safe.”

They said that Americans in those institutions “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.”

Broad constitutional protections for Congress

Members of Congress are broadly protected under the speech and debate clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states that unless a lawmaker is involved in treason, felony and breach of the peace, they are “privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”

The annotated explanation of the clause on Congress’ official website says the Supreme Court has “broadly” interpreted its applications over the years to ensure an independent legislative branch. 

“Despite uncertainty at the margins, it is well established that the Clause serves to secure the independence of the federal legislature by providing Members of Congress and their aides with immunity from criminal prosecutions or civil suits that stem from acts taken within the legislative sphere,” it states. “As succinctly described by the Court, the Clause’s immunity from liability applies ‘even though their conduct, if performed in other than legislative contexts, would in itself be unconstitutional or otherwise contrary to criminal or civil statutes.’ This general immunity principle forms the core of the protections afforded by the Clause.”

A report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service states the judiciary’s “immunity principle protects Members from ‘intimidation by the executive’ or a ‘hostile judiciary’ by prohibiting both the executive and judicial powers from being used to improperly influence or harass legislators.”

Reporters in a press pool ask questions of President Donald Trump and Frank Bisignano, left, administrator of the Social Security Administration, in the Oval Office on Aug. 14, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A three-judge federal appeals panel grilled lawyers for a former White House official and The Associated Press Monday in a case that could significantly overhaul press access to the Oval Office and Air Force One.

The two sides sparred over whether the president, in this case President Donald Trump, has sole discretion over which reporters can take part in the press pool in certain White House spaces, based on a journalist’s or their employer’s viewpoint.

The dispute between the Trump administration and the AP erupted earlier this year after the wire service refused to use the term Gulf of America, designated by Trump, for the body of water the AP continued to call the Gulf of Mexico. 

Judges Robert L. Wilkins, Gregory G. Katsas and Neomi Rao, for the U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit, poked holes in each side’s arguments on whether the First Amendment stops at the Oval Office doors or the tarmac outside Air Force One, and if the president can decide who’s included or excluded.

The press pool is a small, rotating group of reporters, specified in advance, who travel with or attend events hosted by the president. They then send dispatches to hundreds of other journalists, and often publish quickly about the president’s activities.

The Department of Justice’s Yaakov Roth argued that because of legal precedent, the administration cannot ban a larger group of “bona fide journalists” from using White House media passes to access the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room, where press secretary Karoline Leavitt and other administration officials take questions from reporters.

However, he argued, the president is well within his bounds to exclude reporters from his “personal spaces,” including the Oval Office or Air Force One, which are strictly “by invitation only.”

Katsas, appointed during Trump’s first administration, asked, “Do you really want a room-by-room, space-by-space, jurisprudence? It’s really about access to the president. Is it really different if an event is moved from the Oval Office to the Rose Garden?”

“If the president did an event in the (Brady) briefing room, we wouldn’t be having the same argument,” replied Roth, principal deputy attorney general for the DOJ’s civil division.

Wilkins, appointed in 2014 by President Barack Obama, pressed further and asked if the White House is permitted to “revoke” a journalist’s media pass.

Roth answered that “viewpoint discrimination is not permitted” when issuing passes and opening up access to the Brady room.

“The question here is does that carry over (to the Oval Office or Air Force One)? I think the answer to that is no,” Roth said.

The Oval Office door

In his opening statement, AP attorney Charles Tobin argued, “The First Amendment does not stop at the Oval Office door” and that a “system” has been established in which the president cannot ban a reporter from spaces where the press pool is permitted. 

For example, recent Cabinet meetings and Oval Office visits by foreign leaders have been open to the press pool.

“If it’s a pooled event, then the president cannot pick and choose,” said Tobin, of the firm Ballard Spahr.

Katsas pressed back, asking, “How does the president get to pick who will come to the Oval Office for (a private) event?”

Tobin replied with the hypothetical example of Trump inviting conservative media personality Tucker Carlson for a one-on-one interview. “It’s not a pooled event,” he said.

Tobin continued his argument that the pool system was established under President Dwight Eisenhower and has since become “a defined government program.”

Rao responded skeptically to Tobin, “you’re resting your whole argument” on the White House not having any say over the pool who follows the president.

“It’s not some fixed thing. It’s changed over time,” said Rao, who was appointed by President Joe Biden in 2019.

“It’s a government program. It must be administered in a viewpoint neutral (manner),” Tobin replied.

“Does the White House determine whether an event is a press pool event?” Katsas followed up.

“They do that all the time, your honor. It’s a defined government program,” Tobin replied.

Katsas pushed back: “If you win on that theory, then the next day the White House can stop designating events as pooled events.”

Wire service ban

The Associated Press sued the former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich and other press staff for banning the wire service from events in the Oval Office and other spaces after Trump disagreed with an editorial decision by the wire service.

Shortly after Trump renamed the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, the AP issued style guidance instructing journalists to continue using the body of water’s established name, but to add a note that the president had changed it on U.S. maps and government documents.

The AP sets style standards for journalists across the industry.

The case has been winding through the federal courts since February.

Budowich left the administration in September.

The White House began denying the AP entry to the Oval Office, East Room and other places on Feb. 11.

Leavitt announced in late February that White House officials would take over pool rotation decisions from the White House Correspondents Association, a member organization that has self-governed journalist rotations and briefing seats placement since the Eisenhower administration.

Former FBI Director James Comey testifies before the Senate Intelligence Committee in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on June 8, 2017 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

A senior federal judge dismissed charges Monday against two public officials with long-running public disputes with President Donald Trump, saying the controversial appointment of the president’s former personal attorney as a prosecutor doomed the cases.

Senior U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, whom former President Bill Clinton appointed to the bench in South Carolina, wrote in a Monday order that Attorney General Pam Bondi did not have the authority to make Lindsey Halligan the interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. 

The judge said the deadline for an interim appointee to that position had lapsed.

Because that process was invalid, the prosecutions against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, both of whom had investigated or prosecuted Trump, must be dropped, Currie wrote.

Currie dismissed the indictments without prejudice, meaning they could be revived. But at least in Comey’s case, in which charges were brought on the eve of the statute of limitations expiring, that appeared unlikely.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Monday the administration would appeal the ruling.

“Lindsay Halligan was legally appointed, and that’s the administration’s position,” Leavitt said. “There was a judge who was clearly trying to shield Leticia James and James Comey from receiving accountability.”

120-day clock

U.S. attorneys are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but the attorney general can appoint someone on an interim basis for 120 days. After that, the judges in the district are responsible for appointing an interim prosecutor.

“Ms. Halligan was not appointed in a manner consistent with this framework,” Currie wrote.

Bondi appointed Erik Siebert as the interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia in January, while his confirmation was pending in the Senate. After 120 days, the judges in the district allowed him to continue.

