Getty Images

As an oncologist, I can’t forget some of my patients’ stories. One of those belongs to a mother of two I diagnosed at age 35 with non-small cell lung cancer. She was a physician and a long-distance runner who had never smoked a day in her life. She died of metastatic lung cancer about two years after her diagnosis. 

Sadly, her story echoed that of another one of my patients, a 32-year-old emergency room nurse who never smoked and raised two teenage daughters. She was divorced and spent her days in my care desperately worried about what would happen to her daughters after she passed. Both women were medically considered “lucky” to survive long enough to see their children graduate high school, but they should have had decades left with their kids.

I will never know exactly what caused the lung cancer in these two particular women, but the number of people being diagnosed who have never smoked is rising, particularly in young women. And these diagnoses are deadly. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in America, responsible for about 125,000 deaths each year. Even with new, cutting-edge treatments, the five-year survival rate of patients with metastatic lung disease is only 6%.

Why do I mention these dismal statistics? Because after witnessing too many tragic deaths, I feel a deep responsibility to educate my community and policymakers about what contributes to lung cancer. And all too often, fossil fuel pollution is not on their minds, even though reducing that pollution is one of the strongest actions we could take to prevent future kids from growing up without their moms. 

Air pollution is a Class 1 carcinogen, as rated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The word carcinogen means “cancer causing,” and air pollution is responsible for about 14% of all lung cancer deaths. It can cause lung cancer even in people who have never smoked and can significantly affect the prognosis and treatment of other cancer patients.

One of those key pollutants is fine particulate matter, also called PM 2.5. That means the particles are 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter or 20 times smaller than the width of a human hair. These microscopic particles primarily come from the burning of fossil fuels. 

That’s why I am deeply concerned that several Wisconsin utilities, including We Energies, WPS, Alliant Energy, and Madison Gas and Electric, recently delayed their plans to retire coal and are proposing new methane gas plants in Wisconsin. In the next few months alone, the Public Service Commission will determine the fate of $2 billion in new gas infrastructure proposals.

Switching from coal to gas is like seeing one of my patients switch from smoking to vaping. Billions have been spent to market vaping as a better, cleaner alternative. A ploy that is not only blatantly false when it comes to the heart health impacts, with vaping causing an outbreak of cardiovascular injuries, but it has dangerously hooked a new youth generation of smokers. 

Similarly, billions have been spent to market natural gas as safe. But make no mistake, just like coal pollution, gas plants kill people by emitting PM2.5 and a mix of other hazardous pollutants that are inhaled through the lungs. From there, those toxicants can enter the bloodstream, heart, brain, and even the placenta. Akin to hooking a new generation of smokers, building new and expensive gas plants locks us into decades of fossil fuel dependence. We can’t afford that when 99% of scientists agree that we must take rapid action to decrease fossil fuels to maintain a liveable climate. Meanwhile, our neighboring states investing in wind, solar and energy efficiency prove that a better way forward is possible and that path saves lives and creates jobs.

As I think back to my two patients who died too young from lung cancer, it’s clear that we must do more. We must reduce air pollution and address climate change by decreasing fossil fuels. We can’t let Wisconsin get left behind. We need to ensure that new gas plants, such as the Oak Creek Gas Plant and Paris Plant, are not built in Wisconsin. We must come together to prevent more needless deaths from lung cancer.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Donald Trump's nominee for secretary of Health and Human Services, testifies during his Senate Finance Committee confirmation hearing at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Jan. 29, 2025, in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s alternating views on vaccines, reproductive rights and public health issues were a central focus at his first confirmation hearing Wednesday, with Democratic senators expressing dismay at his nomination and Republicans signaling he’ll likely have their support.

Kennedy pledged to bring “radical transparency” to the Department of Health and Human Services if confirmed by the U.S. Senate, though he didn’t detail his plans for large-scale health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid during the nearly four-hour hearing.  

Kennedy repeatedly testified before the Finance Committee that he wants to reduce chronic illnesses throughout the country and let scientific research lead the way.

But Democratic senators were skeptical he would improve the country’s overall health outcomes if confirmed as HHS secretary, listing off several of his past claims not backed by research or medicine. 

“For a long time the nation has been locked in a divisive health care debate about who pays. When health care costs reach 20%, there are no good options, only bad ones,” Kennedy said. “Shifting the burden around between government and corporations and insurers and providers and families is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.”

Kennedy said that if confirmed he would try to ensure federal spending on nutrition programs goes to “healthy foods” and bolster scrutiny of “chemical additives in our food supply.”

“We will remove financial conflicts of interest from our agencies. We will create an honest, unbiased, gold standard science at HHS, accountable to the president, to Congress and to the American people,” Kennedy added. “We will reverse the chronic disease epidemic and put the nation back on the road to good health.”

Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders questioned how senators or Americans could trust what Kennedy said during the hearing, given his rapid change in opinion on vaccine safety and the government’s role in abortion access, compared to comments made just last year.

“Tell me why you think people should have confidence in your consistency and in your work, when you really made a major U-turn on an issue of that importance in such a short time?” Sanders said.

‘Conspiracy theories, quacks, charlatans’

Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, rebuked Kennedy for some of his prior comments on vaccine safety, saying he “embraced conspiracy theories, quacks, charlatans.”

“Mr. Kennedy has changed his views so often, it is nearly impossible to know where he stands on so many of the basic issues that impact Americans’ daily lives,” Wyden said.

Kennedy testified at several points during the hearing that he supports certain vaccines, including measles and polio, and science-backed research into medical treatments.

“I support vaccines. I support the childhood schedule. I will do that,” Kennedy said. “The only thing I want is good science and that’s it.”

New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan said Americans should be proud that vaccines have largely eradicated deadly diseases within the United States, including polio and smallpox.

“I am extremely concerned that as secretary, you would be able to halt critical vaccine research and to exploit parents’ natural worries by advising them not to vaccinate their children,” Hassan said. “This will lead to more children getting sick and some will even die.

“Before the measles vaccine about 500 American children died a year from measles. This is too much of a risk for our country and there is no reason that any of us should believe that you have reversed the anti-vaccine views that you have promoted for 25 years.”

Abortion pill

Kennedy, who made several different statements about abortion access during his unsuccessful run for president, pledged during the hearing to implement President Donald Trump’s agenda on reproductive rights, whatever that might be.

Anti-abortion groups are advocating for the Trump administration to restrict access to medication abortion, a two-drug regimen consisting of mifepristone and misoprostol that’s approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration up to 10 weeks gestation. The FDA is housed within HHS.

“President Trump has asked me to study the safety of mifepristone,” Kennedy said. “He has not yet taken a stand on how to regulate it. Whatever he does, I will implement those policies. I will work with this committee to make those policies make sense.”

The FDA originally approved mifepristone in 2000 and made several changes to prescribing guidelines in 2016.

Those changes included increasing the gestational limit from seven to 10 weeks and making dosage and timing changes for both pharmaceuticals. The updated guidelines allowed qualified health care providers with the ability to prescribe medications to do so with mifepristone, not just doctors. And the requirement for three in-person doctor’s office visits was removed.

Numerous medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Association and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine filed briefs to the Supreme Court last year attesting to the safety and efficacy of mifepristone in a case that ultimately left access to medication abortion intact.

Kennedy also said during the hearing that he supports Trump’s policies on the Title X family planning grants program, including blocking federal funding from going to any organizations that perform or refer patients for abortions.

Federal law prevents taxpayer dollars from going to abortions, with exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the pregnant patient.

Emergency medical treatment

Kennedy didn’t appear familiar with a federal law that ensures patients access to emergency health care regardless of insurance status.

The law, known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, was a point of strong disagreement between Republican-controlled states and the Biden administration after the Supreme Court ended the constitutional right to abortion in 2022. 

It is the subject of an ongoing case that made its way up to the Supreme Court before being sent back to the circuit court, which heard arguments in December.

Nevada Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto asked Kennedy a series of questions about protections under EMTALA during the hearing, starting with whether a woman experiencing a heart attack should receive care under that federal law regardless of her insurance status.

Kennedy said yes. But he said he didn’t know if the law would protect a woman experiencing life-threatening bleeding from an incomplete miscarriage whose doctor said she needed an abortion.

Kennedy struggled to answer another question from Cortez Masto about what authorities HHS has to enforce EMTALA at hospitals that receive Medicare funding, saying he thought he had budget power but nothing else.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, she said, “actually investigates complaints of EMTALA violations, as well as the Health and Human Services inspector general, who, by the way, was just recently fired by Donald Trump.”

“So you will be enforcing EMTALA laws, and it’s important that you understand their impact and don’t play politics with the patient presenting at the ER based on a position that this administration has taken,” Cortez Masto said.

Cassidy questions on Medicaid

Kennedy similarly struggled to answer questions from Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy on Medicare and Medicaid, in an exchange that could lead to significant hurdles for his confirmation if Cassidy does not support him.

Cassidy — a doctor and chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which holds its confirmation hearing for Kennedy on Thursday — repeatedly asked Kennedy how he’d improve Medicaid.

Kennedy listed off his criticisms of the program, before he said states should experiment with pilot programs and that the goals should be value-based care, transparency and accountability.

Kennedy said there were also many options through telemedicine and artificial intelligence before talking about AI nurses.

Kennedy, when asked by Cassidy about people who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid, said he thinks the answer to that is “that the programs are consolidated, that they’re integrated, and the care is integrated.”

But Kennedy, when pressed on how he would handle that, didn’t have an answer. He also got basic facts about Medicaid, including that costs are shared between the federal and state governments, incorrect.

“I’m not exactly sure, because I’m not in there,” Kennedy said. “I mean, it is difficult to integrate them, because Medicare is under fee-for-service and is paid for by employer taxes. Medicaid is fully paid for by the federal government, and it’s not fee-for-service. So I do not know the answer to that. I look forward to exploring options with you.”

Kennedy said in response to a question from Cassidy about the differences between traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage that people have the choice “right now,” though he said he expects more people would like to be on Medicare Advantage if it wasn’t for the more expensive price.

COVID-19 claims

Another, potentially damaging exchange for Kennedy’s confirmation prospects, came when Colorado Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet asked a series of questions about previous statements Kennedy has made on various public health issues.

“Mr. Kennedy, did you say that COVID-19 was a genetically engineered bioweapon that targets Black and white people, but spared Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people?” Bennet asked.

Kennedy responded that he “didn’t say it was deliberately targeted.”

Kennedy said he “probably” had made comments that Lyme disease was a military engineered bioweapon.

Kennedy said he wasn’t sure if he had written in one of his books that it is “undeniable that African AIDS is an entirely different disease from Western AIDS,” following a question from Bennet.

Kennedy, however, denied making statements that pesticides cause children to become transgender.

Bennet said he would have those prior Kennedy statements entered into the committee’s official record. 

Howard Lutnick, President Donald Trump's nominee for Commerce secretary, during his Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation confirmation hearing in the Russell Senate Office Building on Jan. 29, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Billionaire businessman Howard Lutnick got a step closer to potentially serving as the next Commerce secretary after largely sailing through his confirmation hearing Wednesday before a U.S. Senate panel.

