A large and diverse crowd packed a community center on Milwaukee’s  south side Thursday, calling for the release of Salah Sarsour, president of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee. Sarsour, who is of Palestinian descent, was detained by federal immigration agents Monday morning. His supporters are calling Sarsour’s arrest an targeted act of political retaliation designed to chill opposition to the Israeli government and support for the Palestinian people.

“This is a man who came to the United States and kind of lived the American dream,” Othman Atta, executive director of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee, told the audience of community members, press, activists, and local elected officials. “And they are trying to tarnish his image. They’re trying to target him.”

A green card holder and lawful permanent resident, Sarsour has lived in the United States for over 30 years. “The U.S. government fully vetted his visa application at that time,” Kathryn Brady, head of the Muslim Legal Fund of America’s Immigration Litigation Department, said in a statement Wednesday. Brady said that it’s difficult to believe that the federal government’s “position now is not rooted in a violation of his First Amendment right to speak about the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.”

Atta said that on Monday Sarsour stopped at an old warehouse on Milwaukee’s south side which he owned because mail kept arriving there. As he left, a car came on the wrong side of the street “flying toward him,” said Atta, forcing Sarsour to jump out of the way. The unmarked car stopped and a person allegedly in civilian clothes pointed a gun at Sarsour and asked who he was by name. 

Atta said 12 vehicles were involved in the arrest, and Sarsour was loaded into a van before being told he was being taken by federal immigration officers. 

Atta said that the story was relayed to Sarsour’s attorney Munjed Ahmad during a phone call in which Sarsour declared that he was a lion and willing to fight. Sarsour was transported to the Broadview Detention Center in Illinois before being quickly transferred to another facility in Indiana, Atta said.  

“This is America,” said Atta. “This is Trump’s America.” 

He described Sarsour as a husband, father, grandfather, and a successful business owner who has no criminal record or convictions. 

“According to the papers that were filed in immigration court, they went back to when he was a minor — a teenager — in the West Bank under Israeli occupation,” said Atta. 

When he was a teenager, Sarsour was arrested and detained by the Israeli police. “He served two years,” said Atta. “Many of you who know him know that his passion for Palestine, his passion for justice, was based on the experience he had and that his family and friends had. He would talk to us many times how for 80 straight days, he was interrogated, and brutalized, and tortured while he was in Israeli military custody.” 

Palestinians living both in the West Bank and the region of Gaza, which has suffered catastrophic damage and where tens of thousands of people have been killed during attacks by the Israeli government in the last two and a half years, have reported similar abuse. 

In 2024, the United Nations found that due process rights for Palestinians had been violated in the West Bank for nearly 60 years. Last year, charges were dropped against five Israeli soldiers accused of beating and sexually abusing a Palestinian prisoner in an assault that was captured in a video. A top legal official in the Israeli military admitted to approving the video’s release in an effort to show the world how the over 9,000 Palestinians detained by Israel are treated, the Associated Press reported. 

Al Jazeera reported that the bodies of Palestinians released as part of a ceasefire deal between Israel and militant factions of Hamas exhibited signs of torture including restraints and injuries still evident on the dead. 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said in a statement Thursday that Sarsour was convicted of throwing Molotov cocktails at the homes of Israeli armed forces.” In the statement, which repeatedly called Sarsour a “terrorist” and an “illegal alien from Jordan,” DHS charged that he “lied” on his green card application to enter the country in 1993 during the Clinton administration, and that his first attempts to apply for an immigrant visa at the American consulate in Jerusalem were rebuffed because of those allegations and others of “illegally attempting to possess” weapons and ammunition. 

Atta and Sarsour’s supportive community urged onlookers Thursday not to forget the reports about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. 

Atta said that Sarsour was again detained by the Israeli government after returning in 1995, which is where the weapons allegations came from, and that the written charges were in Hebrew, “which he doesn’t read or understand.”

Sarsour’s son, Kareem, was joined by other members of his family Thursday. Over the last two days, the family has been “bombarded” with “thousands of messages from all the people who knew him saying what he meant to them as a father-figure, as a role model, as a beloved community member, it just tells you who he was,” said Kareem Sarsour. Kareem described his father as “always giving” and said that Sarsour had tried to give his children everything he couldn’t have when he lived in the West Bank. 

The crowd that assembled to support Sarsour and his family included many Muslim residents, local activists, and elected officials, with Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley and  Mayor Cavalier Johnson in the front row, and further back, Alds. JoCasta Zamarripa watched Alex Brower. Christine Neumann-Oriz, executive director of Voces de la Frontera, was in the audience, and speakers from Jewish Voices For Peace joined Muslim and Christian faith leaders in denouncing Sarsour’s detention and calling for his release.

A flurry of Wisconsin lawmakers and local officials have condemned Sarsour’s arrest. Sen. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee) said in a statement that the federal government was “increasingly fascist”  and called Sarsour “a vocal advocate for a free and independent Palestinian State.” 

“We have already seen numerous Muslim activists unfairly and unlawfully targeted by the Trump Administration for their beliefs and their speech,” Larson said. “These Unconstitutional assaults on our freedoms should alarm all of us. When any individual or group is targeted by the government for their speech, all of our freedoms are threatened.” 

Congresswoman Gwen Moore called Sarsour’s detention “completely unacceptable.” “Salah Sarsour is a respected leader in the Milwaukee community, and his detention raises serious concerns about the continued targeting of lawful residents based on the color of their skin or their political beliefs,” she said.

Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee) charged that Sarsour’s detention was an attack on free speech. “Until free expression and free speech are protected, not treated as a privilege of the Trump Administration’s loudest supporters, this openly fascist government should be neither trusted nor obeyed,” Clancy said in a statement. “We must abolish ICE and hold those responsible for these repeated acts of state violence accountable.” 

Statements supporting Sarsour were also put out by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Mandela Barnes for governor campaign, and the Milwaukee Area Labor Council Immigrant Rights Committee. 

Ahmad said that he’s “shocked” at how many communications he’s received from attorneys around the country on Sarsour’s case. “We have assembled a very capable legal team, that legal team continues to grow,” said Ahmad, declaring that they will work to free Sarsour. A hearing is scheduled on April 18. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

WASHINGTON — One year after President Donald Trump announced his now-illegal “Liberation Day” tariffs, he marked the anniversary by signing executive orders adjusting duties on pharmaceuticals and metals as Democratic critics slammed economic fallout from Trump’s trade policies.

Last April 2, Trump shocked American businesses and global markets when he declared a national emergency to impose a 10% tariff on goods from nearly every country, plus higher double-digit duties on imports from major U.S. trading partners. 

Investors lost trillions days after the announcement, and Trump began months of delays and on-again, off-again taxes on imports. 

In doing so, Trump raised the effective tariff rate on foreign goods to its highest point since the 1930s. Economists warned the average American household would end up losing up to a few thousand dollars in increased costs. 

After lawsuits from small business owners and Democratic state officials, the Supreme Court decided 6-3 in February that Trump’s unprecedented triggering of sweeping tariffs under the 1977 International Economic Emergency Powers Act exceeded presidential authority.

Since then, the White House has sought other legal routes to impose tariffs. Several, like duties on metals, are already in place under national security statutes, and have been since Trump’s first term. Almost immediately after the Supreme Court’s major blow, Trump announced a temporary base 10% tariff on all imports under section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.

On Thursday, Trump signed two executive orders changing the tariff calculation on imported steel, aluminum and copper, and slapping a whopping 100% tariff on pharmaceuticals made by transnational companies that decline to invest in manufacturing their drugs in the United States.

Both tariff adjustments are under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, a statute authorizing the president to impose trade restrictions in response to national security threats.

Dems stress affordability 

Democrats pounced on Trump’s “Liberation Day” anniversary ahead of the 2026 midterm elections that will determine control of Congress and will surely include affordability as a central issue.

On a press call organized by the Democratic National Committee, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries laid blame on Trump’s tariffs for increasing costs.

“We can thank the Trump tariffs for imposing thousands of dollars in additional costs on everyday Americans, small business owners and farmers throughout the country,” he said.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement that in one year, Trump “thrust the United States’ economy into chaos with sweeping tariff taxes on dozens of countries.”

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., described Trump’s trade policy as “manic.”

“Trump is taking money out of the pockets of families walking an economic tightrope, by slapping huge taxes on groceries and other essentials,” he said in a statement Thursday.

Several questions on the degree to which tariff costs have been passed on to consumers, and how much they have stymied growth and hiring, remain unanswered, according to a one-year analysis from the Yale Budget Lab.

Sen. Andy Kim, D-N.J., said during the virtual DNC press conference he met this week with business owners in his state and heard trepidation about their decisions moving forward.

“The thing that they just continue to hammer over and over again is just how uncertain this moment is, how much unpredictability that there is and that they cannot, you know, they cannot figure out how to invest further or try to grow their business,” Kim said, adding businesses need “immediate relief” after the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s emergency tariffs.

Kim is among two dozen Senate Democrats sponsoring a bill that would require the U.S. Customs and Border Protection commissioner to report to lawmakers every 30 days on the status of IEEPA tariff refunds.

States Newsroom has interviewed several business owners about the effects of tariffs and the prospect of being made whole by the government for the now illegal IEEPA tariffs they were charged.

 

States with and without abortion bans are advancing bills that would shield anti-abortion pregnancy resource centers from certain government mandates and attempts at regulation, allowing them to sue for damages if any part of the law is violated.

At least four states introduced the legislation this session, and two of them, Kansas and Wyoming, made it law. Montana also passed a similar law in 2025. The bills are still pending in Oklahoma and New Hampshire.

They are based on model legislation drafted by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal advocacy group that represented one of the large umbrella organizations for pregnancy centers around the country, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, when the California government attempted to regulate the centers in 2018 by requiring signage to be placed informing clients of available abortion options at state-funded clinics.

“This really just reflects the legal reality that pregnancy care centers have been hauled into court when they’ve decided they are not interested in pushing abortion and (the government is) going to make them,” said Kristi Hamrick, vice president of media and policy for the anti-abortion group Students for Life Action.

Many crisis pregnancy centers are faith based, with a mission of preventing anyone who walks in from choosing an abortion. In a recent 50-state analysis, States Newsroom found that 21 states allocated more than $491 million of taxpayer funds to crisis pregnancy centers since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision in 2022 that upended federal abortion rights. Medical experts, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, say the centers can endanger public health by delaying legitimate health care and some centers that advertise services like free ultrasounds can miss diagnoses like ectopic or molar pregnancies, which are nonviable and can be life-threatening conditions.

The centers have also been criticized by advocates for misleading potential clients about their services, making it look like they provide abortion care, and for promoting treatments like abortion pill reversal that are unproven and potentially dangerous.

California’s law, which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in 2018 on free speech grounds, also mandated disclosure if the pregnancy resource center was unlicensed. Violators would be fined $500 for a first offense.