Siebert resigned in September, reportedly under pressure from Trump and Bondi to bring charges against Comey. Bondi then named Halligan, at the time a White House aide who had also worked for Trump in a private capacity, as the interim U.S. attorney. 

But Bondi could not do that because, after 120 days, the responsibility for naming an interim U.S. attorney fell to the district court judges, Currie wrote.

“The 120-day clock began running with Mr. Siebert’s appointment on Jan. 21, 2025,” she wrote. “When that clock expired on May 21, 2025, so too did the Attorney General’s appointment authority. Consequently, I conclude that the Attorney General’s attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid and that Ms. Halligan has been unlawfully serving in that role.”

Quick indictment

Halligan, after gaining office in September, quickly secured a two-count indictment against the former FBI chief from a grand jury in Alexandria. Comey was accused of lying to Congress about whether he had authorized a press leak of information related to an FBI investigation of Russian actors’ involvement in Trump’s first presidential campaign. 

However, U.S. District Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick wrote last week that issues with evidence, testimony and statements to the grand jury in the case outweighed the usual heavily guarded secrecy of proceedings. He said “profound investigative missteps” could result in the dismissal of Comey’s indictment.

Comey has pleaded not guilty.

James won a civil case against Trump related to business fraud, though a state appeals court later overturned the sentence as overly punitive.

Trump has publicly blasted James and Comey as using the mechanisms of legal proceedings to persecute him. 

In an extraordinary public message to Bondi just before Halligan replaced Siebert, Trump complained that the prosecutions against both were not developing faster.

The Justice Department did not respond to a message seeking comment Monday.

A farm employee works near Coachella, Calif., in 2024. A California union has sued to stop new, lower-wage guidelines for foreign worker visas. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

A California union and a group of farmworkers from around the country are suing to stop new, lower-wage federal guidelines that save money for farmers but cut pay for temporary foreign agriculture workers — hurting local laborers as a result, the suit alleges. 

In a lawsuit filed Friday in federal court, the United Farm Workers and 18 individual workers sued the U.S. Department of Labor over the October guidelines for laborers who are in the United States under temporary, H-2A visas. The new guidelines set lower wages — differentiating them by state — including pay cuts to account for the value of free housing provided by law to foreign workers. 

“Farm workers, and the rural communities across America they sustain, need and deserve fair wages and job security, not a race to the bottom with an endless supply of cheap foreign labor,” Teresa Romero, president of the United Farm Workers, said in a statement announcing the lawsuit. 

The new Trump administration rules are “drastically cutting the minimum wage that U.S. employers must pay foreign farmworkers, all while costs and wages in other sectors have sharply increased,” the lawsuit states, adding that the lower pay for foreign workers will also force cuts for American workers. The lawsuit asks a federal judge in California to halt implementation of the guidelines and recalculate wages. 

The lawsuit also objects to first-time pay differentials based on the value of employer-provided housing. It alleges violations of laws requiring that foreign visas not affect wages of U.S. workers with similar jobs. 

The cuts “will severely impact farmworkers — some of the most vulnerable members of our society and many of whom already live in poverty,” according to the lawsuit. 

One worker, not identified by name, works in Missouri with an H-2A foreign worker visa was formerly paid $17.83 an hour and will suffer a $4.08 pay cut, leaving him unable to afford food and essential protective clothing for his job helping with squash, eggplant and other vegetables, according to the lawsuit. 

One worker, Irene Mendoza, a U.S. citizen, said in the lawsuit that her wages could be cut by $3.22 an hour, to $13.78, because of the guidelines, even though she doesn’t need a foreign worker visa, forcing her to get a second job to pay for food, housing and transportation between jobs in some of the states where she works. Mendoza said in the lawsuit that she works picking and packing green beans and potatoes in Michigan, Minnesota, Texas and Wisconsin.

The lower wage guidelines vary by state and are subject to state minimum wage laws that could make them higher in some states. In North Carolina, for instance, the new hourly wage is $11.09 for less-skilled workers, compared with $16.16 last year, and $12.27 for local workers who don’t need housing, according to a Cornell University analysis.

The Department of Labor referred a Stateline request for comment to the Department of Justice, which declined comment. 

Some farmers and experts have hailed the new guidelines as lifesavers that will stave off bankruptcy as costs rise and some prices for their farm goods stay low. 

Almost half the H-2A visas in the 2025 fiscal year were in a small group of states including Florida (60,000), Georgia (44,000), California (37,000), Washington state (36,000) and North Carolina (28,000). The government expects an additional 119,000 visas to be issued under the new rule, on top of the nearly 420,000 a year issued in recent years. 

Public comments on the rule are open until Dec. 1.

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

The Waukesha County Sheriff Department. An audit of the department's use of data from the Flock surveillance camera system shows inconsistent reporting the reasons on the reasons investigators access the information, a problem common among police agencies. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Like other Wisconsin law enforcement agencies, the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department (WCSD) uses Flock cameras for many reasons, though department personnel don’t always clearly document what those reasons are. Audit data reveals that staff most frequently entered “investigation” in order to access Flock’s network, while other documented uses are raising concerns among privacy advocates. 

Flock cameras perpetually photograph and, using AI-powered license plate reader technology, identify vehicles traversing roadways. Flock’s system can be used to view a vehicle’s journey, even weeks after capturing an image, or flag specific vehicles for law enforcement which have been placed on “Be On The Lookout” (BOLO) lists.

As of March 2025, the company Flock Safety was valued at $7.5 billion, with over 5,000 law enforcement agencies using its cameras nationwide. At least  221 of those agencies are in Wisconsin, including the city of Waukesha’s police department as well as  the county sheriff . The Wisconsin Examiner obtained Flock audit data from the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department through open records requests, covering Flock searches from January 2024 to July 2025, and used computer programming to analyze the data.

Over that period of time, more than 6,700 Flock searches were conducted by WCSD using only “investigation”, as well as abbreviations or misspellings of the word. The searches, as they appeared in the audit data, offered no other context to suggest why specifically Flock’s network had been searched. Lt. Nicholas Wenzel, a sheriff’s department spokesperson, wrote in an email statement that “investigation” has a broad usage when Flock is involved. 

“A deputy/detective using Flock for an investigation is using it for a wide range of public safety situations,” Wenzel explained. “Flock assists in locating missing persons during Amber or Silver Alert by identifying their vehicles and has proven effective in recovering stolen cars. Investigators use Flock to track suspect vehicles in serious crimes such as homicides, assaults, robberies, and shootings, as well as in property crimes like burglaries, catalytic converter thefts, and package thefts. The system also supports traffic-related investigations, including hit-and-run cases, and enables agencies to share information across jurisdictions to track offenders who travel between communities.”