If confirmed by the Senate, which appears likely, Lutnick would lead the department responsible for promoting and serving the country’s international trade and economic growth. He would be critical to carrying out President Donald Trump’s vision for imposing big tariffs.

“We need healthy businesses — small, medium and large — to hire our great American workers to drive our economy,” Lutnick told the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

The New Yorker said he would dedicate himself to “making our government more responsive, working to ensure Americans have the greatest opportunity for success.”

During the lengthy hearing that featured questions from senators on both sides of the aisle regarding artificial intelligence, trade policy, manufacturing and export controls, Lutnick said he believes that the country’s farmers, ranchers and fishermen are “treated with disrespect around the world.”

‘Across the board’ tariffs

Lutnick, who prefers “across the board” tariffs, said “we need that disrespect to end, and I think tariffs are a way to create reciprocity, to be treated fairly, to be treated appropriately, and I think it will help our farmers, our ranchers, our fishermen — to flourish.”

The Commerce Department’s wide portfolio also touches on technology, science and innovation.

Some of the department’s 13 bureaus include the International Trade Administration, the U.S. Census Bureau, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

The department is also responsible for carrying out the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act, which authorizes billions of dollars in funding for the production and research of semiconductors in the United States.

Lutnick said he thinks the CHIPS and Science Act was an “excellent down payment” in U.S. semiconductor manufacturing and noted that “we need to study it.”

Lutnick also said he has a “very jaundiced view” regarding China. “I think they only care about themselves and seek to harm us, and so we need to protect ourselves — we need to drive our innovation — and we need to stop helping them.”

Vice President J.D. Vance praised Lutnick during an introduction of the nominee, dubbing him “just a good dude.” 

Vance, who served on the commerce panel while a U.S. senator representing Ohio, said Lutnick “is a person who on the world stage will say more and do more and convince businesses that America is back — that America is growing and thriving.”

Trump is promoting an “America First Trade Policy” and issued a memo last week that called for the Treasury secretary, in consultation with the Commerce and Homeland Security secretaries, to consider the establishment of an External Revenue Service.

The agency would “collect tariffs, duties, and other foreign trade-related revenues,” according to the memo. 

Trump also directed the Commerce secretary to “investigate the causes of our country’s large and persistent annual trade deficits in goods.”

Potential conflicts of interest

Lutnick, who’s taken heat over his business ties and potential conflicts of interest, vowed to sell all his business interests within 90 days, if confirmed.

“I made the decision that I made enough money in my life,” Lutnick said. “I can take care of myself, I can take care of my family. It is now my chance to serve the American people.”

He currently has or previously had a position in more than 800 organizations and businesses outside the government, according to his financial disclosure report.

Lutnick is the chairman and chief operating officer of Cantor Fitzgerald, a large financial services firm. He rebuilt the company after more than 650 employees, including his brother, died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

He also established a multimillion-dollar fund for the families of the victims.  

Surrounded by members of Congress and the family of Laken Riley, President Donald Trump signs the Laken Riley Act, the first piece of legislation passed during his second term in office, in the East Room of the White House on Jan. 29, 2025, in Washington, D.C.  U.S. Rep. Mike Collins, a Georgia Republican who represents the district where Riley was killed, is at far left.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump Wednesday signed into law the first bill of his second term, a measure that would require immigration officials to detain immigrants arrested or charged with property crimes, among others, and give broad legal authority to state attorneys general to challenge federal immigration law.

“Today’s signings bring us one step closer to eradicating the scourge of migrant crime in our communities once and for all,” Trump said.

Immigration advocates and attorneys have warned the bill would help fuel Trump’s promise to enact mass deportations by requiring the detainment of immigrants charged with property crime. ICE has funding for roughly 41,000 detention beds.

During the ceremony, Trump said that he will also sign a directive Wednesday to instruct the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security to prepare for a migrant detention center in Guantanamo Bay to hold up to 30,000 beds.

“We have 30,000 beds in Guantanamo to detain the worst criminal illegal aliens threatening the American people,” Trump said. “Some of them are so bad we don’t even trust the countries to hold them, because we don’t want them coming back, so we’re going to send them out to Guantanamo. That’s a tough… place to get out of.”

From 1994 to 1996, the U.S. government used Guantanamo Bay to detain more than 30,000 Cubans fleeing due to political instability and economic downturn. In 2002, former President George W. Bush used the site to hold terrorism suspects who could be detained and interrogated without restraint following the Sept. 11 attacks.

DHS did not respond to States Newsroom’s questions about a new detention center in Guantanamo Bay. The facility has typically been used to detain asylum seekers on the way to the United States, rather than to move people already in the country to the naval base.

Trump’s border czar Tom Homan told reporters that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement would run the naval base.

“We’re just going to expand upon the existing migrant center,” Homan said.

Laken Riley Act signed

The bill Trump signed is named after a 22-year-old Georgia nursing student, Laken Riley, who was murdered by a man immigration officials say was in the country without authorization and was previously charged with shoplifting.

“We will keep Laken’s memory alive in our hearts forever, everyone’s hearts with today’s action,” Trump said. “Her name will also live forever in the laws of our country and this is a very important law.”

Riley’s mother, Allyson Phillips, was also at the signing and thanked Trump for the bill.

“There’s no amount of change that will ever bring back our precious Laken,” she said. “Our hope moving forward is that her life saves lives.”

Trump criticized the Biden administration’s immigration policy and blamed it for Riley’s death.

“Under the cruel policies of the last administration, instead of being deported as he should have been, he was released into the United States, as were millions of other people, many of them very dangerous people, and you see what we’re doing, we’re getting (them) the hell out of here,” Trump said.

Senate Republicans also expanded the mandatory detention requirements originally for property crime, like shoplifting or burglary, to include the assault of a law enforcement officer and bodily harm to another person.

Trump praised Alabama GOP Sen. Katie Britt for shepherding the bill in the upper chamber.

He also called on Congress to provide his administration with funding to carry out deportations.

“We need Congress to provide full funding for the complete and total restoration of our sovereign borders, as well as financial support to remove record numbers of illegal aliens,” Trump said.

ICE has estimated the cost of enforcing the Laken Riley Act would be $26.9 billion in its first year, according to NPR. The budget for ICE for fiscal year 2024 is about $9 billion.

Due process criticism

The bill gained bipartisan support, despite concerns from immigration advocates and attorneys who warned the measure would scuttle due process rights for immigrants, and give state attorneys general the authority to question the bond decision of immigration judges.

Additionally, there is no carve-out for immigrant children in the bill, meaning they could be detained and not released on bond. Immigration attorneys have argued that while the bill aims to target people in the country without proper authorization, it would ensnare some immigrants with legal statuses that are discretionary such as humanitarian parole and even Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients, colloquially called Dreamers.

The Trump administration last week, gave immigration officials the authority to cancel humanitarian parole — a discretionary status —  for immigrants who arrived in the U.S. within the last two years. That would include the roughly 1.5 million immigrants the Biden administration allowed into the U.S. through various legal pathways.

And legal advocates this week said they were barred from providing legal services in detention centers and had their Justice Department funding cut that provided assistance to immigrants navigating immigration court proceedings.

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem on Tuesday also revoked an extension for temporary protections for about 600,000 Venezuelans.

Trump praised Noem for her work so far. Earlier this week, Noem was in New York City earlier accompanying ICE on raids.

“I know it’s probably not complimentary, because she is a woman, but she is tough,” Trump said of Noem.  

President Donald Trump signs executive orders in the Oval Office of the White House on Jan. 20, 2025, in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s latest actions included an offer to buy out a large swath of the federal workforce, and an order narrowing medical options for transgender children, and some transgender adults.

Millions of government employees received an email Tuesday evening instructing them to reply with the word “resign” by Feb. 6 for a “dignified, fair departure” that promises full pay and benefits through September 2025, with the option of continuing to work from home.

The offer was not extended to military personnel, U.S. Postal Service workers, or “those in positions related to immigration enforcement and national security,” and other “specifically excluded” jobs.

According to a copy of the email reviewed by States Newsroom, those who choose to remain as part of the “reformed federal workforce” will be expected to return to the office in person five days a week and be “reliable, loyal, trustworthy” employees.

Workers who break the law or engage in “other misconduct will be prioritized for appropriate investigation and discipline, including termination,” according to the email.

The unsigned memo also warns that while some federal agencies and military branches may grow, the administration expects others to shrink.

“At this time we cannot give you full assurance regarding the certainty of your position or agency but should your position be eliminated you will be treated with dignity and will be afforded the protections in place for such positions,” according to the email, which was sent from hr@opm.gov.

Union warns against ‘hasty decision’

The offer drew criticism, including from Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, who said on the Senate floor Wednesday that Trump “has no authority to make that offer.”

The American Federation of Government Employees, a union that represents 800,000 federal and D.C. employees, advised its members in a social media post to “NOT to make a hasty decision to resign until you have further details.”

A statement from the union’s national president, Everett Kelley, said the “purging” of government workers will have “vast, unintended consequences that will cause chaos for the Americans who depend on a functioning federal government.”

“This offer should not be viewed as voluntary. Between the flurry of anti-worker executive orders and policies, it is clear that the Trump administration’s goal is to turn the federal government into a toxic environment where workers cannot stay even if they want to,” Kelley said.

The federal government employs around 3 million people, making it the 15th-largest employer in the country, according to USAFacts.org.

Blocking funds for trans care for kids

Adding to a cascade of executive orders signed during his first nine days in office, Trump issued a directive late Tuesday that aims to limit treatment options for transgender children and adults under the age of 19.

The dictate is the latest in a string of orders by Trump to govern gender from the Oval Office.

On Monday, Trump banned openly transgender people from serving in the armed forces. On the night of his inauguration, the president declared the federal government will only recognize two sexes, male and female, ending “gender ideology extremism.”

According to Trump’s latest gender-related order, the government will “not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called ‘transition’ of a child from one sex to another, and it will rigorously enforce all laws that prohibit or limit these destructive and life-altering procedures.”

The order defines a “child” as being under age 19, although most states recognize 18 as the legal age of adulthood.

Under the directive, heads of federal health agencies must pull research and educational grants from any medical schools or hospitals that continue to offer hormone treatments, often called puberty blockers, or gender transition surgery to patients under 19 years old.

Additionally, the order directs the U.S. attorney general — who will likely be former Florida AG Pam Bondi — to work with Congress on legislation that would “enact a private right of action for children and the parents of children whose healthy body parts have been damaged by medical professionals” who prescribed hormone treatments or transition surgery. The legislation should “include a lengthy statute of limitations,” the order states.

DOJ instructions

The decree also instructs the Department of Justice to “prioritize” investigating cases of female genital mutilation, prosecutable under a federal law meant to protect girls in the United States from the religious or cultural custom of removing portions or all of the genitalia.

Trump’s order ensures that neither Medicare nor Medicaid can cover hormone therapy and certain surgical procedures for recipients under 19, and that insurance benefits offered to federal employees also do not offer coverage for those under 19 receiving the specified treatments.