Hamrick said the center protection bills are an “inoculation” against what she called malicious lawsuits that would punish them for refusing to go against their anti-abortion mission.

Samantha Nagler, a legal fellow with the Equal Justice Works program at Gender Justice, said the bills are carving out an area of health care where providers can omit information during a visit and face no consequences for it.

“No other health care provider I can think of is just exempted from regulation,” Nagler said.

Israel Cook, legislative counsel for the Center for Reproductive Right’s policy and advocacy team, said this type of legislation is becoming more popular as reproductive rights advocates push for regulation of crisis pregnancy centers.

Colorado passed a law in 2023 making it a deceptive trade practice to disseminate any public advertisement that indicates a facility provides abortions or emergency contraceptives when they do not. The law included a similar provision barring advertisement of abortion pill reversal, but a federal judge blocked enforcement of that part of the law in August. Alliance Defending Freedom also assisted with that lawsuit.

“It’s very scary for (the centers) to not be on the hook for the kind of harm that they perpetuate,” Cook said.

Oklahoma sponsor: Law allows centers to ‘stay in their lane’

The bills prohibit a state or local government from adopting or enacting a law, rule, ordinance or any other type of regulation that would require a center to offer or perform abortion, make referrals for abortion or abortion medication, or post any type of advertisement or material promoting abortion or abortion medication. Every bill, with the exception of Kansas, also says the centers cannot be compelled to offer or refer for contraception.

The Kansas Legislature passed House Bill 2635 on March 12 and overturned a veto by Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly on Friday. Kelly said she vetoed it because Kansans already voted to keep the government out of private medical decisions in 2022, preventing lawmakers from passing an abortion ban. Kelly also opposes the funding that crisis pregnancy centers receive from the state on an annual basis — the legislature approved $3 million in 2025, on top of a $10 million tax credit program.

Oklahoma’s House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a similar bill in early March, but it hasn’t yet been heard by the Senate. It was sponsored by Republican Rep. Denise Crosswhite Hader, who said it was legislation that allowed the centers to continue their mission.

Oklahoma’s bill prescribes the largest penalties with an allowance for treble damages, which means a successful lawsuit could yield three times the amount of damages proven in court. A pregnancy center would be entitled to at least $10,000.

“I don’t see abortion as care. I see abortion as ending a pregnancy,” she said on the House floor during debate. The centers want to help with continuing a pregnancy, she said, but when they avoid abortion, they’re getting sued, “and what we’re trying to do is help it so that they can stay in their lane and not fight lawsuits over and over.”

The state government allocated $18 million to a revolving grant fund for crisis pregnancy centers in 2024 that will last through November 2027.

Oklahoma has a near-total abortion ban, with no exceptions for rape or incest, only an exception to save a pregnant person’s life. With that in mind, Democratic Rep. Cyndi Munson told States Newsroom she doesn’t see the need for the legislation.

“If a private organization has a policy, they can stick to their policy. I don’t know why we need to put additional protections into law,” Munson said.

Meanwhile, Oklahoma’s health care struggles continue, according to Munson. The state ranked 46th in infant mortality in a report from the nonprofit March of Dimes, and 31st in maternal mortality. But reproductive health care in general can also be difficult to obtain. Munson said she recently had to wait an entire year to receive her annual gynecological exam because her provider is overbooked.

She worries that at a certain point, crisis pregnancy centers will be the only type of health care that’s left, especially in more rural parts of the state.

“Not every woman is looking for abortion access, but they all need reproductive health care,” Munson said.

Gov. Tony Evers signed a pair of bills Thursday that will create a new state grant program to support nonprofits housing and serving homeless veterans. 

AB 596, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 153, and AB 597, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 154, direct $1.9 million to be used to create a new state grant match program for nonprofits serving homeless veterans. Evers did not comment on signing the bills into law in his release.

The bills were introduced by Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto) and Rep. Benjamin Franklin (R-De Pere) after the closure of two Wisconsin Veterans Housing and Recovery Program (VHRP) sites, one in Green Bay and the other in Chippewa Falls, and disagreements with Democrats and Evers on who was to blame for the closures. The VHRP serves veterans who are on the verge of or experiencing homelessness, including those who have experienced incarceration, unemployment or underemployment, physical and mental health problems. 

“I’m glad that the funding the Legislature provided to house and support Wisconsin’s military heroes will soon be going to organizations helping veterans across our state,” Wimberger said. “I hope the bills encourage even more groups to answer the call and step up to provide vital services to our veterans in need.”

The new program will provide $25 per day per veteran to eligible nonprofits that house veterans. To be eligible, nonprofit groups need to be participating in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs per diem program, which currently provides about $82 per day per veteran housed to groups that offer wraparound supportive services to homeless veterans. 

There are currently just four eligible nonprofits, and none are in the Green Bay or Chippewa falls areas. Democratic lawmakers expressed these concerns as the bills were debated, though Republican lawmakers have argued other nonprofits could become eligible if the program became law.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Universities of Wisconsin President Jay Rothman says that the Board of Regents is trying to oust him from his position — and he is refusing to go as he says he has not been given any clear reasons for their loss of confidence in him.

In a letter first obtained by the Associated Press dated March 26, Rothman said he met with Regent President Amy Bogost and Regent Vice President Kyle Weatherly in a meeting they requested. Rothman wrote that he was “surprised” that during the meeting they “indicated for the first time and without any prior discussion or notice that an unidentified majority of the Board of Regents had lost confidence in my leadership despite all that my team and I along with our universities have accomplished to move the Universities of Wisconsin forward.”

Rothman, who was an attorney in Milwaukee and CEO of the law firm Foley and Lardner, was hired by the UW Board of Regents in January 2022. He was chosen after the UW system did not have a permanent leader for two years.

In the letter, Rothman said Bogost and Weatherly did not give reasons for the regents’ conclusion or the lack of confidence in him, but that “each Regent has his or her own perspective on the matter.” 

“You did not provide any tangible reasons for the Board’s determination. It also appears that whatever conclusions were reached, the concerns were vetted without the benefit of any recent in-person or even virtual meeting of the entire Board,” Rothman wrote. “From a Board governance and leadership perspective, I find that to be extraordinarily difficult for the Board to defend; as a person who reports directly to the Board, I am profoundly disappointed.

Rothman wrote that he was given three options for his departure: announcing his resignation and retirement in the near future with an effective date at the end of this calendar year, which he said was the Board’s preferred path; resigning at any time with 120 days notice and the Board terminating his employment if he didn’t resign.

Bogost said in a statement that the Board “is responsible for the leadership of the Universities of Wisconsin and is having discussions about its future.”

“We don’t comment on personnel matters,” Bogost said. 

In his letter, Rothman provided a list of 37 accomplishments throughout his tenure. The list includes obtaining the largest increase in funding from the state Legislature in the last 20 years; engaging with “third-party advisors to evaluate and assist the universities in addressing financial headwinds and improving operational efficiencies”; implementing a direct admissions program for eligible in-state high school students; continuing the tuition promise program by securing private funding; and rebranding the system from the UW System to the Universities of Wisconsin. 

“If the foregoing list is not sufficient evidence of my leadership in driving bold and transformative change, I really do not know what is. Since to date you have not provided any substantive reason or reasons for the Board’s finding of no confidence in my leadership, I am not prepared, as a matter of principle, to submit my resignation. In light of the current circumstances, I do not believe my resignation at this time is in the best interests of either the Universities of Wisconsin or the state of Wisconsin,” Rothman wrote. 

During his tenure, Rothman has overseen the closure or dramatic downsizing of at least eight UW branch campuses and has also sought to work with the Republican-led Legislature, which has often appeared hostile towards the UW system. 

In 2023, Rothman negotiated a deal on university system diversity, equity and inclusion programs (DEI) and funding with Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) and Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg), both of whom are now retiring from the Legislature. Under the deal, which was initially rejected by regents, Rothman got funding for building projects and staff cost-of-living adjustments — which lawmakers had already approved but were holding back as a bargaining chip — while Republicans got cuts to UW DEI initiatives. 

In 2024, Rothman also responded to student pro-Palestinian protests by defending the actions of police officers on campus and saying encampments would be gone eventually.

While Rothman appears confident in his achievements, not all UW stakeholders have been happy with his leadership. AFT-Wisconsin President Jon Shelton said in a statement that even without the details of the reported “loss of confidence,” the union supports the Board’s action. 

“President Rothman’s tenure has been defined by his unwillingness to listen to the stakeholders that truly define our campuses: on everything from our faculty, staff, and students’ commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion to UW System Administration’s disastrous efforts to impose a general education curriculum on our campuses instead of simply implementing a universal credit transfer policy last December as required by Act 15,” Shelton said. 

“We are encouraged by the Board’s recent actions,” Shelton added. “We will gladly work with them moving forward to ensure any UW system president fights to uphold the values that has made the UW System great.”

Rothman wrote that there are also to-do list items that make it a bad time for him to leave, including finding new chancellors for UW-Madison and UW-Eau Claire as well as establishing priorities for the next state budget.

“I understand that, as you indicated on Saturday, the Board may act to terminate my employment, which the Board is empowered to do,” Rothman wrote. “If, however, the full Board would like to discuss this matter with me in either an open or closed session, I would welcome the opportunity to participate in such a meeting.” 

In a second letter to Regents Ashok Rai and Jack Salzwedel dated April 1, Rothman wrote that in a separate conversation, they also provided no reason for the request for his departure. 

“Similar to Regent President Bogost, you indicated that you could not offer any reason at this time. In fact, you said that topic would be discussed at the upcoming meeting of the Board,” Rothman wrote. 

The Board of Regents met in a closed special meeting on April 1 in the evening to discuss personnel matters. 

“Unfortunately, I am left to conclude that any basis for a Board finding of no confidence in my leadership will be, at best, an after-the-fact rationalization of a decision that clearly has already been made without the benefit of any recent meeting of the Regents and despite all the successes and transformative accomplishments during my tenure as President,” Rothman wrote in the letter to Rai and Salwedel. “I am not prepared, as a matter of principle, to submit my resignation at this time.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Democrats this week blasted the Trump administration’s attempts to shift management of federal student loans from the Education Department to the Treasury Department, saying it would contribute to dysfunction in the student loan system.

In a Wednesday letter, the ranking members of five Senate panels — the committees covering banking, finance, education, federal spending and the Appropriations subcommittee overseeing the Education Department — called on Education Secretary Linda McMahon and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to “immediately” rescind the interagency agreement announced in March.

The letter is part of Democrats’ efforts to stop President Donald Trump and his administration from outsourcing Education Department responsibilities to other agencies as part of the administration’s attempts to dismantle the department, which Congress created and only Congress can abolish. 

Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Ron Wyden of Oregon, Patty Murray of Washington state and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, along with independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who caucuses with the Democrats, penned the letter. 