Widespread use of vague search terms 

Dave Maass, director of investigations at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says that terms like “investigation” are too vague to determine whether or not Flock was used appropriately.  At least some responsibility falls on Flock Safety itself, Maass argues. “They’re setting up a system where it’s impossible for somebody to audit it,” he told the Wisconsin Examiner. “And I think that’s the big problem, is that there’s no baseline requirement that you have to have a case related to this…They say you have to have a law enforcement purpose. But if you just put the word ‘investigation’ there, how do you know? Like, how do you know that this is not somebody stalking their ex-partner? How do you know whether this is somebody looking up information about celebrities? How do you know whether it’s racist or not? And you just don’t, because nobody is checking any of these things.”

The audit also stored other vague search terms used by WCSD such as “f”, “cooch”, “freddy”, “ts”, “nathan”, and “hunt” which Lt. Wenzel would not define.“The search terms are associated with investigations, some of which remain active,” he wrote in an email statement. “To preserve the integrity of these ongoing investigations, no further description or clarification of the terms can be provided at this time.” 

In August, Wisconsin Examiner published a similar Flock analysis that also found agencies statewide entering only the word “investigation,” with no other descriptor, in order to access Flock. At nearly 20,000 searches (not including misspellings and abbreviations), the term “investigation” was in fact the most often used term in that analysis, which relied on audit data obtained from the Wauwatosa Police Department. 

While data from the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department appeared in that first Flock story, that analysis focused on broad trends which appeared among at least 221 unique agencies using Flock in Wisconsin. This more recent analysis focuses specifically on the Waukesha County Sheriff Department’s use of the camera network. 

The August report found that the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department appeared among the top 10 Wisconsin law enforcement agencies that used Flock the most. The report also found that some agencies also only entered “.” — a period — in the Flock system field to indicate the reason for using the system. The West Allis Police Department led Wisconsin in this particular search term, followed by the Waukesha Police Department and the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office. 

In response to an inquiry from the Wisconsin Examiner, a Waukesha Police Department spokesperson  said that an officer who’d conducted nearly 400 Flock searches using only “.” as the reason had been provided extra training, and that the officer’s behavior had been corrected after the Wisconsin Examiner reached out. The West Allis Police Department,  on the other hand, did not suggest that its officers were using the Flock network improperly. 

Use of vague search terms is chronic across Flock’s network, Maass has found. He recalled  one nationwide audit that covered 11.4 million Flock searches over a six-month period. Of those some 22,743 “just dots” appeared as reasons for Flock searches. Searches using only the word “investigation” made up about 14.5% of all searches, he said. 

“So yeah, that’s a problem,” Maass told the Wisconsin Examiner. Reviewing a copy of Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department audit data, Maass saw the same vague search terms that have been reported by the Examiner. Although some terms can be reasonably guessed — such as “repo” perhaps meaning repossession, or ICAC, which usually stands for Internet Crimes Against Children — others aren’t so easy. 

“‘Hunt’ can mean anything,” said Maass, referring to a term which appeared 24 times within the Waukesha Sheriff’s data. Maass points to the search term “f”, which the Wisconsin Examiner’s analysis found WCSD used to search Flock 806 times. 

Maass highlights that each search touches hundreds or even thousands of individual Flock networks nationwide. “If I’m one of these agencies that gets hit by this system, how am I to know if this is a legitimate search or not?” Maass said. “Now, maybe somebody at Waukesha is going through their own system, and like questioning every officer about every case. Maybe they’re doing that. Probably not.” 

Wenzel of the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department said that although some searches appear vague,  deputies and detectives are required by department policy to document their use of Flock in reports. Although a case number category does appear in the audit data, this column was rendered blank, making it impossible for Wisconsin Examiner to determine how often Flock searches had case numbers, or whether those case numbers corresponded with specific investigations the sheriff’s department had on file. 

“The Sheriff’s Office understands the concerns surrounding emerging technology and takes very seriously its responsibility to protect the privacy and civil rights of the community,” Wenzel said in a statement. “The use of Flock license plate recognition technology is guided by clear safeguards to ensure it is only used for legitimate law enforcement purposes.” 

The department’s policy, Wenzel explained, “prohibits any use outside of legitimate criminal investigations.” He said that deputies undergo initial and ongoing training to use the camera network. “All system activity is logged and subject to review,” said Wenzel.

Maass says the department can’t back-check the searches conducted by other agencies using the Waukesha Flock network, however. “Because when we’re talking about millions of searches coming through their system, you know, every few months…like hundreds of thousands at least every month…how are they actually quality controlling any of these?” Maass told the Wisconsin Examiner. “They’re just not.”

Wenzel said that “the technology is not used for general surveillance, traffic enforcement, or monitoring individuals not connected to an investigation.” The Wisconsin Examiner’s analysis, however, detected 43 searches logged as “surveillance” and 30 searches logged as “traffic offense.” The audit data also contained at least 357 searches logged as “suspicious” or variations of the word, as well as another 14 logged as “suspicious driving behavior,” 52 searches for “road rage” and 36 logged as “identify driver”.

There were also 62 searches related to evictions, which privacy advocates contend  go beyond the public safety roles that the cameras were originally pitched to serve.

“Evictions can be unpredictable and potentially dangerous situations,” said Wenzel. “The removal of individuals from a residence often creates heightened emotions, uncertainty, and sometimes resistance. For this reason, safety is the top priority for both the residents being evicted and the deputies carrying out the court order. Flock is utilized to determine if the former tenants have left the area or could possibly be in the area when the court order is being carried out.” 

Jon McCray Jones, policy analyst for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin, said in a statement that the Waukesha Sheriff’s use of Flock has extended “far beyond the public safety justifications for which these tools were originally sold.” McCray Jones told the Wisconsin Examiner, “These systems were introduced to the public as a means to reduce violent crime and aid in solving serious investigations. However, when they are used for non-criminal purposes, such as evictions, they cross a dangerous line.”  

Waukesha’s uses for evictions were particularly concerning for McCray Jones. “What’s happening here is surveillance technology, operated by taxpayer-funded public servants, being weaponized at the behest of private landlords and corporations,” he said. “That is exactly the kind of mission creep communities are most worried about when it comes to police surveillance. If Flock cameras can be repurposed to target tenants today, what stops law enforcement tomorrow from using facial recognition to track people who fall behind on rent, or phone location data to monitor whether workers are ‘really sick’ when they call off? We’ve seen documented cases where law enforcement misused surveillance systems to track down romantic interests. Once the floodgate is opened, the slide into abuse is fast and quiet.” 

Wenzel said that access to the Flock network is limited to personnel who are properly trained and authorized to use the software, and the department’s policy is regularly reviewed by those personnel. 

“Searches are limited to legitimate law enforcement purposes per department policy,” he wrote in an email statement. The department has conducted its own Flock audits, Wenzel explained, and no sheriff department staff have ever been disciplined or re-trained due to Flock-related issues. Although the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department is part of the federal 287(g) program, in which local law enforcement agencies participate in federal immigration enforcement, Wenzel said that Flock is not used as part of the program, and the Wisconsin Examiner didn’t find any clear examples of immigration-related uses by the sheriff’s department. 