The directive also mentions a ban on such health coverage for the trans children of U.S. service members, but that prohibition was already made explicit in Congress’ most recent annual defense authorization package.

The executive order titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation” gives the next secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services three months to publish a review of “best practices for promoting the health of children who assert gender dysphoria, rapid-onset gender dysphoria, or other identity-based confusion” — but specifically labels any guidance from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health as “junk science.”

Trump has nominated Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. as the nation’s next health secretary.

Then-President Joe Biden visited Milwaukee in October 2024 to announced a new rule requiring the replacement of all lead water pipes in the U.S. by 2037. On Wednesday, Attorney General Josh Kaul announced Wisconsin is joining nine other states and D.C. to defend the rule. (Oct. 8, 2024 screenshot/White House livestream)

Wisconsin has joined with nine other states and the District of Columbia to defend the federal lead and copper water rule that took effect Dec. 30, tightening standards for lead exposure and requiring water systems across the county to replace lead pipes by 2037.

The new rule, which then-President Joe Biden announced in Milwaukee in October, has been challenged by the American Water Works Association, a trade group for water and wastewater utilities.

The Wisconsin Department of Justice announced Wednesday the state was joining the legal effort to intervene in the lawsuit in support of the rule. Other states in the coalition are California, New York, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey and North Carolina, along with D.C.

“Reducing lead in our drinking water shouldn’t be controversial,” Attorney General Josh Kaul said. “This common-sense rule that helps protect people’s health should remain in place.”

Lead exposure has been identified as a health hazard, especially for children, and has been linked to premature birth, damage during brain development and learning disabilities, delayed physical development in children and cardiovascular and kidney problems in adults. No amount of lead in drinking water is safe, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

On Tuesday, Gov. Tony Evers approved an emergency rule from the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS) to lower the threshold for lead poisoning to 3.5 micrograms per deciliter. The change makes more children and families eligible for intervention to diagnose and treat lead poisoning.

Evers has announced plans to seek a $6.2 million increase for local health departments, some of that to address lead poisoning, in the 2025-27 state budget that he will release in February.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem speaks during her confirmation hearing before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Capitol Hill on Jan. 17, 2025, in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Eric Thayer/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Homeland Security late Tuesday revoked an extension of temporary protective status for nearly 600,000 Venezuelans, according to an unpublished Federal Register document obtained by States Newsroom.

The New York Times first reported on the decision.

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, whom the U.S. Senate confirmed to lead the agency on Saturday, canceled the 18-month protections of temporary protected status. A country under TPS is deemed too dangerous to return to due to war, disaster or other unstable conditions.

It means more than 600,000 Venezuelans, who had TPS status renewed until October 2026, due to a last-minute action by former President Joe Biden, will have that extension undone. It comes as President Donald Trump has directed his administration to carry out highly publicized immigration enforcement actions in cities across the United States.

The president has said his administration will conduct mass deportations of undocumented people as well as immigrants let into the country under various legal pathways crafted under the Biden administration, including the TPS extension for Venezuelans.

The decision to revoke the renewal is effective immediately, according to the document. 

Because of the instability of the Venezuelan government, those nationals have fled to the U.S. in recent years, with TPS designation in 2021 and an expanded redesignation in 2023, creating two separate filing processes for people from the same country.

Venezuelans who had TPS status in 2023 will have protections until April 2, and Noem will have until Saturday to make a decision to extend protections, according to the document.

Those nationals from Venezuela who had TPS status in 2021 will have protections until Sept. 10, and Noem will have until July 12 to make a decision about renewing the designation, according to the document.

In the document, Noem argued that former DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas made his decision to renew TPS for Venezuela too early as her reasoning for revoking the extension.

The move is likely to face legal challenges. During the first Trump administration, DHS tried to end TPS for Haiti, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Sudan, but the courts blocked those attempts in 2018.

In a statement, Nevada’s Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto argued that DHS did not have the legal authority to revoke the TPS extension for Venezuela.

“The Trump administration does not have the authority to revoke this TPS extension – it’s cruel, misinformed, and illegal,” she said. 

Noem noted in her confirmation hearing that she disagreed with the Biden administration’s decision to renew TPS recipients from Venezuela. She criticized the TPS program, and said those countries should have their designation reevaluated.

“This program has been abused and manipulated by the Biden administration, and that will no longer be allowed,” Noem said during her confirmation hearing.

There are currently 17 countries under TPS status – Afghanistan, Burma, Cameroon, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Haiti, Honduras, Lebanon, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela and Yemen. 

Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee during her confirmation hearing for U.S. attorney general in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on Jan. 15, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Former Florida Attorney General Pamela Jo Bondi is one step closer to leading the U.S. Department of Justice after senators on Wednesday advanced her nomination.

Lawmakers on the Senate Committee on the Judiciary voted along party lines, 12-10, to send Bondi’s nomination to the full Senate. A final vote for President Donald Trump’s pick for U.S. attorney general has not yet been scheduled.

Committee Chair Chuck Grassley of Iowa spoke ahead of the vote to address “some of the attacks against Ms. Bondi,” including her responses to Democratic committee member questions asking her to affirmatively state that Trump lost the 2020 presidential election.

“Several members of this committee characterized Ms. Bondi as an election denier. This is inconsistent with her own statements because on multiple occasions during her hearing Ms. Bondi stated that Biden was the president, and that she, quote unquote, ‘accepted the results,’” Grassley said.

Grassley also slammed Democrats’ criticism that Bondi’s loyalty to Trump is “somehow disqualifying.”

“The president has the right to choose an attorney general who is loyal and will faithfully carry out the vision for America that this president ran on,” Grassley said.

The committee’s top Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, said Trump’s recent Justice Department firings only amplify concerns.

“As I said during Ms. Bondi’s hearing, it is absolutely critical that any nominee for the position be committed, first and foremost, to the Constitution and the American people, not the president and his political agenda. Unfortunately, I’m unconvinced that Ms. Bondi shares my belief,” Durbin said.

Jan. 6 pardons

Senators questioned Bondi for nearly five hours on Jan. 15, ahead of Trump’s inauguration and his whirlwind of executive orders that included granting clemency to all Jan. 6 defendants.

The career prosecutor faced questions about how she would advise Trump on pardoning violent offenders who attacked law enforcement while breaking into the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

“I’m not going to speak for the president, but the president does not like people that abuse police officers either,” Bondi told Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina when he questioned her about the expected pardons.

Graham later spoke out against Trump’s clemency for violent Capitol rioters.

Trump retribution

Democrats also pressed Bondi during her hearing on whether she would refuse a request from Trump to dole out political retribution against his political enemies.

In early December the president-elect told NBC News’ “Meet the Press with Kristen Welker” that Mississippi Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson and former top-ranking Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming “should go to jail.” Thompson chaired and Cheney co-chaired the U.S. House select committee to investigate the Jan. 6 attack.

Biden granted all members of the Jan. 6 committee a preemptive pardon hours before he left the White House.

Grassley said Wednesday before voting on Bondi that “there’s no reason to think that she would not follow the law.”

Bondi was a vocal supporter of Trump’s false claims that he had won the 2020 presidential election in Pennsylvania. She also advised Trump during his first impeachment trial in 2019.

Bondi served as the top law enforcement officer in Florida from 2011 to 2019 and as a prosecutor in Hillsborough County for 18 years.

Bondi, an experienced law practitioner, was not Trump’s first choice to lead the Justice Department. Rather, the president initially chose Matt Gaetz, the former Florida congressman accused of sex with a minor. Gaetz resigned from the U.S. House hours after Trump selected him and withdrew his name from the AG running a week later.

President Donald Trump attends inauguration ceremonies in the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 20, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A second federal judge appears ready to issue an order blocking the Trump administration from freezing funding on grant and loan programs, despite a move by the Office of Management and Budget to rescind a controversial memo Wednesday just before the hearing.

Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of the U.S. District Court in Rhode Island opted not to issue his ruling during the virtual hearing, saying that he first wanted the Democratic attorneys general who filed the suit to suggest how such an order might be worded. He then wants to hear from the Justice Department lawyer arguing the case on behalf of the Trump administration about the scope of that possible order.

McConnell, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, said the state attorneys general had convinced him that the Trump administration was likely to continue with the funding halt detailed in the now-revoked OMB memo in some way, based on a social media post from White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt.

“That hasn’t changed based on comments by the president’s press secretary,” McConnell said. “And so I’m inclined to grant the restraining order, though I’m struggling with how it would be worded and what effect it would have.”

A ruling from McConnell would be the second order blocking the Trump administration from implementing a spending pause on certain grant and loan programs.

District Judge Loren L. AliKhan on Tuesday issued a short-term administrative stay preventing President Donald Trump’s administration from starting the spending freeze. She then set a hearing in that case, brought by organizations that receive federal funding, for Feb. 3.

The original memo, released Monday evening by the Office of Management and Budget, led to widespread confusion and frustration among organizations like Meals on Wheels and grantees that rely on funding from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, as well as members of Congress from both political parties.

Memo rescinded

The Trump administration’s Office of Management and Budget rescinded that memo Wednesday, though comments from Leavitt just afterward led to even more confusion just before the hearing began. 

Leavitt wrote in a social media post that OMB rescinding the memo was “NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze.”

“It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo,” Leavitt wrote. “Why? To end any confusion created by the court’s injunction.”

“The President’s EO’s on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented,” she added.

Separately, Leavitt issued a written statement to reporters that seemed to suggest rescinding the OMB funding freeze memo was meant to get around AliKhan’s order.

“In light of the injunction, OMB has rescinded the memo to end any confusion on federal policy created by the court ruling and the dishonest media coverage,” Leavitt wrote in a statement. “The Executive Orders issued by the President on funding reviews remain in full force and effect and will be rigorously implemented by all agencies and departments. This action should effectively end the court case and allow the government to focus on enforcing the President’s orders on controlling federal spending. In the coming weeks and months, more executive action will continue to end the egregious waste of federal funding.”

Appropriators praise withdrawal of memo

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, welcomed OMB’s action before Leavitt’s post and the hearing.

“I am pleased that OMB is rescinding the memo imposing sweeping pauses in federal programs,” Collins wrote in a statement. “While it is not unusual for incoming administrations to review federal programs and policies, this memo was overreaching and created unnecessary confusion and consternation.”

Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash., released a statement that the Trump administration reversal was the right decision. That was also before Leavitt weighed in.

“This is an important victory for the American people whose voices were heard after massive pressure from every corner of this country — real people made a difference by speaking out,” Murray wrote. “Still, the Trump administration — through a combination of sheer incompetence, cruel intentions, and a willful disregard of the law — caused real harm and chaos for millions over the span of the last 48 hours which is still ongoing.”

White House assurances

OMB’s decision to rescind the memo Wednesday followed the White House making public assurances Tuesday that the spending freeze wouldn’t impact Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and direct food assistance programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

Two separate lawsuits seeking to block the OMB memo from taking effect on Tuesday evening at 5 p.m. were filed in federal district court.