They are the respective ranking members of the Senate Committees on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs; Finance; Appropriations; the Appropriations subcommittee overseeing Education Department funding; and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.  

They argued the transfer would introduce “more dysfunction into the federal student loan system, worsening the ongoing student loan default crisis that the Trump Administration has already exacerbated.” 

An ‘illegal scheme’

Under the agreement, Treasury will take over Education’s responsibility for collecting on defaulted federal student loan debt — the first step in a multi-phase process toward Treasury taking on the entire, roughly $1.7 trillion federal student loan portfolio. 

The senators called the move an “illegal scheme” that “threatens to trap student loan borrowers, students, and families in chaos and bureaucracy, all while American taxpayers are left to foot the bill for Treasury to administer programs that (the Education Department) can and should administer itself, likely costing more money and burying borrowers and families in unnecessary red tape.” 

The lawmakers also emphasized the spending package Trump signed into law in February rejects the president’s calls to axe the agency — funding the Education Department at $79 billion this fiscal year. 

The senators point to the joint explanatory statement accompanying the measure, which states that “no authorities exist for the Department of Education to transfer its fundamental responsibilities under numerous authorizing and appropriations laws, including through procuring services from other Federal agencies, of carrying out those programs, projects, and activities to other Federal agencies.” 

The lawmakers gave McMahon and Bessent two weeks to respond to their inquiries on the logistics, timing, costs and implementation of the transfer. 

‘A hard reset’

Education Department spokesperson Ellen Keast said in a statement shared with States Newsroom on Thursday that the current approach to student loan management was not working.

“With the student loan portfolio approaching $1.7 trillion and defaults nearing 25 percent, now is the time for a hard reset in how the federal government provides and services student loans,” Keast said. 

“We are confident that our partnership with the Treasury, an experienced and proven fiduciary, will strengthen program administration and better serve American students, borrowers, and taxpayers,” she added.

The Treasury Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate approved legislation Thursday that would end the shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security, sending the same bill it passed last week to the House, which didn’t take any action during a brief session.

But it appeared the shutdown also could be affected by executive action. President Donald Trump wrote in a social media post later in the morning that he “will soon sign an order to pay ALL of the incredible employees at the Department of Homeland Security.” 

He didn’t detail when that would take place or from where he would pull that money. White House spokespeople did not immediately respond to a request for details. 

Asked about the Senate-passed bill, Speaker Mike Johnson’s office didn’t immediately return a request for comment as to when the House may approve the legislation. But members aren’t scheduled to return from a two-week spring break until April 14. 

The House could have cleared the measure for Trump’s signature during a short session it held an hour after the Senate approved the bill, but its leaders chose not to.

Those pro forma sessions, as they are known, are held about every three days when one or both chambers of Congress are on break and the vast majority of lawmakers are away from Capitol Hill. They typically don’t include any real work and are intended to avoid recess appointments. 

The Senate approved the bill after a few procedural remarks from Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and didn’t hold a recorded vote. 

‘Deep division and dysfunction’

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement after the House opted not to clear the legislation that the “deep division and dysfunction among House Republicans is needlessly extending the DHS shutdown and hurting federal workers who are missing another paycheck.”

“The Senate did its work twice to fund key parts of DHS without funding the lawlessness of ICE and Border Patrol,” he added. “House Republicans need to get to work and end the longest Republican shutdown in history.”

The DHS appropriations bill the Senate approved would provide funding for the vast majority of the department except Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol. 

It would ensure funding for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, Coast Guard, Federal Emergency Management Agency and Secret Service. 

Senators approved an identical DHS funding bill last week by voice vote, but Johnson, R-La., rejected it and instead put an eight-week stopgap spending bill up for a vote in the House.

That legislation had no chance of getting past procedural hurdles in the Senate, which require at least 60 lawmakers to vote to end debate. 

Objections to immigration enforcement

Senate Democrats originally held up approval of the DHS spending bill after federal officers shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis in January. They have said repeatedly since then they won’t approve any more funding for immigration and deportation activities without new guardrails. 

Thune reached a deal with Schumer last week to pass a DHS funding bill without any new money for ICE or the Border Patrol, which have tens of billions available from Republicans’ “big, beautiful” law. 

GOP lawmakers said at the time the idea was to approve another reconciliation package to further bolster funding levels for immigration enforcement and deportations. 

“To my Democrat colleagues, this bill is the moderate option. What’s coming next is going to supercharge deportations,” Missouri Sen. Eric Schmitt said during floor debate at the time. “To my Republican colleagues, let this be a rallying cry every time the Democrats obstruct the safety of American families, the wall gets 10 feet higher and ICE gets another $100 billion.”

Thune and Johnson released a statement Wednesday that they had brokered a deal to do just that, with Trump’s support. 

“In following this two-track approach, the Republican Congress will fully reopen the Department, make sure all federal workers are paid, and specifically fund immigration enforcement and border security for the next three years so that those law-enforcement activities can continue uninhibited,” they said. “In return, Democrats will once again demonstrate to the American people their support for open borders and keeping criminal illegal immigrants in America.”

Trump wrote in his social media post that “Republicans are UNIFIED, and moving forward on a plan that will reload funding for our FANTASTIC Border Patrol and Immigration Enforcement Officers.” 

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Pam Bondi is leaving the Department of Justice and will be replaced for now by President Donald Trump’s former personal defense lawyer, the president announced Thursday.

“Pam Bondi is a Great American Patriot and a loyal friend, who faithfully served as my Attorney General over the past year. Pam did a tremendous job overseeing a massive crackdown in Crime across our Country,” the president wrote on social media.

Bondi will depart for an “important new job in the private sector, to be announced at a date in the near future,” Trump added.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, “a very talented and respected Legal Mind,” will move up in an acting role, he said.

Blanche thanked the president on social media and praised Bondi for doing her job “with strength and conviction” adding he was “grateful for her leadership and friendship.”

Trump did not indicate who he would nominate to succeed Bondi on a permanent basis.

Bondi’s exit follows the departure last month of another high-profile Cabinet member, Kristi Noem, whom Trump reassigned from the position of secretary of Homeland Security. 

Epstein files

Bondi, the former attorney general of Florida, oversaw the legally mandated release of government files on the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who surrounded himself with powerful figures, including Trump, even after he pleaded guilty to soliciting a minor in 2008. Epstein died in a Manhattan jail cell awaiting federal trial on sex trafficking charges.

Trump’s name appeared thousands of times in the files, along with those of numerous celebrities, writers and tech giants. Trump denies knowing about Epstein’s scheme to groom and solicit hundreds of young girls for sex.

Shortly after being installed as attorney general, Bondi touted her access to the Epstein files, telling Fox News in February 2025 that the sex offender’s client list was “sitting on my desk,” and distributing binders marked “Epstein Files: Phase I” to conservative political commentators.

By July, the department announced it had found no leads in the files warranting further investigation and that no further information would be made public. The announcement set off a firestorm in Congress that eventually led to the bipartisan passage of legislation mandating the department to release millions of documents related to Epstein.

Bondi received heavy criticism for missing the legally mandated deadline to release the files, and for a botched rollout that disclosed the names of several victims. 

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform subpoenaed Bondi on March 4 to testify before the committee for its separate investigation of the files. Bondi appeared on Capitol Hill for a closed-door briefing with the committee that quickly turned heated, according to CNN’s Kaitlan Collins.

Dem slams ‘legacy of failure’

Lawmakers released an avalanche of statements upon Trump’s announcement that Bondi will no longer hold the highest law enforcement role in the United States.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., ranking member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, slammed Bondi’s tenure as a “profound betrayal not only of the Department of Justice but of the American people the Department exists to serve.”

Bondi’s “legacy of failure” includes the firing of prosecutors and federal law enforcement agents who investigated crimes committed leading up to and during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, Raskin said in a statement Thursday. Three FBI agents sued this week over their ouster.

“This shameful legacy is cemented by her grotesque mishandling of the Epstein files,” Raskin said, alleging Bondi protected powerful figures by redacting their names, yet allowing names of victims to be publicly disclosed.

Bondi and Raskin shared a heated exchange over the Epstein files during a Feb. 11 oversight hearing, at which she called Raskin a “washed-up loser lawyer.”

Bondi built a reputation of combativeness and an unwavering loyalty to Trump during hearings before lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who chairs the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, thanked Bondi for being responsive to his oversight records requests and said she “helped bring violent crime down to historic lows.”

“The Judiciary Committee stands ready to advance President Trump’s next Attorney General nominee,” Grassley said.

Wisconsin’s economy, along with the nation’s, is cooling, the state’s labor department reported Thursday, with unemployment up slightly in January and jobs trending down from January a year ago.

The state’s trend tends to match seasonal patterns in Wisconsin, said Scott Hodek, section chief for the Office of Economic Advisors in the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, during an online briefing. But it also tracks with the national economic slowdown, he said, although Wisconsin’s experience has been easier.

“The Wisconsin labor market has cooled a bit along with the national economy, but unemployment does remain historically low” in the state, Hodek said.

The state projected 3,032,500 jobs in January 2026 — an increase of 8,000 from December 2025, but a drop of 15,400 from January 2025. “That fits what we know of national trends that we have seen so far in the first quarter,” Hodek said.

Wisconsin’s construction industry has been gaining in the last year, with 10,000 more jobs in January 2026 compared with January 2025, and an increase of 2,400 jobs since December.

Manufacturing, however, lost 2,100 jobs in January 2026 compared with December 2025, and 8,600 jobs from January 2025. That continues “a long-running trend,” Hodek said.

The number of jobs reported each month is a projection made from a federal survey of employers’ payrolls.

The Wisconsin unemployment rate edged up to 3.3% in January — an increase from 3.2% in December 2025, but the same as January 2025, Hodek said. Labor force participation in Wisconsin is 64.3%, higher than the national average of 62.5%, DWD reported.

Labor force participation measures how many people age 16 or older are working or looking for work; it leaves out people in the military or living in institutions including prisons and nursing homes.

The employment and labor force projections are based on a different survey that the federal government conducts of households.

The report released Thursday is one of three to come out in April. Hodek said the January data didn’t come out sooner because the federal government shutdown in October delayed an annual review that adjusts the labor market statistics to new benchmarks. Data for February and March will be released later in April to catch Wisconsin up with the calendar. 

A national report that looks at hiring trends as well as layoffs and firings through February shows that “hires have been down and overall openings have been down, and separations have been pretty stable,” Hodek said.

Those numbers aren’t available yet for Wisconsin, he said, but the December data showed the state had a higher rate of job openings and a lower rate of job separations, he added.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

About 100 Wisconsinites joined a virtual town hall hosted by Citizen Action of Wisconsin Wednesday evening to share how data center developments across the state are harming local residents through the increased use of energy. 