McCray Jones considers the Waukesha Sheriff’s use of Flock to be an example of why “surveillance technology in the hands of law enforcement must be tightly limited, narrowly defined, and rigorously transparent.” He stressed that every use “must be clearly logged and justified — not with vague categories like ‘investigation’ or ‘repo’, but with meaningful explanations the public can actually understand and evaluate. Without strict guardrails, audits like this reveal how quickly tools justified in the name of ‘safety’ turn into instruments of convenience or even private gain.” 

With the growth of surveillance technologies and the civil liberties implications they raise, McCray Jones said that the public “deserves clear proof that it is being used only to reduce crime — particularly violent crime — and not to serve the interests of landlords or corporations. Accountability and transparency aren’t optional add-ons; they are the bare minimum to prevent abuse.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Health care providers march for abortion rights at a Madison rally in October 2022. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

The Wisconsin State Senate passed SB 553 on Tuesday, Nov. 18, in their last floor session of the year. This bill, purportedly written to define abortion, is actually a covert attempt to exclude abortion from the broader scope of reproductive healthcare. 

Anti-abortion legislators pushing this bill are attempting to play to their religious base who voted them into office to promote an anti-abortion agenda. This is a failing strategy, however, when we’ve seen in countless elections around the country that abortion access is a winning issue, including in Wisconsin. 

The bigger problem, though, is how proponents of the bill are describing it as a way to allow physicians to safely provide care and clarify abortion restrictions, by excluding medical procedures intended to save a person’s life, such as C-sections, the removal of dead embryos, and treatment for ectopic pregnancy, to name a few, from the definition of “abortion.”

Lawmakers are misleading people into thinking that this bill will further define the nuances of care that physicians provide and actually allow, rather than restrict, the provision of care. 

This could not be farther from the truth. We have too many examples nationwide of physicians practicing in states hostile to reproductive rights who are unsure about what care is legal to provide, ultimately leading to unnecessary delays in caring for pregnant people. It is telling that physicians who provide miscarriage and abortion care were not called on to write the text of this legislation. 

Nationally, we have already seen pregnant people die preventable deaths while waiting for essential care for early pregnancy complications because lawmakers stirred confusion and meddled in healthcare decisions. This bill will amplify those dangers in our state, where 13.2 people out of 100,000 die in pregnancy, childbirth, or 42 days after termination of a pregnancy. A study by researchers at the University of Washington and Massachusetts General Hospital showed that these trends, across race, have been worsening in Wisconsin since 2010. 

Black birthing people in Wisconsin account for a disproportionate amount of the disparities in maternal mortality. Adding these racial and systemic inequities to a bill that will delay care for folks across the board, it’s nearly guaranteed that certain groups will have a greater share of these poor outcomes.

As a family medicine and obstetrics physician, I care for folks across the entire spectrum of pregnancy — including miscarriage and abortion. I want to emphasize the similarities in those two scenarios and how they significantly overlap. 

The procedure performed for abortion is identical to the procedure performed for a miscarriage. When a person has a miscarriage or an abortion in the first trimester, generally, a procedure called a “manual vacuum aspiration” or “MVA” can be performed to remove the pregnancy contents. For miscarriages or abortions that occur later in pregnancy, the procedure involves dilating the cervix and removing the pregnancy via a procedure called a dilation and curettage (D&C) or dilation and evacuation (D&E), based on gestational age. 

Additionally, when managing a miscarriage with medications, physicians use mifepristone and misoprostol — medications that lawmakers and anti-abortion activists are actively seeking to restrict because they’re used identically in first-trimester abortions. 

That is the underlying, root issue here: amplifying and reinforcing stigma and criminalization around abortion. 

Carving out the definition of abortion doesn’t actually create medical clarity for providers; instead, it creates a stigmatizing health care space where patients have to disclose and justify why they need certain essential health care. People deserve care and compassion, not judgment or punishment. 

Whether due to miscarriage, abortion, or self-managed abortion, pregnancy loss is not a crime. People should not fear jail time for getting the health care they need. SB 553 aims to differentiate abortion based on intent — a dystopian concept where politicians are in the private space of a doctor’s office. Wisconsinites currently have an opportunity to combat this stigma and call out politicians who are actively harming patients and the patient/provider relationship. 

In my practice already I have seen patients who are hesitant to disclose their pregnancy history for fear that sharing a history of needing abortion care could get them in trouble. Imagine how that influences future decisions to engage with health care providers around miscarriage, abortion and pregnancy complications. 

Wisconsin already heavily regulates how medications for miscarriage are prescribed, including a mandatory in-person dispensing requirement. Those of us who offer this care should not need to feel we must pit our medical expertise against legal jargon when it comes to providing normal, essential care. We need people to be able to trust their health care providers, and we need politicians to stop making laws that pigeonhole physicians into even narrower definitions of care. 

Now that this dangerous bill has been passed in the Senate, it will next head to the Assembly before ultimately landing on Gov. Tony Evers’ desk. In his seven years in office Evers has consistently vetoed anti-abortion legislation, and he has vowed to veto any bill that would limit access to abortion, including SB 553. 

As a physician, it’s devastating to rely on a single individual to preserve my ability to practice safe and necessary health care for countless people and families across the state without political interference. 

There is no other type of health care that is regulated in the unique, stigmatizing, harmful way that abortion care is. Our state politicians need to understand that health care decisions should remain between a patient and their trusted provider. SB 553 ignores that and should not become law. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

As states continue to curb health insurers’ use of artificial intelligence, patients and doctors are arming themselves with AI tools to fight claims denials, prior authorizations and soaring medical bills. (Photo by Anna Claire Vollers/Stateline)

As states strive to curb health insurers’ use of artificial intelligence, patients and doctors are arming themselves with AI tools to fight claims denials, prior authorizations and soaring medical bills.

Several businesses and nonprofits have launched AI-powered tools to help patients get their insurance claims paid and navigate byzantine medical bills, creating a robotic tug-of-war over who gets care and who foots the bill for it.

Sheer Health, a three-year-old company that helps patients and providers navigate health insurance and billing, now has an app that allows consumers to connect their health insurance account, upload medical bills and claims, and ask questions about deductibles, copays and covered benefits.

“You would think there would be some sort of technology that could explain in real English why I’m getting a bill for $1,500,” said cofounder Jeff Witten. The program uses both AI and humans to provide the answers for free, he said. Patients who want extra support in challenging a denied claim or dealing with out-of-network reimbursements can pay Sheer Health to handle those for them.