The lawsuit filed by the National Council of Nonprofits, American Public Health Association and Main Street Alliance led to federal District Court Judge AliKhan placing a temporary hold on the planned spending freeze until Feb. 3 at 5 p.m.

The second lawsuit, heard Wednesday, was filed by Democratic attorneys general from New York, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.

U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany speaks to voters on Jan. 27 at a listening session on the campus of UW-Eau Claire Barron County. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

RICE LAKE — On Monday, as a barrage of executive orders and policy changes from the new Donald Trump administration made headlines, U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany criss-crossed his district holding listening sessions with constituents. Despite the sea change in Washington, many residents were focused on local issues outside the frenzy of attention, even as the White House took aim at programs the voters in this deep red part of the state said they rely on. 

At Tiffany’s event in Rice Lake, held on UW-Eau Claire’s Barron County campus, the discussion touched on energy, government health care, COVID-19 interventions and Division III college hockey. 

Dale Seidlitz complained to Tiffany that he and his brother-in-law were struggling with the disability compensation programs offered by the Department of Veterans Affairs and how payment amounts are calculated. 

Seidlitz said he was a helicopter pilot for the Marines and did stints flying Marine One for Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. He said that he has a lingering hand injury, hearing loss and issues related to exposure to toxic chemicals at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, but the VA won’t provide the full amount of compensation he’s qualified for. 

“It’s this wonky math that they do for compensation that really needs to be overhauled,” Seidlitz said. “It’s not just about me, it’s about all veterans at the VA.” 

Tiffany directed Seidlitz to his staff, saying, “it’s always a priority with veterans.”

Shortly after  Tiffany promised to help his constituent navigate  the VA bureaucracy, the White House Office of Management and Budget released a memo announcing the freezing of all federal financial assistance, including the VA’s disability compensation program. 

The memo immediately drew legal challenges including from Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, on the grounds that the president has no authority to prevent money appropriated by Congress from being spent. A federal district judge ruled Tuesday the Trump administration must wait until at least next week before it can move forward with pausing federal spending on trillions in grants and loans, though she emphasized the short-term administrative stay might not continue after a Feb. 3 hearing.

During Tiffany’s listening session in Rice Lake, Jennifer Jako, director of Barron County’s Aging and Disability Resource Center, told Tiffany that she was concerned about cuts that Republicans and Trump have proposed to Medicaid in order to pay for an extension of the tax cuts signed into law by Trump during his first term. Jako added that she’s heard Congress is considering $2 trillion in cuts. 

Jako said that Medicaid funding makes up about half of her office’s budget and helps the county — where 40% of the population is older than 60 — provide important services to people of every income level. 

“I just want to make sure you are aware that if we’re talking that large of Medicaid cuts, it will probably have some pretty big effects on a lot of those kinds of long-term care services and supports,” she said. 

Tiffany said that the $2 trillion proposal is over a 10-year period, so as part of the annual Medicaid budget would only be $200 billion per year, before pivoting to saying the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps, shouldn’t be available to people who are capable of working. 

“Now, if you’re able bodied and you can work, you should not be on a program that’s paid for by you, the taxpayers of the United States,” he said. “We’re all willing to give a hand up, help someone out for a little while, but that shouldn’t be a way of life, and we’re also trying to get at that, because the estimates that I’ve seen is there’s five to 10 million people in America that are able bodied, that should be working and are collecting benefits, including sometimes Medicaid benefits, that really shouldn’t be getting those. And so that’s really what we’re trying to get at, is that those who legitimately deserve the help that we make sure that they get them.” 

Tiffany also said that many of the proposed cuts to Medicaid should be focused on rooting out fraud and abuse in the program, saying that “hundreds of billions of dollars” of taxpayer funds meant to be used for Medicaid are going to “foreign actors that have figured out how to break into the American system. They’re hacking into the system.” 

Among the programs for which the White House has attempted to freeze funding is the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit. 

Energy production

On Monday evening, Tiffany held a town hall event in New Richmond to discuss a proposed solar farm in the area and promote his bill which would prevent energy companies from receiving tax subsidies for building a solar installation if it is constructed on working agricultural land. During the Rice Lake event, he also emphasized efforts to increase energy production in Wisconsin and around the country. 

Tiffany, who has taken a personal interest in local land use debates in his district, complained about the Bad River Tribe’s efforts to shut down Enbridge’s Line 5 natural gas pipeline, which runs through northern Wisconsin. He also said that he supports easing permitting requirements for all sorts of energy sources, including natural gas and nuclear power plants, because the country needs to produce more energy — although domestic oil and gas production is already at its highest ever levels. 

“If you think climate change is real, nuclear is one of the ways in which we can have that base load power that will fill in the gaps,” he said. “If we’re going to continue to move with the wind and solar and the intermittent sources of power, you’ve got to have something that’s base load, and nothing’s more base load than nuclear.”

Rep. Sylvia Ortiz-Velez (D-Milwaukee) said at a press conference that everyone in Wisconsin and the U.S. is protected from unreasonable searches and seizures regardless of immigration status. Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner.

Wisconsin Democrats announced legislation Tuesday that would block state and local government officials from cooperating with federal deportation efforts — getting ahead of an expected bill from Republican lawmakers this week that would instruct the opposite. 

The legislation comes as President Donald Trump has launched highly publicized immigration raids across the country yielding close to 1,000 arrests. Last week, the new administration threw out guidelines limiting enforcement in or near “sensitive” areas, including places of worship, schools, health care facilities, relief centers and social services centers.

Rep. Sylvia Ortiz-Velez (D-Milwaukee) said at a press conference that everyone in Wisconsin and the U.S. is protected from unreasonable searches and seizures regardless of immigration status. 

“We want people in Wisconsin’s kids to feel safe in Wisconsin schools, places of worship, places where child care services are provided, in places where medical or other health care services are provided,” Ortiz-Velez said. “Kids deserve to feel safe in school. People deserve to seek medical care without fear of separation or detainment.”

The bill would prohibit state agency and local government officials, employees and agents, including law enforcement officers, from aiding in the detention of a person if they are being detained on the “sole basis that the individual is or is alleged to be not lawfully present in the United States” unless there is a judicial warrant. It would only apply to detentions in a public building or facility, school, place of worship, place where child care services are provided, or place where medical or other health care services are provided. Under the bill, civilians also wouldn’t be required to aid unless there is a judicial warrant.

The bill would also prohibit the state from using its money to aid in detention efforts. 

Ortiz-Velez said that Wisconsin should protect the law-abiding residents of the state regardless of immigration status and emphasized that Wisconsin doesn’t have to comply with the federal government in its deportation efforts. 

“While as a state we may not stop the federal government from exercising its legitimate power within the state’s borders, a state is not required to help the federal government in the exercise of its powers,” Ortiz-Velez. 

“Good, hard-working people deserve to be treated with dignity — a pathway to citizenship, fair wages. We need real and meaningful immigration reform from Washington DC,” Ortiz-Velez continued. “And I’m urging Congress and the president to move forward with solutions that secure the border but also work to reform our broken immigration system.”

It’s unlikely the bill will become law given that Republican lawmakers, who hold a majority in the Assembly and Senate, plan to introduce legislation soon that would do the opposite. 

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) said last week at the State of the State address the Republicans plan to propose a bill this week that would require local law enforcement to cooperate with the deportation efforts of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). 

GOP lawmakers have argued that Wisconsinites, in voting for President Donald Trump in November, signaled support for his immigration policies. Trump won Wisconsin by fewer than 30,000 votes — or 0.9% of the vote. 

Forward Latino National President Darryl Morrin sought to address some misconceptions about undocumented immigrants. He cited research showing that undocumented workers pay taxes in the U.S. without benefiting from the social services they help to pay for, and most are not  criminals and are in the U.S. solely to work. One report found that in 2022 undocumented immigrants paid nearly $100 billion in federal, state and local tax revenue.

“The overwhelming number of undocumented immigrants are guilty of one thing: wanting to provide for their families and do so in a safe and nurturing environment,” Morrin said. “Being undocumented in the United States is not a crime, despite what is being repeated on the airwaves nightly, it’s a civil violation. It’s the same thing as if I had a parking ticket.” 

Lawmakers and advocates said the bill was necessary as a way to protect people from inhumane treatment. 

“What is happening at the federal level is not a safety plan. It is fear weaponized, targeting the most vulnerable among us, and we know that this approach silences victims of violence who are afraid to speak out,” Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison) said. “It fosters exploitation and fractures trust. Chaos is not a safety solution. Hate is not a policy, and fear is not safety. The only path to a freer, fairer future is through humane constitutional policies. It’s through investments in communities, not draconian crackdowns.” 

Sen. Tim Carpenter (D-Milwaukee) said the actions of the federal government, under the guidance of Trump, have caused “significant anxiety and chaos across America.” He quoted the Bible, Leviticus 19:33: “When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner resides among you and must be treated as your native-born.”

Christian and religious teachings were a repeated theme throughout the press conference as multiple advocates and faith leaders spoke in support of the bill.

Executive director of the Wisconsin Council of Churches Rev. Kerri Parker said it’s necessary for religious and human services workers to be allowed to do their jobs  without fear of disruption by “state violence.” She said she was delivering the message with the backing of the board of directors of the Wisconsin Council of Churches.

“We live in an age of fear and separation, but Wisconsin, we can do better,” Parker said. “A practice of care and accommodation, feeding and clothing, healing and safety has been in place among people of faith for millennia. Hospitality is a central piece of what it means to be a follower of Jesus. How then are we to allow simple human need to be treated as a trespass? We can’t.” 

The pleas from Wisconsin faith leaders come as others across the country have been calling for the Trump administration to treat immigrants with dignity. Last week, Rev. Mariann Budde, the Episcopal bishop of Washington, directly pleaded with Trump during a service to “have mercy” on vulnerable people in the U.S. including those who “pick our crops and clean our office buildings, who labor in poultry farms and meatpacking plants.”

“We have many messages from churches, supporting those who live in fear because of the color of their skin, their national origin, their immigration status. Our neighbors are seeking help, solidarity and peace,” Parker said. “We desperately need reconciliation, something that will not be achieved by making us more fearful and suspicious of one another or by adding more violence to an already violent world.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Harry Dunn, a former U.S. Capitol Police officer, speaks Tuesday at a press conference about the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection. With him are, from left, Sam Liebert of All Voting is Local and Nick Ramos of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

A former U.S. Capitol Police officer who survived the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack said Tuesday the insurrection must not be forgotten four years later — and candidates running for election now should face up to what happened then.

“This attempt to whitewash, downplay, normalize what happened on Jan. 6 is ongoing and shows no signs of letting up,” said Harry Dunn during a meeting with reporters in Madison.

Criticizing Republicans who have urged Democrats and the public “to move on from Jan. 6,” Dunn said the attack met the definition of an insurrection — “a violent uprising against the government. Full stop.”

“That’s what Jan. 6 was,” he added. “The police officers just happened to be in the way. But anybody that fails to accept that, acknowledge that for what that was, deserves to be called out, condemned.”