Over the past year, data centers have become an increasingly potent issue in the state as the number of data center facilities in Wisconsin has risen to about 50. Data center proposals are currently pending in communities including Beaver Dam and Janesville. The Democratic and Republican candidates for governor have frequently been asked about the issue and lawmakers of both parties introduced legislation to manage data center growth — yet both chambers of the Legislature adjourned for the year without the bills being signed into law. 

The Legislature’s lack of action, and the 10 month wait before the body is back in session in January 2027, was a big concern for data center opponents at the event Wednesday who are worried about how many data center projects can be planned and started before then. 

“These are happening fast. A lot of these decisions are being made in the next six to 18 months, which is especially concerning because, as mentioned earlier, the state Legislature went home on a 10 month long vacation without helping us with many of these important decisions,” Kat Klawes, Citizen Action of Wisconsin’s climate policy coordinator, said. “There are data centers and power plants being built 24/7, so there are people out at construction sites across the state, still working late at night. And there’s local projects that are being approved.

“And this is a big issue, because Wisconsin does not have a statewide plan,” Klawes said “These projects are being approved on a case-by-case basis. Local towns are coming up against billion dollar companies and teams of lawyers who are demanding things. There’s no consistent framework for cost, water use, energy demand, community impact or community say. There is none of that. Wisconsin is the wild, wild west.”

Among the biggest concerns shared by attendees were the pressure that data centers’ massive energy use will put on regular Wisconsinites’ energy bills and the effect that increased energy use will have on the climate. 

Keviea Guiden, who works on energy burden issues on Milwaukee’s north side, noted that Wisconsin is two weeks away from the end of the winter moratorium on utilities shutting off people’s power. She said that with so many Wisconsin families already struggling to pay their bills, the state needs to do something to prevent data centers from further increasing the cost of energy. 

“We will be burdened with having to pay for those facilities being built,” she said. “Families are already being forced between if they should pay for health care, day cares, diapers, if they should figure out if the dog could even eat as well.” 

Attendees complained about the large amount of water data centers use to cool their systems and the effect that could have on local water supplies — especially the Great Lakes. But the bigger climate concern is the emissions caused by increasing the amount of electricity Wisconsin’s utility companies generate. Green Bay resident Arden Kozlow connected the fight against data centers to the fight against oil pipelines such as the activism against the Line 5 pipeline across northern Wisconsin. 

“We’re just fast tracking a process that is already happening with absolutely no regulation and no care for how it’s happening, and that, frankly, this only adds to the problem that we’ve already had with oil pipelines,” Kozlow said. “So it’s all just sort of feeding into itself and creating a bigger and bigger problem.”

Attendees still suggested a number of statewide solutions for managing the effects of data centers. 

One proposal is capping the state’s utility rates at 2% of household income, which advocates said would encourage the state’s utilities to invest in lower cost renewable energy. Attendees also supported legislation proposed by Democratic lawmakers that would put a moratorium on data center construction until many of the questions about their impacts can be answered.

State Rep. Angelito Tenorio (D-West Allis) joined the town hall to tout his proposed legislation that would require Wisconsin get 100% of its energy from carbon free sources by 2050. 

“We have a moral imperative to move towards clean energy, renewable energy,” he said, noting that Wisconsin lags behind its neighbors in Iowa, Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota on the issue. 

With the Legislature out for the year, local government approvals will remain the only lever Wisconsin residents have to push back against data center developments.

Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley and County Board President Marcelia Nicholson-Bovell signed legislation Wednesday afternoon reaffirming the county’s commitment to adhering to the goals of the 2016 Paris Climate agreement. 

“In Milwaukee County, we know that the climate crisis is a real, pressing threat to our environment, our economy, our health, and our quality of life,” Crowley said at the gathering beside other officials at the Urban Ecology Center of Washington Park. 

The international agreement called on nations to adopt policies to keep average global temperatures from increasing more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The United States joined nearly 200 global nations and states in signing onto the agreement under President Barack Obama. President Donald Trump pulled out of the agreement after he was sworn into office in 2017 and, after President Joe Biden rejoined the agreement, again in 2025.  Trump has called the agreement “unfair,” “one-sided,” and a “rip-off.” Since the Trump administration exited the agreement, state and local governments across the country have signaled their aims to stick with the agreement’s aims. 

Milwaukee County first signed onto the Paris Climate Accords in 2017. The county’s goal is to reach net-zero operational emissions by 2050. The event Wednesday was held on the first day of Earth Month.

Crowley praised Milwaukee’s efforts towards reducing carbon emissions and climate resiliency despite being in a time “when federal climate leadership is stepping back.” He said at the event that the county has reduced its emissions by nearly 50% since 2005. 

Nicholson-Bovell echoed the sentiment.

“Milwaukee County continues leading the way in the march toward a more environmentally sustainable community,” she said. “Our legislation recommits Milwaukee County to the Paris Agreement and Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding, because our children’s future depends on how we combat the climate crisis and build the equitable future we all deserve.” 

Crowley and Nicholson-Bovell were joined by Milwaukee County Supervisors Felesia Martin, Anne O’Connor and Sky Capriolo.

The Urban Ecology Center itself is an example of the steps Milwaukee County has taken towards reaching net-zero. The Washington Park center was recently renovated, becoming the first all-electric non-residential building in Milwaukee County, the center’s executive director, Jen Hense, explained. 

Now the building creates zero emissions and, with the planned installation of 100 new solar panels next week, is set to reduce its energy consumption by about one-third.

When the building was renovated, about 60% of its original structure was re-used. Some of the wood used in the renovations was also reclaimed from trees felled by Milwaukee County to combat the emerald ash borer insect. Bird-safe glass had also been installed, so far decreasing the number of collisions the building is responsible for. Surrounding the ecology center are ponds where people often fish, and the center works to re-introduce native plants to assist local ecosystems.

Hense stressed the importance of the Urban Ecology Center’s work. There are over 35,000 young people who attend outdoor and science programs at the county’s three Urban Ecology Centers, and more than 600,000 people visit the green spaces the center stewards in Riverside Park, Washington Park, and Menomonee Valley. 

“We know that these natural spaces, and hundreds more across the county — that are loved and cared for by amazing individuals and incredible environmental organizations — are important to our community, and are essential to protect for generations to come,” said Hense. “We know that combatting the global climate crisis can start right here in the county, and that this work is truly an act of environmental justice.” 

Nicholson-Bovell recalled growing up in a Milwaukee neighborhood where the nearest park didn’t have grass. She said that she was born premature with under-developed lungs, a condition worsened by the air pollution in her community. Studies have shown that increasing the number of urban trees would help improve polluted air conditions. 

“The environment that I grew up in had been ripped apart by the building of a freeway,” said Nicholson-Bovell. “And it was little kids like me who struggled to breathe in our communities. We didn’t have access to clean air, we didn’t have access to green space. And when I became a Milwaukee County supervisor, I promised that no child that I could help support would ever have to experience that again.”

Crowley said visiting the county’s parks reminds him “of just how lucky we are to have accessible access to beautiful green spaces like the one that we are in today.” He stressed that having this “in our backyard” should never be “taken for granted” while highlighting the success the county has already achieved at reducing its climate impact. “And it is because, and through, our office of sustainability that we remain focused on building green infrastructure, creating local sustainability jobs, and making sure that every single neighborhood is part of our climate solution,” said Crowley. 

Crowley said that partnership and collaboration with higher levels of government will be needed to fully accomplish the county’s climate goals. Yet that assistance is unlikely to come from the current federal government. Trump has repeatedly called climate change a hoax. Under Trump, the Environmental Protection Agency also repealed the 2009 endangerment finding that greenhouse gases threaten public health. During both Trump Administrations, climate data and even the words “climate change” have been purged from federal websites. Climate policies at the state level have also been blocked or frustrated by Wisconsin’s Republican-controlled legislature. 

Grant Helle, director of the Milwaukee County Office of Sustainability, said that “while federal climate leadership declines, Milwaukee County is taking action.” Helle said that local action is “not optional, but essential.” Helle noted that the new Marcia P. Coggs Health and Human Services Center will have on-site solar which will off-set over 11% of that facility’s energy use. The county is also re-thinking how building design could impact climate change, an issue which Helle said residents are concerned about. 

A stream of extreme weather events in recent months and years have likely fueled those concerns. Just weeks ago, people in parts of Wisconsin endured a historic blizzard, receiving so much snow that plow services needed to be shut down. Some Milwaukee communities still haven’t fully recovered from record-breaking amounts of rain and flooding that swept through the city in August. The Trump Administration has denied multiple requests for assistance and flood relief made by Wisconsin communities. 

Extreme heat gripped areas of the state in 2023, coinciding with increased wildfire activity within the state, while smoke from fires in Canada worsened air quality. Severe storms also hit Milwaukee and other Wisconsin communities in 2022 and 2021. O’Connor recalled the floods of 2010, where people were “literally canoeing down the street where I live in my district.” 

Crowley said that the August floods should be an indication that the midwest is not safe from climate change. 

“That tells us how do we build infrastructure that is resilient, and how do we think long term making sure that this planet is continuously livable for our young people and for many generations moving forward,” he said. 

Nicholson-Bovell said that the floods were devastating, but that climate change is a national issue. “My husband I met in St. Louis,” she said. “They had a historic tornado rip through the inner-city of St. Louis and they’re still scrambling to try and find housing for individuals.” 

Helle said that increased flooding, harsher heatwaves, and worse air quality are climate hazards Milwaukeeans are already experiencing. “It’s really unfortunate,” said Helle. “But what it does is go to show that we need to continue to make efforts here in Milwaukee County right now where we can to lower the impact on those residents that we ultimately serve.” 

 

Democratic attorneys general this week filed their 100th lawsuit against the Trump administration, part of a coordinated legal strategy. 

And the attorneys general say they are winning most of their court cases against the administration. Of the 67 cases with court rulings, the Democratic Attorneys General Association says its members have won 55 of those challenges. 

A legal challenge over environmental regulations filed this week is the AGs’ latest effort to oppose the ever-widening power of the executive branch. Since the president’s second term began last January, Democratic-led states have sued the administration on a variety of issues — ranging from the withholding of congressionally approved funds to immigration enforcement to the administration’s tariffs on foreign goods. 

Marking its 100th lawsuit, the Democratic Attorneys General Association said its members were the only group of elected leaders successfully opposing the Trump administration’s “harmful and reckless actions.”

“For too long, Trump has trampled the rule of law,” Sean Rankin, the association president, said in a news release. “And Democratic AGs have held him accountable for the harms he has done to our economy and our democracy.”

On Tuesday, a group of state and local governments sued over the administration’s repeal of limits on emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants. The coalition argued the rollback was unlawful, saying the federal government has failed to provide a reasoned basis for it or consider the new technologies. The Trump administration has said the move was made “to ensure affordable, dependable energy for American families.” 

While it’s not unusual for states to sue the federal government, it’s one of the few paths Democrats have available to oppose President Donald Trump’s actions, with Republicans controlling the White House and both chambers of Congress.