In North Carolina, the nonprofit Counterforce Health designed an AI assistant to help patients appeal their denied health insurance claims and fight large medical bills. The free service uses AI models to analyze a patient’s denial letter, then look through the patient’s policy and outside medical research to draft a customized appeal letter.

Other consumer-focused services use AI to catch billing errors or parse medical jargon. Some patients are even turning to AI chatbots like Grok for help.

A quarter of adults under age 30 said they used an AI chatbot at least once a month for health information or advice, according to a poll the health care research nonprofit KFF published in August 2024. But most adults said they were not confident that the health information is accurate.

State legislators on both sides of the aisle, meanwhile, are scrambling to keep pace, passing new regulations that govern how insurers, physicians and others use AI in health care. Already this year, more than a dozen states have passed laws regulating AI in health care, according to Manatt, a consulting firm.

“It doesn’t feel like a satisfying outcome to just have two robots argue back and forth over whether a patient should access a particular type of care,” said Carmel Shachar, assistant clinical professor of law and the faculty director of the Health Law and Policy Clinic at Harvard Law School.

“We don’t want to get on an AI-enabled treadmill that just speeds up.”

A black box

Health care can feel like a black box. If your doctor says you need surgery, for example, the cost depends on a dizzying number of factors, including your health insurance provider, your specific health plan, its copayment requirements, your deductible, where you live, the facility where the surgery will be performed, whether that facility and your doctor are in-network and your specific diagnosis.

Some insurers may require prior authorization before a surgery is approved. That can entail extensive medical documentation. After a surgery, the resulting bill can be difficult to parse.

Witten, of Sheer Health, said his company has seen thousands of instances of patients whose doctors recommend a certain procedure, like surgery, and then a few days before the surgery the patient learns insurance didn’t approve it.

In recent years, as more health insurance companies have turned to AI to automate claims processing and prior authorizations, the share of denied claims has risen. This year, 41% of physicians and other providers said their claims are denied more than 10% of the time, up from 30% of providers who said that three years ago, according to a September report from credit reporting company Experian.

Insurers on Affordable Care Act marketplaces denied nearly 1 in 5 in-network claims in 2023, up from 17% in 2021, and more than a third of out-of-network claims, according to the most recently available data from KFF.

Insurance giant UnitedHealth Group has come under fire in the media and from federal lawmakers for using algorithms to systematically deny care to seniors, while Humana and other insurers face lawsuits and regulatory investigations that allege they’ve used sophisticated algorithms to block or deny coverage for medical procedures.

Insurers say AI tools can improve efficiency and reduce costs by automating tasks that can involve analyzing vast amounts of data. And companies say they’re monitoring their AI to identify potential problems. A UnitedHealth representative pointed Stateline to the company’s AI Review Board, a team of clinicians, scientists and other experts that reviews its AI models for accuracy and fairness.

“Health plans are committed to responsibly using artificial intelligence to create a more seamless, real-time customer experience and to make claims management faster and more effective for patients and providers,” a spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans, the national trade group representing health insurers, told Stateline.

But states are stepping up oversight.

Arizona, Maryland, Nebraska and Texas, for example, have banned insurance companies from using AI as the sole decisionmaker in prior authorization or medical necessity denials.

Dr. Arvind Venkat is an emergency room physician in the Pittsburgh area. He’s also a Democratic Pennsylvania state representative and the lead sponsor of a bipartisan bill to regulate the use of AI in health care.

He’s seen new technologies reshape health care during his 25 years in medicine, but AI feels wholly different, he said. It’s an “active player” in people’s care in a way that other technologies haven’t been.

“If we’re able to harness this technology to improve the delivery and efficiency of clinical care, that is a huge win,” said Venkat. But he’s worried about AI use without guardrails.

His legislation would force insurers and health care providers in Pennsylvania to be more transparent about how they use AI; require a human to make the final decision any time AI is used; and mandate that they show evidence of minimizing bias in their use of AI.

“In health care, where it’s so personal and the stakes are so high, we need to make sure we’re mandating in every patient’s case that we’re applying artificial intelligence in a way that looks at the individual patient,” Venkat said.

Patient supervision

Historically, consumers rarely challenge denied claims: A KFF analysis found fewer than 1% of health coverage denials are appealed. And even when they are, patients lose more than half of those appeals.

New consumer-focused AI tools could shift that dynamic by making appeals easier to file and the process easier to understand. But there are limits; without human oversight, experts say, the AI is vulnerable to mistakes.

“It can be difficult for a layperson to understand when AI is doing good work and when it is hallucinating or giving something that isn’t quite accurate,” said Shachar, of Harvard Law School.

For example, an AI tool might draft an appeals letter that a patient thinks looks impressive. But because most patients aren’t medical experts, they may not recognize if the AI misstates medical information, derailing an appeal, she said.

“The challenge is, if the patient is the one driving the process, are they going to be able to properly supervise the AI?” she said.

Earlier this year, Mathew Evins learned just 48 hours before his scheduled back surgery that his insurer wouldn’t cover it. Evins, a 68-year-old public relations executive who lives in Florida, worked with his physician to appeal, but got nowhere. He used an AI chatbot to draft a letter to his insurer, but that failed, too.

On his son’s recommendation, Evins turned to Sheer Health. He said Sheer identified a coding error in his medical records and handled communications with his insurer. The surgery was approved about three weeks later.

“It’s unfortunate that the public health system is so broken that it needs a third party to intervene on the patient’s behalf,” Evins told Stateline. But he’s grateful the technology made it possible to get life-changing surgery.

“AI in and of itself isn’t an answer,” he said. “AI, when used by a professional that understands the issues and ramifications of a particular problem, that’s a different story. Then you’ve got an effective tool.”

Most experts and lawmakers agree a human is needed to keep the robots in check.

AI has made it possible for insurance companies to rapidly assess cases and make decisions about whether to authorize surgeries or cover certain medical care. But that ability to make lightning-fast determinations should be tempered with a human, Venkat said.

“It’s why we need government regulation and why we need to make sure we mandate an individualized assessment with a human decisionmaker.”

Witten said there are situations in which AI works well, such as when it sifts through an insurance policy — which is essentially a contract between the company and the consumer — and connects the dots between the policy’s coverage and a corresponding insurance claim.

But, he said, “there are complicated cases out there AI just can’t resolve.” That’s when a human is needed to review.

“I think there’s a huge opportunity for AI to improve the patient experience and overall provider experience,” Witten said. “Where I worry is when you have insurance companies or other players using AI to completely replace customer support and human interaction.”

Furthermore, a growing body of research has found AI can reinforce bias that’s found elsewhere in medicine, discriminating against women, ethnic and racial minorities, and those with public insurance.

“The conclusions from artificial intelligence can reinforce discriminatory patterns and violate privacy in ways that we have already legislated against,” Venkat said.