Pro-democracy advocates arranged for Dunn to speak to the press in the state Capitol building and deliberately chose one particular meeting room on the third floor — 300 South, the same room used by Republican fake electors in December 2020 who filled out false electoral votes choosing Donald Trump as the Wisconsin winner of an election that he lost.

The fake elector scheme “was hatched in Wisconsin and launched from here to the rest of the United States,” said Scott Thompson, a staff attorney for Law Forward, at Tuesday’s press conference.

The nonprofit law firm sued Wisconsin’s fake electors and won a settlement in which they acknowledged in writing they had tried “to improperly overturn the 2020 presidential elections results.” The scheme culminated in the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, Thompson said.  

“The events of Jan. 6, 2021, were not just an attack on a building or a single moment in time, but they were an attack on our collective voice as voters,” said Sam Liebert, Wisconsin director of the voting rights group All Voting is Local Action. “The insurrection was a brazen and egregious attempt to silence millions of Americans nationwide to overturn the results of a free and fair election through violence and intimidation.”

Four years later in 2024 Trump won the U.S. popular vote, including a 30,000-vote majority in Wisconsin, returning him to the White House effective Jan. 20. There one of his first acts was to pardon more than 1,500 people charged in the Jan. 6 attack.

Dunn’s visit to Wisconsin focused on Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel’s comments about the Jan. 6 defendants, including during a recent radio interview. Schimel is a Waukesha County circuit court judge and former Wisconsin attorney general.

In a Jan. 2 appearance on the Vicki McKenna show, Schimel said that Jan. 6 defendants didn’t have “a fair shot” when they were tried and blamed “lawfare manipulation” for the conviction of defendants in the attack.

Schimel suggested they would have been acquitted had they not been put on trial in “overwhelmingly liberal” Washington, D.C., and that the prosecutors appointed under the Democratic administration “would never take their prosecution in a district where you had a fair shot as a defendant.”

The federal government prosecuted the rioters in Washington because the city is where the U.S. Capitol is located.

Nick Ramos, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, mentioned Schimel’s radio interview before introducing Dunn.

“Four years ago, far-right mobs swarmed the Capitol, assaulted officers and tried to overturn the will of voters,” said Ramos. “It’s pretty straightforward, and yet Schimel, our former attorney general, still thinks these people weren’t given a fair shot and their trials were political gamesmanship.”

Dunn said he’s taken an interest in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court race because of Schimel’s comments.

“I’ve been fighting for accountability from day one,” Dunn said. He holds Donald Trump primarily responsible for the riot.

“That accountability won’t happen,” he said. But he added that he also wants to hold accountable “public officials who believe that Donald Trump’s pardoning of these individuals was OK” — including Schimel.

“I don’t know Brad Schimel’s positions on policy on anything else, except for that he is OK with supporting the rioters who attacked me and my coworkers, period,” Dunn said. “And that is not OK — and that’s what’s bringing me here.”

During a news conference Monday featuring his endorsement by Wisconsin Republican members of Congress, Schimel accused prosecutors of overcharging some Jan. 6 defendants until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the law under which they were charged didn’t apply to them.

He also said that “anyone who engaged in violence and Jan. 6, assaulted a police officer, resisted arrest, those people should have been prosecuted … and judges should impose sentences that are just under the circumstances.”

Schimel also defended the president’s power to issue pardons: “It’s a power they have. I don’t object to them utilizing that.”

Dunn was asked Tuesday about Schimel’s comments.

“If you believe that the individuals who attacked police officers should serve their sentence, then the only response to Donald Trump’s pardons should be that they’re wrong,” Dunn replied. “He should not pardon them — and those words did not come out of [Schimel’s] mouth. So he’s attempting to play both sides.”

In an interview, Dunn said he’s kept going despite disappointment at Trump’s 2024 victory because “I believe in doing what’s right.”

That’s what led him to become a police officer, he said, and after the Capitol attack, to mount an unsuccessful campaign for Congress. He also has a political action committee, raising funds to support political candidates who are pro-democracy, he said.

Dunn acknowledged that some who opposed the president have given up in despair while others have become embittered toward Trump voters.

“I’ve seen people say, ‘You know what? This is what you all voted for. You get what you deserve,’” he said. “There are a lot of people who did not vote for this, that are going to be impacted by the things that Donald Trump and this administration are going to do, and I believe they deserve somebody that’s going to fight for them.”

There will be elections this year, in 2026 and 2028, all opportunities for change, “so I encourage people,” Dunn said. “And I think part of my work is to make sure people are educated before Election Day and not outraged after Election Day.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

U.S. Senate Republicans on Jan. 28, 2025, blocked a resolution condemning pardons for supporters of President Donald Trump who violently attacked and injured police officers when they broke into the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.  Shown are some Trump supporters that day. (Photo by Brent Stirton/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Republicans Tuesday blocked a resolution condemning pardons for supporters of President Donald Trump who violently attacked and injured police officers when they broke into the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Democratic Sen. Patty Murray requested unanimous consent for the resolution on the floor but was met with opposition from Majority Whip John Barrasso.

Unanimous consent is a common route senators take for simple resolutions, military nominations and other actions, but adoption can be blocked by just one senator.

Hours after his Jan. 20 inauguration, Trump commuted the prison sentences for 14 of the most serious offenders on Jan. 6, including leaders of the paramilitary groups the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. Simultaneously he granted a “full, complete and unconditional pardon” to the rest of the approximately 1,560 defendants.

Murray, who represents Washington state, said Trump’s decision to pardon the violent defendants is “truly an unthinkable attempt to erase the facts of that day.”

“It is a betrayal of the law enforcement that protected all of us that day and a dangerous endorsement of political violence, telling criminals that you can beat cops within an inch of their lives as long as it’s in service to Donald Trump,” Murray said.

All 47 Democratic and independent senators co-sponsored the 19-word resolution that “disapproves of any pardons for individuals who were found guilty of assaulting Capitol Police officers.”

Biden also issued pardons

Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican, blocked the measure. He argued that “Democrats do not want a serious debate here about the use of presidential pardon power” because former President Joe Biden had granted thousands of pardons and commutations before leaving office.

“If they did want a serious conversation, they would talk about Joe Biden’s pardons, over 8,000 of them,” Barrasso said. “The previous president used his final days in office to grant clemency to 37 of 40 of the worst killers on death row.”

Biden set the record for the most pardons and commutations, granting clemency to thousands of nonviolent drug offenders. The former president, whose opposition to capital punishment is well documented, commuted the death sentences for 37 federal inmates, who will now serve life sentences instead. He left three inmates on death row.

Just before leaving the White House, Biden granted preemptive pardons to all members who sat on the congressional committee to investigate the Jan. 6 attack, as well as the four police officers who testified before the panel.

He also preemptively pardoned Dr. Anthony Fauci and retired Gen. Mark Milley, both of whom have been the target of Trump’s threats for retribution and threats from the general public.

Biden drew criticism in early December for pardoning his son, Hunter, who was convicted on federal gun charges and pleaded guilty to tax violations. In his final moments in office, Biden granted preemptive pardons to five members of his family.

Assaults on police

Over 140 U.S. Capitol Police and Washington Metropolitan Police officers were injured that day, according to the Department of Justice.

Several other Democratic senators spoke on the floor about specific assaults on law enforcement on Jan. 6, and the four officers who died by suicide in the days following the attack.

“How does this line up with backing the blue? I don’t get it,” said Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona.

States Newsroom approached nearly two dozen Republican senators the day after Trump issued the pardons for comment about clemency for the violent offenders.

With just a few exceptions, nearly all either refused to talk, deflected to criticize Biden’s pardons or said they hadn’t read Trump’s 334-word order to free the defendants from their punishments.

Of all the defendants, 608 were charged with assaulting, resisting or impeding law enforcement, including 174 charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer. Nearly a third pleaded guilty to assaulting law enforcement, and 69 pleaded guilty to doing so with a blatant or improvised weapon, including pieces of furniture the rioters destroyed inside the Capitol and police officers’ own riot shields.

State Sen. Kelda Roys speaks with reporters Tuesday about the Trump administration's memo announcing a suspension of federal funds directed to state and local governments. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

Wisconsin joined 21 states and the District of Columbia Tuesday in a lawsuit to stop the Trump administration from cutting off the distribution of budgeted federal funds to states and local governments.

A federal district judge ruled Tuesday the Trump administration must wait until at least next week before it can move forward with pausing federal spending on trillions in grants and loans, though she emphasized the short-term administrative stay might not continue after a Feb. 3 hearing.

District Judge Loren L. AliKhan’s decision temporarily blocks the Office of Management and Budget from moving forward with plans to stop payments on multiple federal programs, which it announced late Monday.

The White House action “would immediately jeopardize critical federal benefits and investments that provide crucial health and childcare services, support public schools, combat hate crimes and violence against women, and provide life-saving disaster relief to states, among other critical programs,” the office of Gov. Tony Evers said in announcing the lawsuit late Tuesday.

Wisconsin expects to receive $28.2 billion in federal funds appropriated for the current 2023-25 two-year budget period, according to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau.

“This was a sweeping, reckless decision that has caused unnecessary chaos and panic in Wisconsin and across our country,” Evers said in announcing the lawsuit. “Wisconsin’s kids, families, veterans, law enforcement, seniors, and Wisconsinites in every corner of our state depend upon our federal tax dollars to support basic, everyday needs and services.”

Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul said the funding freeze appears to include money for law enforcement, victim services, health programs, infrastructure projects, education and additional purposes.

It “has already resulted in widespread uncertainty and confusion,” Kaul said. “This misguided and unlawful policy must be blocked before it leads to substantial harm to services and programs that are critical for Wisconsinites.”

Reaction to the Trump administration action was widespread, and state as well as federal lawmakers said they were starting to hear from constituents worried about the impact on programs and services they relied on.

“I am already hearing from my constituents who are worried about funding being cut off for cops and firefighters, child care, combatting the fentanyl crisis, food for kids, and so much more,” said Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), vowing to fight action. “Democrats and Republicans passed laws providing this funding for our kids, families, and communities, and ripping it away is an unconstitutional power grab.”

In a brief press conference in her state Capitol office, Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) called the funding suspension an “illegal power grab that the Trump administration is attempting to pull” and warned of “the very real cost that that’s going to have for Wisconsin families and families across America.”

Roys said the action was “a stunt” by Trump. “It’s a way to try to see how far he can go, how much he can get away with, and to test the loyalty of all the GOP politicians that he thinks should bend the knee,” she said. “And that should not distract us from the fact that this is going to have very, very real negative consequences for millions of families in our state, right here and across the country.”

She added the action is also “a very destabilizing move that could have significant ramifications for people’s sense of economic security” and a potential “shock to the economy.”

U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan described the administration’s action as an “unprecedented and unconstitutional stop-payment on Congressionally appropriated funding” and attacked Trump as “the Grifter-in-Chief” who was violating the Constitution by imposing the freeze.

Pocan connected the action with Trump’s proposals for renewing tax cuts enacted in 2017, accusing the president of “working to enrich himself and his billionaire buddies.”

“This reckless move will devastate every community across the country, and Republicans must join with Democrats to make sure Trump does not get away with this unconstitutional theft of American taxpayers’ own money,” Pocan said.