Oregon Democratic Attorney General Dan Rayfield has been among the most prolific, suing the administration more than 50 times. Rayfield has said the suits are not political theater — they’re a vital means to checking the president’s overreach.

“People should be shocked that Oregon has filed 55 lawsuits,” he told Stateline earlier this year. “Their mind should be blown. But their mind should be equally blown at how often we’re winning these cases.”

State lawsuits represent a slice of the more than 700 lawsuits the Trump administration has faced since last January, according to a New York Times tracker. In more than 400 cases, the courts have let the administration’s policies stay in effect even as they remain in active litigation. But in more than 150 cases, the tracker shows the courts have at least partially halted administration policies. 

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org. 

Democrats sued over President Donald Trump’s executive order clamping down on mail ballots on Wednesday, signaling the start of another fight with the White House over elections.

The order, which would create a national list of voting-age American citizens and directs the U.S. Postal Service to place limits on mail-in ballots, constitutes an extraordinary and illegal attempt by Trump to intervene in the voting process, election experts said.

An array of Democratic groups, including the Democratic National Committee, filed a federal lawsuit against the order in the District of Columbia late Wednesday. U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York are also plaintiffs. They are represented by Marc Elias, a prominent progressive voting rights litigator.

The Democrats allege in a 61-page complaint that Trump has tried “again and again” to rewrite election rules for his own advantage. It accuses the president of acting beyond the scope of his authority and unlawfully intruding on the authority of Congress and the states, as well as violating the authority of the U.S. Postal Service.

“The Executive Order’s provisions are convoluted and confusing,” the complaint reads. “What is clear is that it dramatically restricts the ability of Americans to vote by mail, impinging on traditional state authority.”

Several Democratic election officials have also promised to challenge the order. 

“The executive order is unconstitutional and I think it is very likely that it will be struck down,” Colorado Democratic Secretary of State Jena Griswold said in an interview. She said her state would join litigation against the order.

Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said he would meet the federal government in court, while Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar said “we look forward to our day in court challenging this illegal action.” Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows said her state was “not going to obey in advance” because the states, not Trump, are in charge of elections.

Advocacy groups also promised lawsuits. The Campaign Legal Center said it would challenge the order with its partners, the Democracy Defenders Fund, the League of United Latin American Citizens and other organizations.

White House calls for passage of SAVE America Act

Ahead of the Democrats’ lawsuit, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement that election integrity has always been a top priority for Trump. She also called on Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, which would require voters to provide documents proving their citizenship to register to vote.

“The President will do everything in his power to defend the safety and security of American elections and to ensure that only American citizens are voting in them,” Jackson said.

In Nebraska, Republican Secretary of State Bob Evnen downplayed the possibility of immediate changes to his state’s elections, while praising Trump for prioritizing election integrity. Nebraska will hold a primary on May 12.

“Over the coming months, we will continue to monitor and participate in how the implementation of the executive order might impact the November 3rd general election,” Evnen told the Nebraska Examiner.

Tens of millions of Americans vote by mail in federal elections, underscoring the stakes of any major restrictions on voting by mail. About 30% of voters cast mail ballots in 2024, according to data gathered by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

Another elections challenge

Opponents of Trump’s election-related moves have a good track record in court.

Trump’s first order on elections, issued just over a year ago, attempted to require voters to prove their citizenship. While Congress is debating the SAVE America Act, which would implement similar requirements, federal courts found that the president had overstepped his authority when he attempted to impose changes unilaterally.

Nearly 30 states are also fighting U.S. Department of Justice lawsuits seeking to force them to turn over copies of voters containing sensitive personal information on voters. Three federal judges have so far ruled against the Trump administration.

State administration of elections is a fundamental feature of American democracy, spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. States run and regulate elections, but Congress — not the president alone — can override states and set national standards.

At a basic level, critics of Trump’s executive order argue it tramples on state authority and bypasses Congress. 

“Once again, the President is attempting to act beyond his powers and seize control of our elections. Now he is attempting to weaponize the United States Postal Service against the voters. We will not stand for it,” U.S. Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the ranking Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, said in a statement.

‘This will help a lot’

Trump cast the executive order as a necessary step in support of election integrity when he signed it during an Oval Office event on Tuesday. He acknowledged it would likely face legal challenges but called it “foolproof.”

Trump, who has long called the 2020 election stolen, falsely asserted that elections have been marked by significant fraud, saying the order was aimed at “stopping the massive cheating that’s gone on.” In fact, instances of noncitizen voting are extremely rare.

“I think this will help a lot with elections,” Trump said.

The order requires the Department of Homeland Security, with help from the Social Security Administration, to compile a list of voting-age U.S. citizens living in each state and then provide that information to state officials at least 60 days before each federal election. The order does not tell states how to use the data, but it instructs U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to prioritize investigations into state and local officials who issue federal ballots to ineligible voters.

The list of citizens will be drawn from naturalization and Social Security records, according to the order. It will also include data from SAVE, a powerful computer program maintained by Homeland Security that verifies citizenship by checking names against information in federal databases. 

The Trump administration has been encouraging states to run their voter rolls through SAVE to identify potential noncitizens, but some election officials say it wrongly flags Americans as noncitizens. Several voting rights and civic groups have sued over Texas’ use of SAVE.

The Justice Department confirmed last week that it will share voter data it obtains with Homeland Security. At the same time, DOJ lawyers have been adamant in court that the Trump administration isn’t creating a national voter registration list.

“And yet here is an executive order that very overtly and expressly directs DHS to create that national voter database,” David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research, told reporters on Wednesday.

Postal Service involvement questioned

The order directs Postmaster General David Steiner, who was named to the role by USPS’s Board of Governors last year, to require every outbound mail ballot be in an envelope that includes a tracking barcode. 

At least 90 days before a federal election, states must notify the U.S. Postal Service whether they intend to allow ballots to be sent through the mail. States would then have to submit to USPS a list of voters planning to vote by mail at least 60 days before the election.

“What the president is doing today is he’s going to make sure mail-in ballots are safe, secure and accurate,” U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told reporters on Tuesday.

Trump’s effort to enlist USPS in election administration goes against the agency’s own policies. When the Postal Service updated its rules last year, it noted that it does not establish rules or deadlines for elections, or determine how the mail is utilized for elections.

USPS spokesperson Cathy Purcell said the agency was reviewing the executive order.

The order is a “structural inversion” of how mail voting works, said Pamela Smith, president and CEO of Verified Voting, an organization that promotes the responsible use of technology in elections. USPS delivers mail and isn’t involved in distributing ballots, she said.

“It is not up to the Postal Service to have this gatekeeping role over ballot delivery,” Smith said.

Under the order, the Justice Department and other federal agencies would be directed to withhold federal funds from states and localities that don’t comply with federal laws. It doesn’t specify what federal funds would potentially be targeted or whether states could lose election-related dollars.

States receive minimal federal election security grant funding each year from the Election Assistance Commission. During the 2025 fiscal year, the EAC distributed $15 million total, which can be used for upgrades to voting systems, cybersecurity, training and other needs.

“Even if it were to come to pass,” Smith said, “I don’t think it would carry much weight as a stick.”

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday seemed poised to reject the Trump administration’s attempt to redefine the constitutional right to birthright citizenship, and instead uphold the country’s long understanding of citizenship by birth on American soil. 

If a majority of Supreme Court justices strikes down President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship for children born to parents without legal status or temporary immigration statuses like visas, it will be the second recent major blow to the president via the high court. Earlier this year, a majority of justices struck down his use of sweeping tariffs. 

Trump, who signed the executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship as one of his first acts after his inauguration in 2025, came to the courtroom to hear the oral arguments, a first for a sitting president. 

‘Quirky’ administration argument

A majority of the justices during Wednesday’s oral arguments were skeptical of Solicitor General D. John Sauer’s arguments that the citizenship clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment was only intended to grant citizenship to the children of newly freed African American slaves, not immigrants. 

Chief Justice John Roberts called one of Sauer’s key arguments “quirky,” and questioned how it could be applied to an entire class of immigrants without legal status. 

Sauer argued that the children born to parents without legal status or temporary visitors are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” and are instead subject to the laws of their home country. He cited carve outs in birthright citizenship, such as the children born to foreign diplomats.

“You expand it to a whole class of illegal aliens,” Roberts said. “I’m not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples.”

Along with Roberts, the liberal wing of the court and conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett also did not seem swayed by Sauer’s argument. 

Gorsuch asked Sauer if, under the Trump administration’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, Native Americans would be considered birthright citizens “under your test.” 

“Uh, I think so,” Sauer said.

Indigenous people were granted U.S. citizenship by Congress in 1924, but were not granted citizenship under the 14th Amendment because those children were born to parents who were citizens of tribal governments. 

Sauer also contended the 1898 Supreme Court ruling that upheld citizenship based on birth on American soil, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, was wrongly decided. 

He argued that the Wong Kim Ark case did not take into consideration “sojourn travelers,” who are temporary visitors in the U.S. and give birth.   

Sauer also said the Trump administration was not looking for the justices to overturn that case. 

ACLU arguments

Liberal justice Elena Kagan said that Sauer’s argument to the court was an effort to create a “revisionist history” of the Wong Kim Ark case. 

“Everyone took Wong Kim Ark to say that, as a result of that, birthright citizenship was the rule,” she said. “And I think everybody has believed that for a long, long time.”

American Civil Liberties Union lead attorney Cecillia Wang said during oral arguments that when the federal government tried to strip Ark of his citizenship, “largely on the same grounds (the Trump administration) raised today,” the Supreme Court rejected those efforts.

“This Court held that the 14th Amendment embodies the English common law rule (that) virtually everyone born on U.S. soil is subject to its jurisdiction and is a citizen,” said Wang, who is the daughter of Taiwanese immigrants.

Her parents were in the U.S. on student visas when she was born in Oregon, meaning that if Trump’s executive order were in effect at that time, she would have been denied U.S. citizenship.

“Ask any American what our citizenship rule is and they’ll tell you, everyone born here is a citizen alike,” Wang said. “That rule was enshrined in the 14th Amendment to put it out of the reach of any government official to destroy.”

Birthright citizenship has been a longstanding core principle in the United States, where nearly any child — regardless of their parents’ immigration status — born on U.S. soil is automatically granted citizenship. 

The text of the clause is: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Experts have warned that if the constitutional right to birthright citizenship were struck down, it would effectively create a class of millions of stateless people, leaving them without a country to call home.

If the high court determines that Trump violated the Constitution with his executive order, it would be a major block to the president’s goal in defining who is American, as Trump has aimed to reshape the country’s racial and ethnic makeup through limits to migration and an aggressive immigration campaign of mass deportations. 

A decision from the high court on the case, Trump v. Barbara, is likely not going to come until the end of the court term, in late June or early July. If the court decides to uphold the executive order, it would go into effect 30 days after the ruling. 