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

Federal regulations around mifepristone, which has provided abortion access across the United States, are being challenged in multiple lawsuits from opposing directions. (Getty Images)

Despite its strong safety record, the abortion and miscarriage drug mifepristone has been taken to court in several conflicting lawsuits, where some plaintiffs argue the drug should be easier to access, and others say it should be more restricted. 

The medication, sometimes prescribed through telehealth and sent to patients by mail, has provided abortion access across the United States and become a prime target for abortion opponents. 

A group of ongoing federal lawsuits challenges the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s 2023 decision to maintain special requirements for the abortion pill, with a federal court in Washington upholding the FDA’s decision, a federal court in Hawaii asking the FDA to justify its decision, and a court in Virginia still to rule. Yet another lawsuit, filed Nov. 13 by the American Civil Liberties Union, challenges the FDA under the Freedom of Information Act, alleging the agency has, without giving a reason, refused to disclose the parameters of its mifepristone review and related communications with outside groups. 

For more information and updates on pending mifepristone cases, visit the Mifepristone Litigation and Federal Action Tracker from the Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Heidi Purcell et al. v. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. et al.

• Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii
• Claims: Originally named Chelius v. Wright and filed Oct. 3, 2017, by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a family doctor and several medical associations, this lawsuit challenges the FDA’s mifepristone restrictions as unduly burdensome and arbitrarily restrictive, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
• Stakes: This case could determine whether the FDA can continue requiring special certifications for patients and providers, which plaintiffs argue deter and delay care, and present privacy risks for patients and providers post-Roe. If plaintiffs succeed, mifepristone could become easier to dispense and access throughout the country.
• Status: On Oct. 30, Judge Jill Otake, nominated by Republican President Donald Trump, ruled the FDA did not properly justify its 2023 decision or consider all of the evidence when it decided to maintain current restrictions on mifepristone. She ordered the agency to reconsider its decision. Plaintiffs did not seek to vacate the regulations in its lawsuit, so for now they remain in place pending the outcome of the FDA’s review and response to the court. A joint status report from plaintiffs and defendants on how the case should proceed is due Dec. 4.

Whole Woman’s Health Alliance et al. v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration et al. 

• Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia
• Claims: On May 8, 2023, abortion providers in Virginia, Montana, and Kansas challenged the FDA’s mifepristone rules as unduly burdensome and arbitrarily restrictive, similar to the claims in Purcell v. Kennedy.
• Stakes: If plaintiffs succeed in this case, mifepristone could become easier to dispense and access.
• Status: U.S. District Judge Robert S. Ballou, nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden, heard oral arguments on the motions for summary judgment in May but has not yet issued a decision.

Washington et al. v. FDA et al.

• Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington
• Claims: On Feb. 23, 2023, Washington and initially 11 other states challenged the FDA’s mifepristone regulations as burdensome and unnecessary.
• Stakes: Expanding mifepristone access was on the line in this case.
• Status: Terminated. Judge Thomas O. Rice, nominated by former Democratic President Barack Obama, ruled this summer that the FDA’s review and decision regarding the mifepristone restrictions was reasonable, not arbitrary or capricious.  

American Civil Liberties Union v. FDA

• Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
• Claims: On Nov. 13, 2025, the ACLU sued the FDA arguing it has not complied with the Freedom of Information Act. The nonprofit law firm in August sought  expedited records around the parameters of the FDA’s ongoing review of mifepristone and communications with outside groups. The ACLU alleges the agency has failed to provide a determination regarding the request.
• Stakes: Records released as part of this lawsuit could bring transparency to HHS’ review of the abortion pill.
• Status: The government has not yet filed a brief in response to the lawsuit, which has been assigned to Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Sullivan. 

 

Another group of lawsuits challenge state abortion pill restrictions, arguing that federal law, which allows medication abortions to be prescribed via telehealth and by the mail up to 10 weeks’ gestation, supersedes state laws.

GenBioPro v. Kristina Raynes et al.

• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (on appeal from U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia)
• Claims: In 2023, mifepristone generic manufacturer GenBioPro sued West Virginia after the state criminalized abortion and explicitly banned prescription of mifepristone by telemedicine. The company argued federal law preempts West Virginia law and that Congress authorized only the FDA to impose restrictions on access to mifepristone.
• Stakes: A ruling in plaintiffs’ favor could have made abortion drugs easier to access in a state that has cut off access to pregnancy termination in most circumstances.
• Status: Terminated. District court Judge Robert C. Chambers, nominated by former Democratic President Bill Clinton, found in 2023 that the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act did not preempt West Virginia’s abortion regulation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision in July. 

Amy Bryant v. Timothy Moore et al.

• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (on appeal from U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina)
• Claims: In 2023, North Carolina Dr. Amy Bryant sued her state over medication abortion restrictions, arguing the FDA’s mifepristone policy preempts state restrictions, which require in-person prescribing, dispensing and administering; prohibit providers other than physicians from prescribing mifepristone; mandate the scheduling of an in-person follow-up appointment; and require non-fatal adverse events reported to the FDA.
• Stakes: The case could limit states’ ability to restrict medication abortion.
• Status: Chief Judge Catherine C. Eagles, nominated by Obama, found that some restrictions were preempted by federal law but upheld other state requirements, including mandatory ultrasounds and waiting periods. The case is pending appeal.

Birthmark Doula Collective et al. v. Louisiana et al. 

• Court: Louisiana’s 19th Judicial District Court
• Claims: On Oct. 31, 2024, birth workers, medical professionals and a pregnant woman challenged a Louisiana law that classifies mifepristone and misoprostol as controlled dangerous substances, even though the FDA does not. They argue the classification delays access to these medications during emergencies, risking the health and safety of patients experiencing miscarriages.
• Stakes: Drugs used for emergencies during pregnancy could become easier for providers to access if plaintiffs prevail.
• Status: Pending in state trial court. In May, the court held a hearing on a motion to dismiss and ruled the challenge can proceed.

 

Another group of lawsuits seek to reimpose more restrictions on mifepristone and argue the FDA erred in its decision to allow abortion medication prescribed through telehealth and sent through the mail. Both cases cite anecdotes of women being coerced or drugged by partners to argue in-person visits are in the best interest of abortion patients. 

Missouri et al. v. FDA et al.

• Court: U.S. District Court of Eastern District of Missouri
• Claims: Originally filed Nov. 18, 2022 by a group of anti-abortion doctors and groups that claimed that mifepristone is highly dangerous and the FDA unlawfully loosened restrictions. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the case last summer, determining plaintiffs did not have standing to sue and remanded it to lower courts.
• Stakes: If plaintiffs prevail, the FDA could bar telehealth and mail delivery of medication abortion, which would curtail access throughout the country.
• Status: The lawsuit was resurrected by attorneys general in Idaho, Kansas and Missouri. It was transferred last month from Trump appointee Matthew Kascmaryk’s court in Texas to Trump appointee Cristian Stevens’ court in Missouri. 