Earlier Tuesday, Evers sent Trump a letter urging him to reverse the plan to cut off federal assistance, warning that it “could have disastrous consequences for the people of Wisconsin and our state.”

He wrote that the freeze would withhold “tax dollars from Wisconsin that were already approved by the U.S. Congress” and thus that they “are the law.”

“I urge you to please follow the law and reconsider this decision,” Evers concluded.

 

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem delivers remarks to staff at the Department of Homeland Security headquarters on Jan. 28, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Manuel Balce Ceneta-Pool/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem Tuesday addressed some of her staff, promising to provide resources and support as the agency fulfills its duties, one of them carrying out President Donald Trump’s plan to deport masses of undocumented people.

Earlier in the day, Noem, the former governor of South Dakota, was in New York City, accompanying U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in arrests across the city. In a video posted to social media, Noem — clad in a vest labeled POLICE/ICE — said she was in the city “to get the dirt bags off our streets.” 

The visit to New York followed a weekend of highly publicized immigration enforcement, where ICE officials announced they arrested nearly 1,000 people in the country without legal authorization. However, an arrest does not mean an immigrant has been detained or in deportation proceedings and ICE has not specified details of those arrests.

Before Noem addressed DHS workforce, as she walked up to the lectern, the song “Hot Mama” by country singer Trace Adkins, played in the background, with the chorus “One hot mama, you turn me on, let’s turn it up and turn this room into a sauna.”

It was reminiscent of a March 2024 appearance by Noem with Trump at an Ohio campaign rally  at which he called her “a very special woman who’s hot as a politician” and “beautiful.” Noem at the time was considered a potential running mate for Trump, who later chose J.D. Vance, then a Republican senator from Ohio.

Noem told staff that she aims to provide them the resources to carry out their mission and that her vision for the agency stems from a story from her childhood.

When she was 10, building a fence with her dad, he asked her for a tool that was in the truck. When she ran to the truck to get it for him, he told her, “You should know what I need, before I know what I need.”

“What he was doing was teaching us to think ahead,” she said. “That is what our job is as well here at the Department of Homeland Security. We prepare ahead and think three steps ahead so that people have what they need before they need it.”

Noem, whom the U.S. Senate confirmed on Saturday, will lead one of the federal government’s largest departments, with a staff of roughly 260,000 employees and a budget around $100 billion.

DHS responsibilities include border protection, disaster response, global threats, cyber and airline security and the U.S. Secret Service, among other duties.

In her address, Noem added that she specifically asked Trump to lead DHS because it is the president’s “number one priority.”

Police ballistic markers stand near a stroller and a child’s chair at a crime scene in the Brooklyn borough of New York City. The number of homicides across the United States declined sharply in 2024, according to the Council on Criminal Justice’s latest crime trends report. Still, New York City is one of the major cities with a higher number of homicides in 2024 compared with pre-pandemic levels. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

The number of homicides across the United States declined by 16% in 2024, continuing a recent downward trajectory, according to the latest crime trends report from the Council on Criminal Justice, a nonpartisan think tank.

Homicides spiked during the early years of the COVID-19 pandemic, and crime became a central focus of President Donald Trump’s 2024 reelection campaign. Trump insisted that FBI crime data showing declines was “fake” and claimed that crime was “through the roof.” The second Trump administration is expected to adopt a tough-on-crime approach.

State legislatures nationwide also are expected to prioritize a variety of criminal justice measures this year, including prison oversight, illegal immigration, retail theft and policing standards and procedures. Polls show most Americans see crime as a significant problem, though fewer than in recent years.

The Council on Criminal Justice, known as CCJ, gathers data from individual law enforcement agencies for its biannual crime trends reports, meaning the data is more recent than the FBI’s annual report. Both the think tank’s and the FBI’s reports, however, show a similar turnaround in violent crime.

In 2023, criminal homicide — which the FBI defines as murder or non-negligent manslaughter — was down by 11.6% from the previous year. It was the largest single-year decline in two decades, according to the FBI’s annual crime report published last year.

The CCJ report shows that the downward trend appears to be continuing, with homicides in 2024 dropping by 16% compared with 2023. That drop equates to 631 fewer homicides in the 29 cities that provided data for the category, according to the council’s report.

If this decrease holds as more jurisdictions report their data to the FBI later this year, 2024 would rank among the largest single-year homicide drops since at least 1960, the start of modern record-keeping, according to the report.

A political issue

Despite the recent decline in homicides, crime remains a politically salient issue. A majority of Americans — 56% — believe that national crime has increased or consider it an “extremely” or “very” serious problem. But public concern about crime has lessened over the past year, according to Gallup’s annual crime survey.

Perceptions of crime are heavily influenced by political affiliation. The survey found that 60% of Democrats believe crime has decreased over the past year, whereas 90% of Republicans think it has increased.

Some crime experts say that media reports, political messaging and viral social media posts may exaggerate Americans’ worries about disorder, making crimes such as shoplifting and public drug use appear more prevalent than they actually are. Still, some individual cities and neighborhoods may be experiencing higher crime rates, which could further explain these concerns.

“We still have problems with crime, still have problems in the criminal justice system, and even though the crime rates are improving, we should not take our focus off crime and criminal justice,” said Ernesto Lopez, the report’s co-author and a senior research specialist with the council, in an interview with Stateline.

The council analyzed crime trends in 40 U.S. cities, although not all cities had data available for every type of offense.

Among the cities studied, 22 saw a decline in homicides last year, with Chandler, Arizona, and Little Rock, Arkansas, recording the largest decreases at 50% and 43%, respectively. Six cities experienced increases, with Colorado Springs, Colorado, leading the way with a 56% jump.

When comparing homicide rates between 2019 and 2024, the council’s study sample saw a 6% decline, largely driven by cities with traditionally high homicide rates, including Baltimore and St. Louis.

Homicides are still above pre-pandemic levels in some cities, including New York City and Washington, D.C. In New York City, for example, there were 382 homicides in 2024 compared with 319 in 2019. In Washington, D.C., there were 187 homicides in 2024 and 166 in 2019.

Other crimes

The CCJ report also examined trends in other violent and property crimes, including gun assault, carjacking, motor vehicle theft and drug offenses. Most of these offenses were lower in 2024 than in 2023, with shoplifting being the only exception, showing a 14% increase. Shoplifting also was 1% higher in 2024 compared with 2019.

Researchers were surprised that shoplifting rates increased last year despite retailers taking more measures to combat it, such as locking up merchandise behind glass. Some experts say that the rise may reflect improved reporting efforts rather than an actual spike in theft.

Last year, state legislatures placed a strong emphasis on tackling retail theft, and this momentum is likely to continue into this year, with Maryland lawmakers already considering a bill aimed at addressing large-scale organized retail theft.

From 2023 to 2024, incidents of robbery dropped by 10%, carjackings fell by 32%, and motor vehicle theft decreased by 24%.

Violent crimes such as sexual assault, domestic violence and robbery are now below pre-pandemic levels, but aggravated assaults, gun assaults and carjackings remain higher than in 2019, according to the report.

Property crime trends over the past five years varied. Residential burglaries and larcenies decreased, while nonresidential burglaries increased. Motor vehicle thefts rose by 53%, and drug offenses fell by 28%.

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.

An aerial view of the the Pentagon, May 12, 2021. (Photo by Air Force Tech. Sgt. Brittany A. Chase/Department of Defense)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump signed orders late Monday banning openly transgender service members from the U.S. military and suppressing any diversity initiatives, including prohibiting “un-American” concepts from military educational institutions.

An executive order published just before 11 p.m. Eastern under the title “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness” expressly forbids from the armed services individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria, widely recognized by medical professionals as the incongruence between a person’s sex at birth and experienced gender.

The new policy, which revokes a 2021 Biden administration order allowing transgender people to serve, cites “medical, surgical, and mental health constraints,” as well as character, as reasons to prohibit the specific population’s service.

According to the order: “Beyond the hormonal and surgical medical interventions involved, adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life.  A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member.”

Former President Joe Biden’s 2021 policy reversed Trump’s 2018 order banning openly trans military service members. A 2019 U.S. Supreme Court decision temporarily upheld Trump’s ban.

Hegseth issuing directives

Trump on Monday night directed newly installed Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to “promptly issue directives for DoD to end invented and identification-based pronoun usage” and update department medical standards within 60 days.

The Pentagon referred all inquiries to the Defense Health Agency. The agency said Tuesday it needed more time to provide information on current statistics of transgender members of the military and health care costs.  

According to a 2018 report from the Palm Center, 8,980 transgender active duty troops and 5,727 reservists served in the U.S. armed forces at the time. The California-based think tank that studied LGBTQ+ bans in the military operated from 1998 to 2022.

A Military.com report in 2021 found that from Jan. 1, 2016 to May 14, 2021, the Defense Department spent $11.58 million on psychotherapy for service members with gender dysphoria. During that time, 637 service members received hormone therapy that totaled $340,000, and 243 received surgery at the cost of $3.1 million, according to the report.

Overall discretionary defense spending in 2021 totaled $742 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Criticism of order

Numerous advocacy groups denounced Trump’s order.

SPARTA Pride, a group of transgender current and former service members, issued a statement Tuesday defending thousands of transgender troops who  “currently fill critical roles in combat arms, aviation, nuclear engineering, law enforcement, and military intelligence, many requiring years of specialized training and expertise. Transgender troops have deployed to combat zones, served in high-stakes missions, and demonstrated their ability to strengthen unit cohesion and morale.”

The statement continues, “While some transgender troops do have surgery, the recovery time and cost is minimal, and is scheduled so as not to impact deployments or mission readiness (all of which is similar to a non-emergent minor knee surgery). The readiness and physical capabilities of transgender service members is not different from that of other service members.”

Members of the Congressional Equality Caucus described Trump’s order as “beyond shameful.”

“Our military has invested millions of dollars into training these brave Americans who signed up to serve their nation. Now, despite their sacrifices, President Trump is unlawfully and unconstitutionally calling for them to be kicked to the curb simply because he doesn’t like who they are,” caucus chair Rep. Mark Takano, a California Democrat, said in a statement Tuesday.

Abolishing DEI offices

Under an additional directive Monday night, the president ordered Hegseth and new Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to “abolish every DEI office” within their departments and any “vestiges of DEI offices, such as sub-offices, programs, elements, or initiatives established to promote a race-based preferences system that subverts meritocracy, perpetuates unconstitutional discrimination, and promotes divisive concepts or gender ideology.”

DEI is shorthand for diversity, equity and inclusion. The Trump administration titled the executive order “Restoring America’s Fighting Force.”

Hegseth and Noem have 30 days to issue guidance on closing the offices and halting prohibited activities. They must report back to the White House on their progress in 180 days.

Among the initiatives that must cease, according to the order, are the teaching or promoting of any “divisive concepts” of race or sex at armed forces educational institutions, among other topics the order describes as “un-American.”