New world, old Constitution

Sauer argued that birthright citizenship should not be applied to children of temporary visitors, such as foreigners who partake in what opponents call “birth tourism.”

Roberts asked Sauer how much of an issue birth tourism is – the idea that foreign visitors specifically travel to the U.S. for the purpose of giving birth and obtaining citizenship for their soon-to-be born children.

“No one knows for sure,” Sauer said, citing media reports that many Chinese tourists travel to the U.S. and give birth. 

However, China does not allow its citizens to have dual citizenship. 

Roberts seemed skeptical that birth tourism should be considered in Sauer’s legal arguments for the purpose of restricting birthright citizenship. He told Sauer that birth tourism “wasn’t an issue in the 19th century.” 

“We’re in a new world now,” Sauer said. “Where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child as a U.S. citizen.” 

But Roberts shot back, “Well, it’s a new world, it’s the same Constitution.”

Other countries

Sauer also argued that the U.S. should fall in line with the citizenship laws of other countries.

“Unrestricted birthright citizenship contradicts the practice of the overwhelming majority of modern nations,” he said. “It demeans the priceless and profound gift of American citizenship.”

Kavanaugh questioned why the U.S. should worry about the citizenship requirements of other countries. 

“Obviously we try to interpret American law with American precedent based on American history,” Kavanaugh said. “I’m not seeing the relevance as a legal, constitutional interpretive matter necessarily, although I understand it’s a very good point.”

Shortly after oral arguments ended, Trump took to his social media site, Truth Social, where he falsely said the U.S. is the only country to have birthright citizenship. Argentina, Brazil, Canada and Mexico are among several countries that have birthright citizenship.

“We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!” he wrote. 

Trump left Wednesday’s oral arguments after Sauer was finished presenting his argument to the justices, and about a few minutes into arguments from the ACLU’s Wang, according to White House pool reports. Oral arguments lasted for about two-and-a-half hours.

Earlier decision

This is the second time the Trump administration has brought a birthright citizenship case before the justices. 

Last year, after federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Washington state struck down the president’s executive order, the Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court, but asked the justices to consider the lower courts’ use of universal injunctions, rather than the merits of birthright citizenship.

The justices took up the case, and in a 6-3 vote divided along ideological lines, the use of universal injunctions was curtailed by the conservative wing of the high court. 

After the ruling, immigration advocates and the ACLU filed class action suits, which were successful in blocking the birthright citizenship executive order. The suits argued that future children born in the United States without gaining citizenship constituted a nationwide class.

“If you credit the government’s theory, the citizenship of millions of Americans past, present and future could be called into question,” Wang said. 

For the first time in years, there are early signs that police killings in the United States may be declining — after deaths reached a record high in 2024 and amid intensified scrutiny of law enforcement tactics nationwide.

The findings come as photos and videos of aggressive law enforcement — particularly involving federal immigration agents — have dominated headlines and social media. The new numbers don’t include deaths during immigration enforcement, and federal agents operate under different authorities and standards than state and local police. Nevertheless, some experts say the heightened visibility has sharpened public attention on the use of force.

New data from Campaign Zero, a research group that advocates for the end of police violence, shows a slight drop in police killings in 2025 compared with 2024.

At least 1,314 people were killed by police in 2025 — the first annual decrease since 2019, according to the group’s report. By comparison, at least 1,383 people were killed by law enforcement in 2024, the highest number recorded since the group began tracking the data.

Some policing experts caution that it’s too early to say whether the drop is the beginning of a longer-term decline.

“You want to have a couple of good years, and you want to begin to gather why we think these things are happening,” said Tracie Keesee, co-founder of the Center for Policing Equity and an associate professor of public safety and justice at the University of Virginia School of Continuing and Professional Studies. Keesee has 25 years of law enforcement experience.

“What do we not know?” she said. “What’s the data not telling us? I think that’s also important.”

Experts point to a range of possible explanations for the decrease in police-related deaths, including ongoing staffing shortages that have resulted in fewer officers on patrol, expanded use of de-escalation training and stricter use-of-force policies, and the uneven rollout of changes adopted by police departments in the years following the 2020 police murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

Lower crime rates nationwide — including a decline in homicides — is another possible factor, some experts say, as it may have reduced the number of high-risk encounters between police and civilians.

The uncertainty reflects long-standing gaps in national policing data. There is no comprehensive federal government database tracking police use of force, leaving the public to rely on independent efforts such as Campaign Zero’s Mapping Police Violence database, which compiles incidents from public records, media reports and other verifiable sources.

Last year, the Trump administration shut down the National Law Enforcement Accountability Database, a system that tracked misconduct by federal law enforcement officers.

The available data that is maintained by the federal government is collected by the FBI through its Uniform Crime Reporting system, which began tracking use-of-force incidents in 2019. The data relies on voluntary, self-reported submissions from police departments.

Another widely cited effort, The Washington Post’s Fatal Force database, tracked fatal police shootings between 2015 and 2024, but stopped updating the numbers in 2025.

While the Fatal Force database focused solely on police shootings, the Mapping Police Violence database takes a broader approach, including deaths involving other types of force as well as some accidental deaths — differences that can shape overall counts and complicate comparisons.

Researchers say these gaps are not just a data problem but also a barrier to understanding use of force itself. The gaps make it difficult to study when and why force is used and to evaluate which policies — whether legislative or within police departments — are the most effective in reducing it.

“There really is a significant misconception about what use of force looks like, and it’s largely because of the fact that we just don’t know what leads to use-of-force incidents,” said Logan Kennedy, an assistant professor of criminal justice and criminology at East Carolina University. “There’s not data out there.”

Variation across states

State-level data from Campaign Zero shows wide variation not only in how often police kill civilians, but also in the types of encounters that turn fatal.

Some states consistently had far lower rates of police killings than others. Rhode Island was the only state that had no police killings in 2025, according to the report.

New Jersey had the second-lowest rate in the country in 2025, with 0.08 police killings per 100,000 people. That’s a 48% decrease from the state’s average of the previous 12 years, according to the report.

By contrast, New Mexico had the highest rate of police killings per capita, with 1.36 police killings per 100,000 people, according to the report.

The types of incidents that lead to deadly force also vary. In some places, fatal encounters are more likely to stem from reported violent crimes, while in others they more often begin with routine traffic stops or calls related to mental health crises or welfare checks, according to Stateline’s analysis of the data.

Some researchers and policing experts say those differences may reflect a mix of factors, including training standards, department policies and whether states have invested in alternatives to traditional policing — such as crisis response teams that handle mental health calls.

Since 2021, every officer in New Jersey has been required to undergo de-escalation training known as ICAT, or Integrating Communication, Assessment and Tactics.

ICAT training teaches patrol officers how to handle tense situations — especially those involving people in crisis — by slowing encounters down, communicating clearly and using safer alternatives to force. The program was developed by the Police Executive Research Forum, a national nonprofit focused on policing standards, about a decade ago.

“In the last 10 years, we have seen the evolution of police training, especially as it relates to de-escalation,” said Chuck Wexler, the group’s executive director.

ICAT has been implemented in roughly 1,500 law enforcement agencies nationwide, Wexler said. He added that it may have contributed to New Jersey’s significant decline in use-of-force deaths in 2025, though he acknowledged it would not have been the sole factor.

At least 12 cities with populations over 250,000 had zero police killings in 2025, according to the report. Departments in two of those cities, Long Beach, California, and Minneapolis, have received ICAT training, Wexler said. Police in Roanoke, Virginia, and Spokane, Washington, reported no officer-involved shootings in 2025, and were also trained under ICAT.

“If you don’t change your training and your tactics and how you communicate with people, you’re not going to see the change in the areas that you can,” Wexler said.

Some states, including California and Washington, have adopted stricter use-of-force laws in recent years, allowing officers to use deadly force only as a last resort. Others have expanded certain programs aimed at reducing police involvement in nonviolent situations, such as when someone is in the midst of a mental health crisis and might be better helped by a specially trained social worker than a responding law enforcement officer.

The report’s authors found no single policy directly linked to lower rates of police killings.

The variation, some policing experts say, highlights how uneven changes to policing standards and procedures have been implemented since Floyd’s death.

Some states and localities have pursued sweeping changes, while others have taken a more limited approach. Some experts say it can take years for a policy or training change to be implemented, take hold and begin to shift broader trends.

It’s also unclear whether the momentum behind policing policy changes has been sustained across much of the country — and to what extent states and localities have maintained those changes or rolled them back, experts say.

“Years later, we don’t really know. Did those reforms actually go into effect?” said Kennedy, of East Carolina University. “Asking questions about whether or not they’re persisting or eroding –– it makes a significant difference.”

Disparities persist

The impact of police violence also remains deeply uneven — both nationally and within states.

Black Americans continue to be killed by police at disproportionately high rates compared with white Americans, a disparity that holds across nearly every state analyzed, according to the report. Nationwide, Black people are killed at more than twice the rate of white people, the report found, with even wider gaps in some states.

Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander, American Indian and Alaska Native, and Hispanic people were also more likely than white people to be killed by police in 2025, according to the report.

Even if 2025 does mark the start of a new downward trend in police-involved killings, some experts say national figures can obscure what’s happening on the ground.

The decline does not mean all communities are experiencing the same level of change, according to Keesee, of the Center for Policing Equity.

“The question I always ask (is), ‘Police killings are down for who?’” Keesee said. “When you still have racial disparities, that means it might not be perceived that killings are down, especially if you’re in communities where a lot of these things seem to take place.”

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

In her campaign for governor, Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez announced a child care plan Tuesday that includes capping families’ child care costs, raising wages for child care workers and investing to support child care services where they’re hard to come by.

“I’ve been to all 72 counties almost four times now, and everywhere I go, parents tell me the same thing: Child care costs more than their rent, more than their mortgage, more than groceries and utilities combined,” Rodriguez said at a news conference in her Madison campaign headquarters. “I’ve met parents paying $2,000 a month for child care, for one child. They’re being forced to make an impossible choice — Do I keep working or does it make more financial sense to stay at home?”

Her proposal includes establishing “reliable, long-term funding for child care,” Rodriguez said, with possible tax changes as well as partnerships with private businesses. “Investing in affordable, accessible child care is one of the smartest economic development strategies we can pursue,” Rodriguez said.

Every Democrat vying for the party’s nomination has included child care as a policy priority, and they all mention the subject on their campaign websites. Several have toured child care centers to emphasize their commitment to addressing child care access and affordability.

Missy Hughes, the former CEO of the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp., was the first of the seven Democratic hopefuls to spell out details of her campaign’s child care proposal.

Hughes’ plan, released Feb. 26, frames child care affordability as part of a broader policy theme focusing on the Wisconsin economy. It includes provisions to expand child care subsidies to more families and raise child care wages as well.

“Making childcare affordable will not only help families, but it will unlock parts of the economy that are stalled because of workforce shortages,” Hughes said in announcing her proposal.