Louisiana et al. v. FDA et al.

• Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana Lafayette Division
• Claims: Filed Oct. 6, 2025, the state of Louisiana and resident Rosalie Markezich are suing to vacate the FDA’s 2023 decision to remove the in-person dispensing requirement. Markezich says she was coerced by a former partner to take the abortion pill, which she says he ordered in her name and received by mail.
• Stakes: If plaintiffs prevail, the FDA could bar telehealth and mail delivery for abortion medication, which could curtail access throughout the country.
• Status: The case is pending in district court before Trump appointee Judge David C. Joseph.

Read more about the FDA’s high-stakes abortion pill safety review.

Tomorrow, a look at efforts to both reinforce and crack shield laws across the country.

U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., shown here in September, cited a white paper funded and self-published without peer review by anti-abortion groups as grounds for federal scrutiny of a key abortion medication’s safety. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is facing increasing pressure from abortion opponents and advocates over how it regulates a drug that has become central to abortion access since Roe v. Wade was overturned three years ago.

Abortion medication manufacturers, health care providers and state attorneys general have continued to petition and sue the agency to loosen regulations for mifepristone, a key abortion drug. At the same time, anti-abortion policy leaders have successfully lobbied the Trump administration — on the basis of a self-published white paper funded by anti-abortion groups — to review mifepristone’s safety again and consider reviving old restrictions.

On Thursday, Nov. 13, the American Civil Liberties Union sued the FDA under a federal public records law for refusing to disclose the parameters of its new review, as well as communications with outside groups. 

Abortion opponents have called on the FDA to ban telehealth abortion, which has allowed abortion rates to rise slightly nationally despite state bans. A shift in mifepristone regulation could dramatically change abortion access throughout the country, and health advocates and litigators on both sides of this dispute are closely watching how the agency justifies any changes. 

Abortion-rights advocates have also seized on a recent federal ruling from a Trump-appointed judge, which orders the FDA to justify its 2023 decision to maintain restrictions on the abortion pill and argues the agency excluded from its review, without explanation, a wealth of research and evidence that it previously accepted.

Reproductive health legal experts say the action could prevent the anti-abortion white paper from being the main thing the agency considers before modifying its policy. 

“This is where the debate, both in the courts and the FDA, is taking place, around how it is considering evidence, making sure it is reviewing valid evidence and not junk evidence, and getting really reasoned explanations based in that evidence, as opposed to politics or ideology,” said Diana Kasdan, the legal and policy director for the Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. 

Where reproductive health legal experts say the abortion pill has been over-regulated for a drug with a high safety record, anti-abortion attorneys, like senior counsel Erik Baptist of the Christian-right powerhouse Alliance Defending Freedom, have been arguing that the drug’s risks are exacerbated by its increased availability. The law firm, which was integral to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, is also representing a Louisiana woman in an abortion medication lawsuit against the FDA. 

“The FDA’s actions have created an even more unsafe environment for women,” Baptist said. 
“We expect the Trump administration to zealously appeal this dangerous decision.”

‘It’s the same data set, essentially’

Putting pressure on FDA’s review team are national anti-abortion policy groups like Americans United for Life, one of several groups that criticized the agency for approving a new generic version of mifepristone this fall. The group is part of a coalition that helped produce and, at the end of April, publicize the white paper on mifepristone’s safety, which U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. soon after cited as the basis for ordering a new review of the drug. 

The Ethics and Public Policy Center’s self-published paper analyzed a commercially available data set of all-payer health insurance claims from 2017 through 2023 and found an 11% rate of severe adverse events — 22 times higher than the less than 0.5% rate that’s on the label for mifepristone. Reproductive health researchers have criticized the paper’s broad classification of serious adverse events while noting it also reports low rates of the most serious side effects associated with medication abortion, like sepsis (0.1%), transfusion (0.15%), and hospitalization related to the abortion (0.66%). Meanwhile more than 100 peer-reviewed studies have found low rates of serious adverse effects, including for abortion medication provided through telehealth.

The paper, which has also been cited by lawmakers like U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, did not go through a scientific peer review, and the Ethics and Public Policy Center would not disclose the exact data set used. Spokesperson Hunter Estes previously told States Newsroom the group was not legally permitted to provide the data set but that the paper’s description of it should be enough to replicate the study.  

Americans United for Life CEO John Mize said he hopes to see the paper peer-reviewed in the near future. But he said the coalition has for now achieved its goal of convincing the FDA to look at the same insurance claims data set analyzed by the Ethics and Public Policy Center and then do its own analysis.

“What we’ve been told is the FDA is doing their own internal analysis of the EPPC data,” Mize said. “It’s to be seen what the FDA does with methodology. That’s the important component, because the data is the data. It’s the same data set, essentially.”

HHS did not respond to questions about its ongoing mifepristone review or the federal judge’s recent order to review all of the safety data, instead directing States Newsroom to an Oct. 2 post on X from Kennedy defending both the FDA’s review of mifepristone and its approval of a second generic version. 

“Recent studies already point to serious risks when mifepristone is used without proper medical oversight,” Kennedy posted. “@US_FDA only approved a second generic mifepristone tablet because federal law requires approval when an application proves the generic is identical to the brand-name drug.”

But if the FDA’s review ultimately draws different scientific conclusions than the anti-abortion movement, Mize said his side won’t stop pursuing challenges to the drug. 

“If it comes out that it’s not nearly as dangerous as what EPPC is reporting, and the data appears to be quality and not skewed by politics, then personally, I might take a different perspective,” Mize said. “But I am still fairly confident that a drug that induces abortion at home without clinical oversight is probably something that needs a little bit more scrutiny. … We might continue to fine tune methodology and look at pursuing other avenues of peer review.”

Politicized science 

Anti-abortion policy and legal advocates have been lobbying for tighter restrictions on mifepristone since the drug was first approved in 2000, and especially since the FDA started dropping restrictions, such as allowing the regimen to be used until 10 weeks’ gestation instead of seven in 2016. After Roe v. Wade was overturned, the FDA under President Joe Biden’s administration permanently dropped the in-person dispensing requirement, allowing people to obtain the abortion pill via telehealth and through the mail. 

But the FDA maintained other regulations, as part of the drug’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, such as requiring prescribers, pharmacists and patients to sign forms agreeing to meet certain qualifications and acknowledging the drug’s common side effects, like heavy bleeding and nausea, and potential severe risks, like infection. Abortion providers have argued that some of the rules are unnecessary and burdensome.

Of the more than 20,000 prescription drug products approved by the FDA, less than 100 have REMS, and many of those are injectables with serious side effects like coma and death. In a quarter century, the FDA has reported 36 deaths associated with, but not necessarily caused by, mifepristone.

