The U.S. Capitol building and Washington Monument in Washington, D.C., at sunset on Oct. 14, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Some members of Congress are asking for their salaries to be withheld during the government shutdown, while federal workers on Friday missed their first full paycheck since many operations closed on Oct. 1.

With no movement toward a deal to end the shutdown, the House remained on a prolonged break from Capitol Hill, the Senate left for its usual long weekend and President Donald Trump prepared to depart for a trip to China, where he will likely focus much more on foreign policy and tariffs than the funding lapse. 

The president, lawmakers and federal judges all receive their regular paychecks during government shutdowns, unlike the 2 million civilian federal employees and thousands of staffers who work in the legislative branch. Members of Congress are paid $174,000 a year and leaders are paid more.

Active duty military members would also normally miss their paychecks, but the Defense Department reprogrammed $8 billion earlier this month to avoid a missed payday for U.S. troops. It’s unclear if the Pentagon can do that again ahead of the Oct. 31 pay date or if there was enough money left to cover those salaries. 

Pay for Congress

Unlike most federal workers, members of Congress have the option to receive their pay as normal, donate their salaries to charity, give the money back to the Treasury, or have their checks withheld during this shutdown.  

Rhode Island Democratic Rep. Gabe Amo posted a letter Thursday evening from House Chief Administrative Officer Catherine L. Szpindor confirming that House members’ salaries can be held back until after the funding lapse ends. 

Szpindor wrote that legal requirements, including the 27th Amendment, entitle members of Congress to their pay and that any lawmaker who has their check withheld during a shutdown can request it be distributed at any time. Szpindor did not respond to a request for comment.

A spokesperson for Ohio Republican Sen. Jon Husted said the Senate Financial Clerk told their office that while senators are required to be paid, officials can withhold his check until after the shutdown ends, at his request. 

The Senate disbursing office will continue to cut the check, but Husted will not pick it up until after Congress funds the government, the spokesperson said. 

Husted doesn’t believe members of Congress should receive their salaries on time when other federal workers cannot, the spokesperson said. 

A different Senate staffer, speaking on background about the issue, told States Newsroom the salary for another senator was transitioned from direct deposit to a physical paycheck so it could be held by the disbursing office for the duration of the shutdown, at that senator’s request. 

Members of Congress who have asked for their salaries to be withheld include Colorado Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet, Florida Republican Rep. Kat Cammack, New Jersey Democratic Sen. Andy Kim, Oklahoma Republican Rep. Stephanie Bice and Oregon Democratic Rep. Janelle Bynum, among others.  

Spokespeople for Trump and Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., did not respond to a request for comment about whether they are having their salaries withheld during the shutdown. A spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said he is having his paycheck held back.

Can lawmakers’ salaries legally be withheld?

Congress has voted several times over the years to officially withhold members’ salaries during a shutdown, but none of the bills have ever become law. There have been questions during past funding lapses about whether members’ paychecks could legally be withheld.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office wrote in a letter to Iowa Republican Sen. Joni Ernst just before the shutdown began that member pay “is required by the Constitution and is considered mandatory spending.” 

“Thus, Members of Congress would continue to be paid during a lapse in discretionary appropriations,” CBO Director Phillip L. Swagel wrote. 

That assessment lines up with a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, updated in August, that says “Members of Congress continue to receive their pay during a lapse in appropriations for a number of reasons.”

Lawmaker salaries “have been provided by a permanent, mandatory, appropriation since” 1981, the report says.

The U.S. Constitution, in Article I, Section 6, Clause 1, says: “Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.”

And the 27th Amendment to the Constitution says: “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.”

The CRS report quotes the Government Accountability Office’s principles of federal appropriations law as saying, “The salary of a Member of Congress is fixed by statute and therefore cannot be waived without specific statutory authority.”

But the report also points out nothing prevents a member of Congress from accepting the salary and then donating all or part of it back to the Treasury.

No options and no paychecks for feds

That same choice isn’t available for the people who work for members of Congress or those at departments and agencies throughout the executive branch. 

They must go without their paychecks until after Congress and the president broker a deal to fund the government and end the shutdown. 

Any worker who manages national security issues, or the protection of life or property, is considered exempt and continues working until the shutdown ends. Any federal employee not in that category is placed on furlough. 

The Senate was unable to advance multiple bills Thursday that would have provided salaries to some federal employees and contractors during the shutdown. 

Absent new congressional action, both exempt and non-exempt federal workers are supposed to receive back pay under a 2019 law once government reopens, though Trump and administration officials have cast doubt on whether they will do that for employees in the executive branch. 

Guidance from the House Committee on Administration says that all employees who work within the legislative branch will receive back pay once a funding bill becomes law. 