The Hughes plan includes expanding the Wisconsin Shares child care subsidy program so that all families up to Wisconsin’s median household income would be eligible in the first year, and to include households with up to twice the median income in the second year. (Wisconsin’s median household income in 2024 was $82,560, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.)

The plan outlines a series of child care workforce proposals including raising wages and instituting training programs, as well as ideas to lower providers’ overhead costs.

Support widespread; details to come

Others in the race have painted in broader brushstrokes, with details yet to come. At a forum in January convened by Main Street Alliance, a small business organizing group that backs stronger government support for child care, all seven Democrats participating endorsed the concept.

In his December visit to a Waunakee child care center, former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes said child care and preschool should be universally available, likening them to public school for children age 6 and older. Barnes hasn’t yet fully rolled out his policy, according to his campaign.

On March 26 Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley announced his agenda for his first 30 days if he’s elected governor, which includes passing “universal Pre-K and childcare utilizing the existing providers already serving Wisconsin families.” Neither the agenda nor the campaign website laid out the details or the game plan for reaching that objective.

A feature in The Guardian published in January led off with a short anecdote about Rep. Francesca Hong, who has embraced universal child care as part of her platform. Hong’s campaign website cites plans in New Mexico and Vermont — both of which have enacted universal child care programs. She says her plan is for families “to access affordable, high-quality childcare with either no out-of-pocket costs, subsidies, or strictly capped prices.”

At a meeting with voters in Madison March 24, Joel Brennan listed child care costs, as well as housing costs and health care costs, as among top concerns for voters and his campaign, but didn’t go into details. State Sen. Kelda Roys has also endorsed child care support and headlined legislative proposals to boost Wisconsin’s investment in child care.

None of the Democratic hopefuls have outlined specifics of how their versions of state support for child care would be funded.

Rodriguez’s plan

Rodriguez said her plan calls for holding child care costs to 7% of a family’s income for all families with incomes up to $500,000 a year. The state would cover the rest through “child care affordability grants,” Rodriguez said.

According to calculations from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, fewer than 5% of Wisconsin households have incomes of more than $500,000.

In outlining her proposal for reporters Tuesday, Rodriguez enumerated its features but declined to offer an overall price tag.

“Right now we know that if we invest $1 in child care, we will get $7 to $13 back in economic return,” Rodriguez said.

Rodriguez said her plan calls for letting families choose the child care setting of their preference — center, home-based providers and private and faith-based providers would all be eligible.

The plan also calls for child care providers that receive state support to pay their workers at least $18 an hour, “with clear pathways to higher wages and professional development,” she said. “When we treat early educators like the professionals that they are, we retain workers, stabilize programs, and open more slots for families.”

To bring child care services to areas of the state where they aren’t available, especially in rural communities, the plan includes a low-interest loan and grant program to expand, renovate and build new child care facilities.

Two child care providers, Heather Murray of Waunakee and Brooke Legler of New Glarus, joined Rodriguez’s press conference Tuesday and offered their endorsement of the plan.

“When I think about being able to pay my teachers what they actually deserve, enough that they can build careers here, not just work until something better comes along, that changes everything,” Murray said. “When I think about families being able to afford care without sacrificing everything else, that’s transformative.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

As the United States of America marks its 250th anniversary this year, the relationship between the states and the federal government is approaching a breaking point.

Led by a bellicose president, the executive branch has moved to dominate states, resulting in more than a year of escalating confrontations between the two levels of government.

President Donald Trump has worked quickly: In the first year of his second term, he surged thousands of immigration enforcement agents into a resistant Minneapolis and other cities, with fatal results. He seized control of the National Guard in some states against the will of governors.

His administration is trying to force states to turn over sensitive data on millions of voters ahead of the midterms. And it is blocking states from receiving, and distributing to their residents, billions of federal dollars for child care, public health, housing and a host of other congressionally approved programs.

Political parties have swung in and out of power in Washington for centuries, and recent administrations have increasingly clashed with states run by the other party. This time is different, dozens of sources in and around government told Stateline.

Trump and a coterie of loyal aides have set out to remake the nation in the president’s image. Along the way, retribution and raw power have become the administration’s primary tools to bend recalcitrant states to its will. Grants are pulled, armed force deployed, disaster aid withheld.

The states have repeatedly gone to court, asking the federal judiciary to rein in the executive branch. They have also started testing the bounds of their own authority, such as moving to restrict the actions of federal immigration enforcement agents.

The past year has led to a period of sustained state and federal conflict without parallel in modern U.S. history. The consequences for Americans over time will prove enormous, shaping the very nature of our government.

“This kind of battle between the federal government and the states, we’ve just never seen that before and it makes no sense,” said former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, who was elected as a Republican but later helped co-found the centrist Forward Party.

Tensions between the states and the central government are as old as the nation itself. Alexander Hamilton famously favored a strong central government, while James Madison offered the Bill of Rights — including what became the 10th Amendment, which reserves for the states and the people those powers not delegated to the federal government.

But current strains are testing the bedrock principles of federalism, the uniquely American system created by the framers of the Constitution of power sharing between Washington, D.C., and the states.

Ahead of the 250th anniversary of the country’s founding on July 4, Stateline is exploring how the Trump era is transforming the relationship between the states and the federal government. This article is the first in an occasional series, The 50 vs. The One, that will examine the current fraught moment and what evolving — and often deteriorating — state-federal ties mean for the country, now and in the future.

In interviews and public remarks, current and former elected officials at all levels of government, as well as experts on American government, have described the country as approaching a pivot point. Trump’s second term could mark a defining moment for American federalism, one that will be studied in history books alongside Reconstruction, the New Deal and the Civil Rights Movement.

The United States will either continue to adhere to the principles of federalism, they say, or it will take a significant step toward a more powerful central government that sidelines the states.

“We are in a period of challenged federalism,” said Lisa Parshall, a federalism researcher and political science professor at Daemen University near Buffalo, New York. “The fact that we’re here talking about federalism tells you something about the current state of American politics.”

Dramatic changes in a year

Fears of diminishing state authority have animated state officials over the past year. Republican lawmakers in Utah have invested in federalism education and expanded a group to assess state-federal boundaries, for instance.

In July, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, both Democrats, publicly abandoned the nonpartisan National Governors Association, in part because they said the organization was not doing enough to protect states’ rights.

States are “laboratories of democracy,” Kelly said during an interview in February, using a classic civics textbook description. States have traditionally operated with relative freedom to pursue their own agendas and solutions to the challenges they face. In turn, states learn from one another.

“That’s been the beauty of it,” Kelly said. “If that’s to go away, if the federal government were — and they are, at this point — undermining states’ authority and responsibility, I think you end up slowing down the entire country.”

In the same way the three branches of government — the legislative, the executive and the judicial — provide checks and balances on one another, federalism imposes a state check on federal power. The U.S. Constitution, which went into effect in 1789, ensured states would command broad power over local commerce, policing, elections and other matters within their borders.

But Trump has at times raised doubt about whether he will always follow the Constitution and has claimed that he can ignore some of its requirements.

Last spring, Trump replied “I don’t know” when asked whether he needed to uphold the U.S. Constitution in the context of due process for immigrants. In 2022, he said massive election fraud allows parts of the Constitution to be terminated. And after his 2020 election defeat, he urged then-Vice President Mike Pence not to certify the results, even though the vice president has no constitutional authority to do so.

In February, Trump asserted that “states are just an agent of the federal government” as he called to “nationalize” elections. Under the Constitution, the responsibility of running elections belongs to the states.

Trump’s critics fault the Republican-controlled Congress for failing to challenge his sweeping assertions of executive power. His administration’s efforts to withhold from states billions in dollars appropriated by Congress, for instance, have spurred relatively little outrage among GOP lawmakers.

“What I think we’re seeing now is a whole different system of crushing state and local government,” said U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a Missouri Democrat who has been in Congress since 2005. “And bowing down to a new system where we are almost living in a one-person government.”

In response to questions from Stateline, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said in a statement: “The Trump Administration faithfully upholds our Constitution and the immortalized American principles of federalism, the rule of law, and the separation of powers.”

Trump and his allies have cast the president as a heroic figure capable of smashing through the machinery of government to achieve results on behalf of his voters and at the expense of his enemies. “For those who have been wronged and betrayed … I am your retribution,” he said in 2023.

He has at times taken steps that his supporters argue empower states, including effectively gutting the U.S. Department of Education, which Republicans have long accused of federal overreach. His appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court during his first term helped cement a conservative majority that in 2022 returned the issue of abortion access to the states.

In a statement, the Republican Governors Association told Stateline the current administration trusts governors to run their own states.

“By cutting government bureaucracy and unnecessary red-tape, President Trump is empowering governors to make decisions that best serve their individual states,” wrote Kollin Crompton, an RGA spokesperson.

Scrambled identities

The U.S. Constitution has been gradually amended in ways that have limited state power, most importantly through amendments that abolished slavery, required states to treat their citizens equally under the law, and prohibited states from denying suffrage on the basis of race and sex.

The federal government has also expanded its reach through legislation. President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s and President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society in the 1960s imposed new economic regulations and created a federal social welfare apparatus that touches nearly every American.

Over time, Democrats broadly came to be seen as the party more comfortable with an active federal government and Republicans as the party seeking a more restrained Washington.

But the Trump era has scrambled those identities.

Trump has shown less respect for traditional conservative ideology, such as limited government and a general deference to the authority of states. Instead, he has taken a maximalist approach to executive power.

His actions have placed Democratic state officials in a position of advancing limits on the federal government, whether through lawsuits or legislation. And they have put Republican supporters of the president at odds with decades of conservative rhetoric.

“I do think that progressives are seeing that federalism — there’s a reason it’s in our constitutional order and it isn’t just something that’s left for conservatives,” said Sean Beienburg, an associate professor at Arizona State University who researches federalism and constitutional law.

In Los Angeles, Chicago and Portland, Oregon, Trump deployed federalized National Guard troops onto city streets before courts held him back and he withdrew. For a time, active-duty Marines also patrolled Los Angeles, an extraordinary use of the military for domestic purposes.

Oregon Democratic Attorney General Dan Rayfield, who challenged the deployment of the National Guard in his state, said the fight underscores why lawsuits matter in checking Trump’s power.

“People should be shocked that Oregon has filed 55 lawsuits,” Rayfield said in an interview earlier this year. “Their mind should be blown. But their mind should be equally blown at how often we’re winning these cases.”

The Trump administration has won seven court decisions — and lost 58 — so far, according to a New York Times litigation tracker.

Democratic state lawmakers have also searched for ways to restrict federal immigration agents. In California, Democratic Assemblymember Alex Lee has proposed prohibiting state tax breaks for Immigration and Customs Enforcement contractors — a move that could carry national implications because of the size of the state’s economy.

“We also, now, are reasserting what the role of the states and the federal government are,” Lee said.