U.S. District Judge Jill Otake on Oct. 30 ordered the FDA to review all the relevant safety data on mifepristone, ruling that the agency erred years ago when it failed to justify maintaining strict rules on the drug despite a strong safety record after 25 years on the market. One week later, the U.S. Senate Democratic Caucus sent a letter to Kennedy and FDA Commissioner Martin Makary demanding the ongoing mifepristone review be based on science and evidence. 

“That court order reinforces that, in conducting this new review, FDA may not cherry-pick junk science serving an anti-abortion agenda, but must instead look at the full body of evidence both confirming mifepristone’s safety and underscoring the harms of the FDA’s onerous restrictions,” reads the letter obtained by NOTUS. The senators ask HHS to respond by Nov. 28, to questions about the evidence being considered and the methodology.

Anti-abortion research groups also produced new studies for their first legal attempt to reinstate restrictions on mifepristone in a lawsuit filed in 2022. The plaintiffs persuaded a Trump-appointed district court judge to order the FDA to change its policy on the basis of studies funded by the anti-abortion movement that were later retracted by the journal’s publisher because of their methodology. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the case, not on the merits but because plaintiffs did not have proper standing. The high court is expected to consider similar questions again, as at least seven mifepristone-focused lawsuits work their way through the lower courts.

University of Pittsburgh law professor Greer Donley said that to meet the FDA’s policy on approving new drug regulations, the agency will need more than one or two outlier studies as justification. 

“To survive arbitrary and capricious review, they have to provide a reasoned decision that’s based on the facts, and if the facts taken as a whole suggest that this is a safe and effective drug, even though there’s one new paper out there that suggests it’s maybe a little less safe than it was before, they’re going to have to justify why that one paper outweighs the 50 papers on the other side that were published in peer-reviewed journals,” Donley said. “I don’t know how they could explain that.”

Donley has studied mifepristone regulation closely and said she watched the science around the medication become increasingly politicized, much more than other drugs. While controversial medicine, like gender-affirming care, involve drugs with multiple purposes, mifepristone was approved for the explicit purpose of ending a pregnancy. 

The FDA’s medication abortion regimen involves another drug, misoprostol, which was approved to treat ulcers, and is used off-label for abortions and miscarriages. It has not faced the same scrutiny as mifepristone. Abortion providers have said they would likely pivot to a misoprostol-only regimen if mifepristone were to become much harder to access, which it has even for miscarriages in states that have banned abortion entirely, like Kentucky and Louisiana.

Mifepristone manufacturer Danco Laboratories last year confirmed ongoing efforts to add miscarriage management as an approved use to its drug label. Were that to happen, it could be a game changer for access, Greer said.  

“It actually would be a pretty huge deal if they added it,” she said. “Because all of these attacks against mifepristone for abortion, even if they succeed, then mifepristone would theoretically remain on the market for miscarriage care, and then it could be used off-label for abortion.”

Read the latest on legal cases over mifepristone winding their way through the courts. 

Tomorrow, a look at efforts to both reinforce and crack shield laws across the country.

President Donald Trump meets with New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani n the Oval Office on Nov. 21, 2025. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump and New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani turned around their heated criticism in remarks to the press after an Oval Office meeting Friday.

After months of attacking each other, Trump and Mamdani pledged to address the high cost of living for New Yorkers. The White House has tried to steer messaging toward affordability in recent weeks as Trump’s approval ratings on the economy have sunk. 

“Some of his ideas really are the same ideas I have,” Trump said. “You know the new word is affordability. Another word is just groceries. It’s sort of an old-fashioned word, but it’s very accurate. They’re coming down.”

Food prices have risen considerably in recent years. Groceries overall cost 3.1% more than they did a year ago, according to the government’s latest Consumer Price Index.

Mamdani campaigned on lowering the cost of living, including property tax reform, making buses free and floating the idea of city-run grocery stories.

The mayor-elect described the meeting as “a productive meeting focused on a place of shared admiration and love, which is New York City, and the need to deliver affordability to New Yorkers.”

“We spoke about rent, we spoke about groceries, we spoke about utilities, we spoke about the different ways in which people are being pushed out, and I appreciated the time with the president,” Mamdani said.

The pair fielded questions on housing costs, crime, whether either of them would retract their recent barbs and whether Trump would backtrack his threats to cut federal money to New York City.

“Well, I think if we didn’t get along, whether it’s cut off or just make it a little bit difficult, or not give as much, we want to see,” Trump said.

“We had a meeting today that actually surprised me. He wants to see no crime. He wants to see housing being built. He wants to see rents coming down. All things that I agree with. Now, we may disagree how we get there,” Trump added.

In response to a question about GOP Rep. Elise Stefanik, a Trump ally, calling Mamdani a “jihadist” as she eyes the New York gubernatorial seat, Trump said “she’s out there campaigning, and you say things sometimes in a campaign.”

“I met with a man who is a very rational person. I met with a man who wants to see, really wants to see, New York be great again,” Trump continued, adding “I’ll be cheering for him.”

Mamdani will be the city’s first Muslim mayor, as well as the youngest ever elected.

Mamdani sought meeting

Mamdani said he sought the meeting with Trump.

“My team reached out to the White House to set up this meeting because I will work with anyone to make life more affordable for the 8 and a half million people who call this city home,” Mamdani said in a press conference Thursday.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Thursday the meeting “speaks to the fact that President Trump is willing to meet with anyone.”

“It speaks volumes that tomorrow we have a communist coming to the White House.”

Trump and congressional Republicans have repeatedly referred to the 34-year-old Mamdani as a “communist.” Mamdani, who ran on the Democratic ticket, identifies as a Democratic Socialist, an organization that claims roughly 85,000 members nationally. The ideology as a movement received a boost after the 2016 presidential run of U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who represents Vermont and caucuses with Democrats.

Mamdani beat out former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo this month by a 50.4% to 41% margin, according to the New York Times election coverage. Republican candidate Curtis Sliwa took just over 7% of the vote. Cuomo, who ran as an independent, resigned from office in 2021 after multiple women accused him of sexual harassment.

Trump endorsed Cuomo, seemingly reluctantly, on the eve of the election, in a post on his social media platform Truth Social.

“Whether you personally like Andrew Cuomo or not, you really have no choice,” he wrote. “You must vote for him, and hope he does a fantastic job. He is capable of it, Mamdani is not!”

Threat to pull funding

As Mamdani’s campaign gained momentum, Trump threatened to cut off billions in federal funding to New York City, Trump’s own home city.

Trump repeated the threat on election eve, writing on Truth Social that if Mamdani won, New York City would be a “total economic and social disaster” and that NYC should not expect any federal dollars “other than the very minimum as required.”

In Mamdani’s victory speech, he referred to Trump as a “despot.”

In July, Trump threatened to arrest Mamdani if the incoming mayor does not comply with the administration’s mass deportation campaign, including sending an influx of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to New York City.