“Neither essential nor furloughed employees are authorized to receive compensation during a lapse in government funding,” the report says. “Federal law statutorily requires retroactive pay for furloughed and essential employees following the end of a lapse in government funding.”

 

Kilmar Abrego Garcia speaks to a crowd of people who held a prayer vigil and rally on his behalf outside the Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in Baltimore on Aug. 25, 2025. Lydia Walther Rodriguez with CASA interprets for him. (Photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters)

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration Friday identified the West African nation of Liberia as the location for the removal of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, noting his deportation could come as soon as Oct. 31. 

In a Friday court filing in the District of Maryland, the Department of Justice argued that Liberia is a close partner with the United States and that the federal government has received assurances from Liberia that Abrego Garcia will not be harmed if he is deported there. They added that Abrego Garcia, who has a wife and family in Maryland, has not expressed fear of being removed to Liberia.

“Although Petitioner has identified more than twenty countries that he purports to fear would persecute or torture him if he were removed there, Liberia is not on that list,” according to the filing.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys in his Maryland case could not be immediately reached for comment.

The new filing comes shortly after attorneys for Abrego Garcia in a separate case in Tennessee this week requested to subpoena Trump DOJ official Todd Blanche in connection with Abrego Garcia’s claim that his criminal case by the Trump administration is vindictive. That hearing is set to start Nov. 4.

Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty to those charges, which accuse him of the human trafficking of immigrants in an incident stemming from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee. 

Detention challenged

Abrego Garcia, whose wrongful deportation cast a spotlight on the president’s aggressive immigration crackdown, is challenging his detention on the grounds that the Trump administration is using his imprisonment as punishment rather than for the purpose of removal. 

Abrego Garcia has stated he is willing to be deported to Costa Rica, which has agreed to accept the longtime Maryland man as a refugee. 

Because Abrego Garcia has deportation protections from his home country of El Salvador, the Trump administration must find a third country that is willing to accept him and a country where Abrego Garcia believes he will not face harm or persecution. 

The Trump administration so far has floated sending Abrego Garcia to one of three nations in Africa —  Ghana, Eswatini and Uganda.

Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis found little evidence the Trump administration has made any effort to remove Abrego Garcia either to the southern African nation of Eswatini or Costa Rica. 

At that hearing, Abrego Garcia’s attorneys told Xinis they have not received an answer from the federal government as to why officials won’t remove Abrego Garcia to Costa Rica. 

Detained in Pennsylvania

Xinis is currently mulling whether or not to order the release of Abrego Garcia, who is detained at a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Pennsylvania. 

Any indefinite stay would likely be unconstitutional, per a 2001 Supreme Court ruling that does not allow for immigrants to be detained longer than six months if the federal government is making no efforts to remove them.

In March, Abrego Garcia was wrongly deported to a notorious mega-prison in El Salvador, where he detailed his experience of psychological and physical torture. 

Produce at a Virginia grocery store in 2011. (Photo by Lance Cheung/U.S. Department of Agriculture)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Agriculture said in a memo Friday the agency’s contingency fund cannot legally be used to provide food assistance benefits for more than 42 million people in November, as the government shutdown drags on.

The position is a reversal from the department’s earlier stance, according to a since-deleted copy of the USDA’s Sept. 30 shutdown plan that said the department would use its multi-year contingency fund to continue paying Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, benefits during the ongoing shutdown. 

SNAP has about $6 billion in the contingency fund — short of the roughly $9 billion needed to cover a full month of the program, putting November benefits in jeopardy. 

Because of a stalemate in Congress over a stopgap spending bill, the government shut down on Oct. 1 without new SNAP funding enacted.

The memo, which was first reported by Axios on Friday, said states would not be reimbursed if they use their own funds to cover the cost of the benefits.

“There is no provision or allowance under current law for States to cover the cost of benefits and be reimbursed,” the memo says, while also noting that “the best way for SNAP to continue is for the shutdown to end.”

Discrepancy with shutdown plan

The memo also says the contingency fund is meant for natural disasters and similar emergencies, not for a lack of appropriations.

But USDA’s Sept. 30 contingency plan contradicts that and appears to greenlight the use of SNAP’s contingency fund during a lapse in funding.

“Congressional intent is evident that SNAP’s operations should continue since the program has been provided with multi-year contingency funds that can be used for State Administrative Expenses to ensure that the State can also continue operations during a Federal Government shutdown,” according to the plan. “These multi-year contingency funds are also available to fund participant benefits in the event that a lapse occurs in the middle of the fiscal year.”

USDA’s contingency plan is no longer online, but is accessible through an internet archive.

After providing States Newsroom with the memo Friday afternoon, USDA did not immediately respond to a follow-up inquiry about the discrepancy between Friday’s memo and its contingency plan.