But among Republicans, Trump has successfully maintained his grip. Many conservative state leaders have supported the president’s most controversial moves, even those criticized as federal overreach.

During President Joe Biden’s term, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott was a staunch proponent of state autonomy and repeatedly challenged the federal government on regulatory issues and its deployment of a state’s National Guard. But Abbott has supported Trump’s expansion of federal powers, going so far as to authorize the deployment of the Texas National Guard to aid immigration enforcement in Illinois and Oregon.

Republican U.S. Sen. Jim Justice, the previous governor of West Virginia, said federalism remains “alive and well” under Trump. He said he was worried about the nation’s trajectory before coming to Washington in 2025.

“We’ve had to change things,” he said. “There’s new things that are going on that no question they’re disrupting folks on the other side of the aisle.”

Still, other Republicans have pushed back on the administration’s escalating hostility toward liberal states.

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt sharply criticized the deployment of the National Guard, saying “Oklahomans would lose their mind” if a Democratic-controlled state sent troops to his state during Biden’s presidency. He has warned that the expanding power and spending of the federal government is dangerous no matter which party controls Washington.

“When we have this powerful of a federal government, it should be frightening for everyone,” Stitt said during a February event at The Pew Charitable Trusts in Washington, D.C.

‘States created the Constitution’

As the reach of the federal government ballooned over generations, Democratic and Republican presidents have used federal funding to wield more influence over state and local governments.

Federal dollars account for an increasingly large percentage of state revenues, rising from 22% in 1989 to 36% in 2023, according to Pew, which analyzed census and federal economic data. States received more than $1 trillion in federal grants that year.

Over the years, that largesse has encouraged states to pursue policy agendas favored by the current party in power at the federal level.

But Trump has weaponized federal funds in unprecedented ways, experts say. Bypassing Congress and despite numerous court losses, the White House has held up funding for higher education, transit, housing and infrastructure — particularly for states that displease him.

The administration’s attempts to terminate funding for the $16 billion Gateway rail tunnel connecting New York and New Jersey remain entangled in a lawsuit. New Jersey Democratic Gov. Mikie Sherrill said the White House has caused millions in cost overruns and delays, in what she characterized as the most urgent and consequential infrastructure project in the country.

In February, Politico reported Trump told congressional leaders he would release funding for the project in exchange for renaming Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia and Penn Station in New York City in his honor.

Parshall, of Daemen University, noted that more state leaders of both parties are pushing to reassert state-federal boundaries — whether in the areas of agriculture or the future of artificial intelligence.

“Federalism scholars are seeing this as a potentially pivotal moment in federal-state relationships,” she said.

Last August, elected leaders gathered at the National Conference of State Legislatures in Boston, where in 1773 colonists hurled chests of tea into the Boston Harbor in protest of Great Britain’s King George III. At the conference, lawmakers grumbled about a federal government increasingly sidelining states. That organization, representing more than 7,000 state and territory legislators, has consistently urged the Trump administration to respect states’ inherent authority.

In December, a bipartisan group of more than 40 lawmakers from 30 states gathered to discuss federalism issues, unanimously approving a declaration on the importance of states’ ability to legislate independently. That document noted that the Constitution did not create the states, “but rather the states created the Constitution, ratifying a framework in which we would both govern collectively and independently.”

New Hampshire state House Speaker Sherman Packard, a Republican, said state-federal tensions have been mounting for decades. He noted that the major tax and spending law the president signed last summer — often called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — both cut federal funding to states and saddled them with new costs and administrative work. But it’s just the latest example of what he views as a federal government overstepping its bounds.

“And it’s getting more and more prolific that they’re taking on and doing things that most of us feel is inappropriate,” Packard said. “If we don’t fix this, we’re going to lose state sovereignty altogether. And that’s just not the way it was set up.”

Reporter David Lightman contributed to this story. Stateline reporters Jonathan Shorman and Kevin Hardy can be reached at jshorman@stateline.org and khardy@stateline.org.

A coalition of 21 state and local governments filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging the Trump administration’s repeal of a 2024 rule that established limits for toxic air pollutants.

The regulation, known as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule, limits emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants. It covers pollutants including mercury, arsenic, lead and other toxic metals, as well as acid gases.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency updated the rule in 2024, which proponents of the rule said followed significant upgrades in pollution control technologies. But President Donald Trump’s administration repealed that updated standard last month. 

EPA said in a statement last month that it was repealing the rule “to ensure affordable, dependable energy for American families” and that it expected $670 million in regulatory compliance costs savings from lower costs of transportation, heating, utilities, farming and manufacturing, and more reliable energy. 

The coalition of states and local governments argues that the rollback is unlawful, saying the federal agency has failed to provide a reasoned basis for it or consider the new technologies. 

The states taking part in the lawsuit are Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. The District of Columbia, New York City, Chicago and Harris County, Texas, also joined.

“Here, we have the Trump Administration once again acting recklessly and without good reason in rolling back important emissions standards that help mitigate the potentially disastrous health effects of toxic air pollutants associated with power plants like mercury and arsenic,” Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha, a Democrat, said in a statement. 

Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org.

A coalition of 22 states told a federal court that the Trump administration appears to have violated a court order that limited the types of health data that could be shared with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for deportation proceedings.

Back in December, a court allowed ICE to pull some basic information from Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program that primarily covers people with low incomes, to help the agency find people who are in the country illegally.

That ruling was a partial win for the administration in a lawsuit in which the 22 states and the District of Columbia had sued to block information sharing between ICE and Medicaid.

But the court also placed restrictions on ICE, saying it could only pull basic data such as addresses, phone numbers, birth dates and citizenship or immigration status. And the ruling barred ICE from collecting information on lawful permanent residents or citizens.

Advocates warned that even the sharing of that partial information would prompt immigrants, including those in the country legally, to forgo health coverage for fear that enrolling in Medicaid could make them or their family members easier for ICE to find.

Now, in a new filing, the states say the Trump administration appears to have ignored the court’s order limiting what information ICE is allowed to have. They claim the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees Medicaid, has admitted to sharing with ICE “a large and complex” set of data on Medicaid recipients, even though the court said the data of citizens and lawful permanent residents is off limits.

The states claim the federal government hasn’t clarified how it determines who is “lawfully present,” nor has it confirmed whether it’s filtering out protected individuals from the data it gives to ICE.

The states are asking the court to formally bar the sharing of protected health care information for people lawfully residing in the United States. They’re also asking the court to confirm that “lawfully residing” includes noncitizens who have legal status, such as refugees and asylees. And they want the court to allow the states to examine the data that’s been shared with ICE so far, and how it has been used.

The Trump administration has not yet responded. The plaintiff states are scheduled to appear in a San Francisco federal court on April 30 for a hearing.

The states involved in the suit are those with Democratic attorneys general: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin.

The court’s orders preventing Medicaid data sharing won’t apply to states not involved in the lawsuit.

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

President Donald Trump signed a sweeping executive order on Tuesday that attempts to restrict mail-in voting, a White House priority certain to face significant legal challenges.

The order directs the U.S. Department of Homeland Security along with the Social Security Administration to compile a list of voting-age American citizens in each state and share it with state election officials. The order also requires the U.S. Postal Service to only send and receive ballots that include tracking barcodes.

Trump’s order represents a major escalation in his effort to assert presidential control over elections, which under the U.S. Constitution are administered by the states. Trump last year attempted to unilaterally impose a proof of citizenship requirement to vote in federal elections in an executive order that was blocked in federal court.

The move also reflects a long-held focus by Trump and his allies on noncitizen voters. Studies have shown noncitizen voting is extremely rare.

“I think this will help a lot with elections,” Trump said.

National database of adult citizens

Homeland Security operates the SAVE system, a powerful computer program that can verify citizenship. 

DHS has previously invited states to run their voter rolls through SAVE, which flags voters as potential noncitizens. Some election officials criticize the system, saying it wrongly identifies U.S. citizens as possibly ineligible.

The U.S. Department of Justice as recently as last week denied any efforts to create a national voter registration list. While the executive order does not explicitly mandate the creation of a voter list, it essentially marks an effort by the White House to create a national database of adult U.S. citizens.

The order requires Homeland Security to enable states to routinely supplement or suggest changes to each state’s citizenship list. Federal officials would also be required to allow individuals to access their own records and update or correct them ahead of elections.

Under the executive order, the postmaster general must propose rules to require all outbound ballot mail to be sent in an envelope that includes a barcode for tracking. The order also requires that states must inform the U.S. Postal Service at least 90 days before federal elections whether they intend to allow ballots to be sent through the mail.

“Instead of focusing on lowering the cost of energy, groceries, and health care, Donald Trump is desperately attempting to take over and rig our elections and avoid accountability in November,” U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, a California Democrat, said in a statement shortly after Trump announced the order. “This executive order is a blatant, unconstitutional abuse of power.”

SAVE America Act

Trump has pushed Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, which would require individuals to produce documents, such as a passport or birth certificate, proving their citizenship in order to register to vote. The U.S. Senate is debating the bill, but it appears unlikely to have enough support to overcome a filibuster.

Trump has repeatedly asked Republicans to add three provisions to the bill, including restrictions on mail-in voting, with exceptions for members of the military, people who are ill and those on vacation. 

The president has also previously promised to advance voting restrictions, with or without Congress. Earlier this month, Trump voted by mail in Florida.

The executive order directs the Justice Department and other federal agencies to withhold federal funds from non-compliant states and localities “where such withholding is authorized by law.” 

Tuesday’s order is certain to face legal challenges. The Constitution gives Congress — not the president by executive order — the power to override state election regulations.

Marc Elias, a prominent voting rights litigator, promised to fight the executive order.

“If Trump signs an unconstitutional Executive Order to take over voting, we will sue,” Elias wrote on social media. “I don’t bluff and I usually win.”

Republican National Committee Chairman Joe Gruters praised the order, saying Trump was restoring voter confidence. “Protecting America’s ballot box isn’t optional – it’s the foundation of our republic,” Grunters said.

DOJ lawsuits against states

The Justice Department has sued 29 states and the District of Columbia for copies of their voter rolls that contain sensitive personal information on voters, such as driver’s licenses and partial Social Security numbers. About a dozen states have voluntarily provided the data, but most are fighting the demands in court.

Three federal judges have so far ruled against the Justice Department. The administration is appealing and in court documents has argued that swift court decisions are necessary to ensure the security and fairness of the midterms.

The Trump administration has said the data is necessary to verify only citizens are registered to vote. Last week, a Justice Department lawyer confirmed in court that voter data would be shared with Homeland Security.

“Some may freak out about this, but honestly, this is hilarious,” David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research and a former U.S. Department of Justice Voting Section attorney, wrote on social media about the Trump order. 

“It’s clearly unconstitutional, will be blocked immediately, and the only thing it will accomplish is to make liberal lawyers wealthier. He might as well sign an EO banning gravity.”

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.