President Donald Trump addresses the 2025 Republican Issues Conference at the Trump National Doral Miami on Jan. 27, 2025 in Doral, Florida. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A federal district judge ruled Tuesday the Trump administration must wait until at least next week before it can move forward with pausing federal spending on trillions in grants and loans, though she emphasized the short-term administrative stay might not continue after a Feb. 3 hearing.

District Judge Loren L. AliKhan’s decision temporarily blocks the Office of Management and Budget from moving forward with plans to stop payments on multiple federal programs, which it announced late Monday.

The two-page memo from the Office of Management and Budget announcing the freeze led to significant confusion throughout the day Tuesday among members of Congress — including Republicans — about what programs were affected and frustration the White House appeared to be eroding lawmakers’ constitutional spending authority.

AliKhan’s ruling came less than 24 hours after news first broke of the Trump administration’s planned action.

AliKhan said after hearing arguments from an attorney for the organizations that filed the lawsuit earlier Tuesday and an attorney representing the federal government that “anything that was due to be paused as of 5 p.m. today to open funding on grants is stayed.”

AliKhan, who was appointed to the bench by former President Joe Biden, added that any funding impacted by separate executive orders is not covered by the temporary administrative stay she issued. She ordered for both sides in the case to file briefs to her later this week and scheduled a hearing for Feb. 3 at 11 a.m. Eastern.

Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits, one of the organizations that filed the suit, said shortly afterward there are several steps ahead to fully block OMB’s actions.

“A lot more work to do in the courts … to ensure that this reckless action, or attempted action by OMB, can’t move forward in the long term,” Yentel said.

Confusion on Medicaid

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt sought to downplay the impact of the spending freeze during her first-ever briefing, saying it wouldn’t apply to individual assistance programs, like Social Security or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or welfare benefits.

She was unable to answer questions about the effect on Medicaid benefits but a later White House memo claimed they would continue without interruption. Nonetheless, Democratic U.S. senators reported Medicaid portals in all 50 states were down on Tuesday.

Leavitt said the White House counsel’s office had signed off on the temporary spending pause and believed it was legal and constitutional, but she later told reporters she didn’t know the full scope of the impact and would have to circle back after the briefing ended.

“I have not seen the entire list because this memo was just sent out, so I will provide you all with updates as we receive them,” Leavitt said. 

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, said in a brief interview she supports the Trump administration reviewing federal spending to look for ways to improve efficiency, but said the OMB’s action was too broad.

“This is far too sweeping and will have an adverse effect on the delivery of services and programs,” Collins said. “I do appreciate that the administration did not apply it to Social Security, Medicare, direct benefit programs. But nevertheless, it does have a large impact on the provision of services and programs.”

Collins said she had concerns about the Head Start program being listed among those that will have a spending freeze. 

“There are a lot of federal programs that appear to be swept up in this order, and I think the administration needs to be more selective and look at it one department at a time, for example,” Collins said. “But make sure important direct service programs are not affected.”

Multiple memos

The original OMB memo sent out late Monday evening appeared to apply to large swaths of federal financial assistance, including grants and loans, though a memo footnote said it should not be “construed to impact Medicare or Social Security benefits.” It did not mention an exemption for Medicaid.

“Financial assistance should be dedicated to advancing Administration priorities, focusing taxpayer dollars to advance a stronger and safer America, eliminating the financial burden of inflation for citizens, unleashing American energy and manufacturing, ending ‘wokeness’ and the weaponization of government, promoting efficiency in government, and Making America Healthy Again,” the OMB memo states.

A separate memo from OMB lists off the programs that will be paused temporarily while it reviews which federal spending it deems appropriate.

The list includes the Department of Agriculture’s tribal food sovereignty program, Head Start, the Veterans’ Affairs Department’s suicide prevention and legal services grants, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance, or LIHEAP, program, and numerous sexual assault prevention programs within the Department of Justice.

A third document from OMB, sent to Capitol Hill, claimed that Medicaid would not be affected. However, some senators reported the Medicaid portal was inaccessible on Tuesday afternoon.

“In addition to Social Security and Medicare, already explicitly excluded in the guidance, mandatory programs like Medicaid and SNAP will continue without pause,” the OMB document states. “Funds for small businesses, farmers, Pell grants, Head Start, rental assistance, and other similar programs will not be paused. If agencies are concerned that these programs may implicate the President’s Executive Orders, they should consult OMB to begin to unwind these objectionable policies without a pause in the payments.”

Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden posted on social media that his staff had “confirmed reports that Medicaid portals are down in all 50 states following last night’s federal funding freeze.”

“This is a blatant attempt to rip away health insurance from millions of Americans overnight and will get people killed,” Wyden wrote.

Yentel, of the groups that sued, said while Leavitt argued that the memo did not impact those in need of direct assistance, OMB did not define who counts as “direct assistance.”

She said during a briefing with reporters that the memo leaves “a lot of room to who defines direct assistance to Americans.” Yentel said she would consider one of the programs impacted, Head Start, as direct assistance.

Order prompts legal challenges

Numerous organizations — including the National Council of Nonprofits, American Public Health Association and Main Street Alliance — filed a lawsuit in federal court Tuesday ahead of the temporary pause taking effect.

Democratic attorneys general were also preparing to file a lawsuit, challenging the legality of the temporary spending pause on grants and loans.

New York state Attorney General Letitia James said during a virtual press conference announcing the lawsuit that Trump had overstepped his presidential powers by instituting the temporary spending pause.

“This president has exceeded his authority, he has violated the Constitution and he has trampled on a co-equal branch of government,” James said.

She said Democratic attorneys general filing the lawsuit were not trying to be “adversarial” or seeking to block Trump’s agenda.

“This is a question of the Constitution and the rule of law. And all of us took an oath to obey the Constitution and to uphold it,” James said.

New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin said during the press briefing that the lawsuit wasn’t “about nibbling at the edges of the president’s authority.”

“We’re talking about ignoring the entirety of the United States Constitution,” Platkin said.

Attorneys general from New York, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia plan to file the lawsuit.

Appropriators protest

The top Democrats on the U.S. House and Senate Appropriations committees sent a letter to acting OMB Director Matthew J. Vaeth, expressing alarm about how the stop in payments would affect people throughout the country and challenging the legality of the executive branch trying to overrule the legislative branch on spending decisions.

House Appropriations Committee ranking member Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., and Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash., wrote that the scope of the halt in funding, which was approved by Congress on a bipartisan basis, “is breathtaking, unprecedented, and will have devastating consequences across the country.”

“While we may have strong policy disagreements, we should all be united in upholding our nation’s laws and the Constitution,” DeLauro and Murray wrote.

“We will be relentless in our work with members on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers to protect Congress’s power of the purse,” they added. “The law is the law—and we demand you in your role as Acting OMB Director reverse course to ensure requirements enacted into law are faithfully met and the nation’s spending laws are implemented as intended.”

Power of the purse lies with Congress

Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution gives Congress the so-called “power of the purse” by granting it the authority to approve federal spending. 

Congress has passed several laws regarding that constitutional authority, including the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, which says that the president cannot simply refuse to spend money Congress has appropriated.

Trump’s pick for OMB Director, Russ Vought, has repeatedly called that law unconstitutional and said he believes the president does have the authority to simply ignore sections of spending law that have been passed by Congress and signed into law.

The Senate has yet to confirm Vought to the role of White House budget director, but is likely to do so in the weeks ahead.

Sharon Parrott, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank, posted on social media that the OMB memo’s “vague and contradictory language makes it hard to know if funding is imperiled for public schools, community health centers, state and local law enforcement, veterans’ housing, health care through Medicaid, public services on tribal lands, etc.”

“This confusion & apparent withholding of funding isn’t a political game – real state, local, & tribal governments, school districts, nonprofits, & private charities delivering services we all depend on, funded with taxpayer dollars, can’t function without resources and clarity,” Parrott wrote. “Congress has enacted legislation that requires the Executive Branch to fund public services, and the Trump Administration seems determined to subvert Congress, its hand-waving about following the law notwithstanding.”

Parrott worked at OMB as associate director of the Education, Income Maintenance, and Labor Division, during then-President Barack Obama’s second term.

Jenny Young, vice president of communications and chief of staff at Meals on Wheels America, said the OMB memo “could presumably halt service to millions of vulnerable seniors who have no other means of purchasing or preparing meals.”

“And the lack of clarity and uncertainty right now is creating chaos for local Meals on Wheels providers not knowing whether they’re going to be reimbursed for meals served today, tomorrow, who knows how long this could go on,” Young said. “Which unfortunately means seniors may panic not knowing where their next meals will come from. This adds insult to injury as these programs are already underfunded to begin with. Largely speaking, local providers don’t have the ability to absorb a blow like this, especially if it persists for any extended period of time.”

Young said the Older Americans Act Nutrition Program, which provides some of Meals on Wheels funding, is a grant program administered by the Administration on Aging.

Members of Congress react

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he was talking with staff at OMB to “try to get more information on how this works.”

Graham said he wouldn’t delay a committee vote Thursday to send Vought’s nomination to the Senate floor.

“We need more information about this, but we also need a guy in charge,” Graham said.

Kansas Republican Sen. Jerry Moran, a senior appropriator and chairman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, said during a brief interview that leadership at the VA was supposed to talk with OMB officials on Tuesday afternoon to figure out how exactly they were supposed to carry out the spending freeze for certain grant and loan programs.

“We’re trying to get additional information about what it means on grants,” Moran said. “I just came from a veterans’ hearing where that was the topic of conversation. And my understanding is the VA leadership is meeting with OMB to learn the details, and then I’ll have more of a response.”

Alaska GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee, echoed similar remarks that she wanted more information on how much the memo impacted those federal programs.

North Dakota Republican Sen. John Hoeven, a senior appropriator, said he isn’t too concerned about the temporary pause to federal grant and loan programs.

“He’s taking a look at a lot of the spending as he should; reviewing it, finding out what makes sense and what doesn’t,” Hoeven said. “Just because it gets paused doesn’t mean it won’t get funded. And hopefully the ones that are funded are funded in a better way, more in line with our priorities.”

Iowa Republican Sen. Joni Ernst said she wasn’t worried about the impact of the temporary pause to grants and loans at the Defense Department and VA.

“I think they will take a look at it, they will release the funds as they find it necessary,” Ernst said. “So I think there’s a big flurry in the press right now, but I think that President Trump is doing the right thing by scrutinizing our spending.”

‘Take a deep breath’

North Carolina GOP Sen. Thom Tillis, an advocate for federal disaster aid, said he was skeptical that the freeze would immediately impact people in need of disaster relief.

“I can’t imagine that the president would knowingly cut off housing assistance for people displaced from their homes,” he said. “We need to get to the facts versus the fear.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said during a press conference that he expected additional information from the Trump administration about the pause.

“They’re providing additional clarity and guidance on that, and hopefully they will further clarify what exactly will be impacted,” he said. “But I don’t think it’s unusual for an administration to pause.”

Sen. James Risch of Idaho added: “This is a work in progress. Everybody take a deep breath, stay calm. Every one of these programs is gonna be looked at.”

Ariana Figueroa, Shauneen Miranda and Ashley Murray contributed to this report. 

The U.S. and Wisconsin flags at half staff in commemoration of those killed and wounded in a December school shooting in Madison. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

Republican lawmakers are proposing bills they say will help protect children from gun violence by arming  teachers, providing grants to schools to improve building safety and staff training and eliminating taxes on gun safes. 

In the aftermath of the December school shooting at Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, in which a teacher and student were killed and six others were injured, Gov. Tony Evers announced at the State of the State address that he plans to propose stricter background checks and red flag laws to address gun violence.

Republican leaders were not receptive to the proposals. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said there are already some gun control measures in state statute and added, “sometimes people do bad things and there’s only so much that we can do to prevent it.”

Republican lawmakers in the last week have started circulating three proposals they say would be more effective in curbing gun violence.

One of the proposals, from Rep. Scott Allen (R-Waukesha) and Sen. Cory Tomczyk (R-Mosinee), would allow teachers with a gun license to carry firearms on campus if school boards adopt a policy saying it’s allowed. 

“School shootings are tragedies we hate to see… The knowledge that no one on the premises has the firepower to stop them emboldens bad actors,” the lawmakers stated in a co-sponsorship memo. 

Asked at a Monday press conference why his proposal is preferable to Evers’, Allen noted that an armed guard is typically stationed outside his office in the state Capitol. 

“Must be for a reason. If you travel with the governor, you’ll find that he has Wisconsin State Patrol armed with him wherever he goes… Why should he deserve that kind of protection and not our kids in schools?” Allen said. “The reality is that if somebody is intent on doing evil, and they have a weapon of any sort — whether it’s a firearm or a knife or anything — they’re dangerous, and we need to meet force with force, if we’re going to stop it.”

Allen also said that he thinks many actions could be taken to address school shootings including working to improve mental health.

“We’ve supported things in the past regarding that — supported the governor in increasing mental health aides and improving our schools’ ability to communicate with students and address mental health issues in schools,” Allen said. “We need to harden the targets. We need to make it impossible or practically impossible for any perpetrator to get in our schools to begin with.”

According to the Gun Violence Archive (GVA), there were 503 mass shootings in 2024 and as of Jan. 27, there have been 18 in 2025. GVA defines a mass shooting as one where there are “a minimum of four victims shot, either injured or killed, not including any shooter who may also have been killed or injured in the incident.”

A 2024 report by Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions found that firearms continue to be a leading cause of death for kids and teens, and that Black children and teens are disproportionately the victims. 

Wisconsin’s current law prohibits people — with the exception of law enforcement officers — from carrying firearms on school grounds, and any individual found knowingly possessing one could be charged with a felony.

The bill making it legal for teachers to carry guns to school would also seek to make it easier for teachers to obtain a gun license by waiving the cost of the initial application fee, renewal fee and background check fee for teachers who apply for a license.

This is the second time the lawmakers have introduced the proposal. They introduced it for the first time in 2023 at the request of the Germantown school board. The board passed a resolution in August 2022 following a school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, which killed 19 children and two teachers and injured 17 others.

“We need to protect our students from bad actors who perversely seek infamy, and we should allow local school boards, with community input, to determine the right policies to ensure that students are protected,” the lawmakers stated. “Sometimes the best way to deter bad actors is with the threat of force, and this bill gives that choice to school districts.” 

Grants to schools 

Another proposal from Sen. Jesse James (R-Thorp), Rep. Joy Goeben (R-Hobart) and Allen would provide grants for Wisconsin public, private and tribal schools to improve the safety of their buildings and provide security training for school personnel. 

The bill would invest $30 million in a one-time grant program that would be administered by the Office of School Safety. The office, which is a part of the Department of Justice, was created under the 2017 Wisconsin Act 143, and under that law, $100 million was appropriated to the DOJ in fiscal year 2018-19 for awarding school safety grants.

In 2018, the DOJ was able to award 1,325 grants totaling $94.5 million to school districts, private, independent charter and tribal schools and the remaining funds went to supporting other school safety initiatives, including adolescent mental health training. 

“As a state, we need to ensure that our Wisconsin schools have the necessary tools and resources needed to create and maintain a safe learning environment for all students,” the lawmakers stated in a memo to their colleagues. “Just like the funding from Act 143, we are confident that these additional funds will achieve this goal of giving more Wisconsin schools the chance to further enhance and update their safety measures.”

The new proposal would give priority to schools that did not receive any grant funds or missed the deadlines in the prior funding rounds, but it would be open to any schools. The DOJ would be able to award a maximum amount of $20,000 to an applicant. 

Under the bill, the program would sunset on July 1, 2027. 

Tax exemption for gun safes

Another pair of lawmakers — Rep. Adam Neylon (R-Pewaukee) and Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine) — are proposing eliminating taxes on gun safes as a way to help people afford them. 

The lawmakers said in a memo that they are putting the legislation forth “to encourage people to store guns securely, and keep children safe from accidental injury, death, and suicide.” 

“Simply put, this bill promotes responsible gun safety,” the lawmakers stated.

Evers included a similar measure in his 2023-25 budget proposal, but it was removed by Republican lawmakers. A handful of states — including Michigan, Tennessee and Washington — have adopted this policy.

A similar bill was also proposed in 2019 with bipartisan support, though it failed to pass either chamber. At the time, the state Department of Revenue estimated that the bill would have resulted in $309,000 in lost tax revenue. 

One Democratic senator is skeptical the measure would adequately address the gun violence problem facing the state and that lawmakers should be taking stronger actions to reduce the harm that children face from guns.

“Wisconsinites want safe communities where our kids have the freedom to learn and reach their potential without the fear of gun violence. Instead of implementing proven measures to reduce firearm injuries and gun violence, like safe storage laws and universal background checks, GOP politicians are offering a tax exemption,” Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) said in a statement. 

Safe storage laws — which have been adopted by 26 states across the U.S. — require gun owners to store their firearms in a way that prevents unauthorized access, in order to keep guns out of the hands of children.

“We need to ensure that kids can’t access guns, and that if a house with kids has guns, they are stored safely away from kids,” Roys continued. “This bill will do virtually nothing to keep kids safe, but the GOP politicians now cynically backing it are hoping it will keep them safe during their next election.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Activists protest the agenda of President  Donald Trump during a rally near the water tower on the Magnificent Mile on Jan. 25, 2025, in Chicago, Illinois. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Immigration attorneys Monday detailed the impact on their clients, some of them undocumented children, after the Trump administration last week halted Department of Justice programs that fund nonprofits that provide legal services to immigrants.

Meanwhile, over the weekend, the federal government began moving in earnest on President Donald Trump’s campaign pledge of an immigration crackdown. Highly publicized immigration enforcement raids took place across the country, including close to 1,000 arrests, and the president nearly entered into a trade war with Colombia over using military aircraft in deportation flights.

“This administration has made very clear that it wants to mass deport as many people as possible,” Michael Lukens, Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, said during a press conference with reporters about the defunded DOJ programs.

Immigration attorneys at the Acacia Center for Justice on Wednesday received an email about a temporary pause on four of their programs DOJ funds: the Legal Orientation Program; the Immigration Court Helpdesk; the Family Group Legal Orientation Program; and the Counsel for Children Initiative. The Acacia Center for Justice is a nonprofit that provides legal services to immigrants at risk of detention or deportation.

“Mass deportation starts with mass detention, and if you have detention numbers going up and nobody to help, you’re essentially setting up black sites around the country where there is no rule of law, where there is no transparency or accountability, and this is just unacceptable,” Lukens said.

Those legal service providers help immigrants navigate immigration court proceedings and paperwork, but they are not personal attorneys, as immigrants are not guaranteed a lawyer under U.S. law.

It’s not the first time a Trump administration has tried to bar legal services for immigrants, said Azadeh Erfani with the National Immigrant Justice Center in Chicago. The first Trump administration did so in 2018 and was eventually sued.

“The Trump administration is inviting another lawsuit to be launched imminently by the community of legal service providers,” Erfani said. “It is simply unconscionable to defund these services at a time where the administration is conducting mass raids and further swelling the immigration court backlog that already nears 4 million people.”

Lawsuits abound

Pausing funding for those legal services is the latest in various immigration decisions from the Trump administration.

Many of the new Trump policies have been met with a swift legal backlash.

State attorneys general have sued over an executive order ending the constitutional right of birthright citizenship, and on Monday, a coalition of Quakers sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security over its new guidance to allow immigration enforcement in sensitive locations that include places of worship.

In Tucker, Georgia, Immigrations Customs and Enforcement arrested a man while he was attending a church service, a pastor told CNN.

Arrests in Chicago

On Sunday, ICE officials said in a statement they began “conducting enhanced targeted operations today in Chicago to enforce U.S. immigration law and preserve public safety and national security by keeping potentially dangerous criminal aliens out of our communities.”

ICE said it made 956 arrests on Sunday, but did not specify the location where those arrests took place or if those people who were arrested already had court-ordered removal requests in place. 

ICE did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for more information regarding the raids.

Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, was in Chicago overseeing the ICE enforcement.

“These raids are going to go on throughout the country, we’re not going to let up,” Homan said Monday on Fox News. “We put our foot on the gas and we’re gonna go.”

Phil McGraw, also known as T.V. personality Dr. Phil, someone who is neither a law enforcement officer nor a medical doctor, accompanied Homan on the arrests in Chicago. In one video, McGraw is seen asking a man arrested if he is a U.S. citizen and where he was born.

Homan is expected to work closely with former South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem. The U.S. Senate on Saturday confirmed Noem to lead the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

“One of my top priorities is achieving President Trump’s mandate from the American people to secure our southern border and fix our broken immigration system,” Noem said in a statement following her confirmation.

That enforcement can include involvement from several agencies within the U.S. Department of Justice. Former acting DHS Secretary Benjamine Huffman last week expanded immigration enforcement abilities to the U.S. Marshals, Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Immigration enforcement operations over the weekend were also reported in Denver, Colorado; Atlanta, Georgia; Puerto Rico; and Austin, Texas.

Tariff tiff

Trump on Sunday held off on levying tariffs on goods from Colombia, after Colombian President Gustavo Petro agreed to take deported nationals. At issue was the use of military aircraft to return Colombian nationals and the treatment of those people, Petro wrote on social media.

“The United States must establish a protocol for the dignified treatment of migrants before we receive them,” he wrote.

Trump threatened he would place a 25% tariff — that would be raised to 50% after one week — on all goods coming into the U.S. from Colombia. Trump also said he would implement a travel ban and revoke visas of Colombian government officials.

“These measures are just the beginning,” Trump wrote on social media. “We will not allow the Colombian Government to violate its legal obligations with regard to the acceptance and return of the Criminals they forced into the United States.”

Late Sunday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement that the Colombian government had agreed to accept deported nationals on military aircraft.

“Based on this agreement, the fully drafted IEEPA tariffs and sanctions will be held in reserve, and not signed, unless Colombia fails to honor this agreement,” Leavitt said. “The visa sanctions issued by the State Department, and enhanced inspections from Customs and Border Protection, will remain in effect until the first planeload of Colombian deportees is successfully returned.”