In the memo, USDA said transferring money toward SNAP from other sources “would pull away funding for school meals and infant formula.” 

The agency said it has shuffled funds to cover several nutrition programs during the shutdown, including the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC, as well as the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, and the Child and Adult Care Food Program. 

Dems call on Rollins to tap into fund

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said last week the government would run out of funds to deliver November SNAP benefits as a result of the ongoing shutdown.  

Friday morning, U.S. House Democrats, like nearly all of their Senate counterparts and the Republican chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, urged Rollins to not only use the contingency fund, but to reprogram other money to cover a $3 billion shortfall. 

“A potential lapse in benefits would be felt by Americans of all ages and affect every corner and congressional district in the country,” according to the letter from more than 200 House Democrats.

In a separate letter, 46 Senate Democrats sent to Rollins on Wednesday, voicing concerns that USDA told states to hold off on sending in SNAP benefits to be processed for November. 

“We were deeply disturbed to hear that the USDA has instructed states to stop processing SNAP benefits for November and were surprised by your recent comments that the program will ‘run out of money in two weeks,’” according to the letter. “In fact, the USDA has several tools available which would enable SNAP benefits to be paid through or close to the end of November.” 

The chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Republican Susan Collins of Maine, also urged Rollins in a Thursday letter to “consider all available options in accordance with federal law to ensure that this vital nutrition assistance continues, including the use of contingency funds and looking at the viability of partial payments or any transfer authority you may have.” 

Benefits could be slow even if a deal reached

States have been told by the agency to hold off on submitting SNAP benefit requests to processing centers. Food banks and pantries are already bracing for the increased need, including in Iowa, where more than 270,000 Iowans rely on SNAP each month.

However, even if Congress immediately reached a deal to end the shutdown, the time needed to process the payments and make them available for recipients means SNAP benefits would likely be delayed. State officials have warned SNAP recipients of the possibility of delays.

In West Virginia, officials said delays are expected and told residents to seek assistance at local food pantries. Roughly 1 in 6 West Virginia residents rely on SNAP each month. 

Legal requirement cited

Sharon Parrott, a White House Office of Management and Budget official during the Obama administration who now leads a left-leaning think tank, said in a Thursday statement that USDA is legally required to use its SNAP contingency funds.

Parrott, the president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said the multi-year contingency fund is “billions of dollars that Congress provided for use when SNAP funding is inadequate that remain available during the shutdown — to fund November benefits for the 1 in 8 Americans who need SNAP to afford their grocery bill.”

Parrott said the Trump administration could use its legal transfer authority, just as it did with WIC funding, to “supplement the contingency reserves, which by themselves are not enough to fund families’ full benefits.”

Social Security benefits will see a 2.8% increase in payments next year, the Social Security Administration said Friday. (Photo illustration by iStock/Getty Images Plus)

The 75 million Americans who receive Social Security benefits will see a 2.8% increase in payments next year, the Social Security Administration said Friday. 

The cost-of-living adjustment is just below the inflation rate of 3% announced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, also on Friday. 

The adjustment is lower than the average over the past decade, but higher than last year’s. The average adjustment for the past 10 years is 3.1%, including a 2.5% increase last year. On average, beneficiaries’ monthly payments will rise by about $56, the SSA said.

Beneficiaries include people who receive Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance, as well as Supplemental Security Income.

“Social Security is a promise kept, and the annual cost-of-living adjustment is one way we are working to make sure benefits reflect today’s economic realities and continue to provide a foundation of security,” Social Security Administration Commissioner Frank J. Bisignano said in a statement. “The cost-of-living adjustment is a vital part of how Social Security delivers on its mission.”

The tax rate for Social Security and Medicare will remain steady at 7.65% for employees and 15.3% for self-employed workers.

Underly was invited by the committee to deliver testimony and answer questions last week, but she sent other representatives, including Deputy Deputy State Superintendent Tom McCarthy, for the agency in her stead on Thursday. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Exmainer)

State Superintendent Jill Underly didn’t show up to answer questions from Wisconsin lawmakers about the process the Department of Public Instruction uses for investigating reports of sexual misconduct by educators and for determining licensing.

Underly was invited by the committee to deliver testimony and answer questions, after a report from The Capital Times last week found that DPI investigated over 200 cases of Wisconsin teachers, aides, substitutes and administrators accused of sexual misconduct or grooming behaviors toward students from 2018 to 2023. Underly sent other representatives for the agency in her stead on Thursday. According to WisPolitics, Underly was out of state to accept an alumni award from Indiana University. 

The conversation surrounding the agency’s handling of sexual misconduct and grooming allegations and licensure was sparked by the CapTimes report, which  detailed a number of questions related to the system the agency uses to track data on cases, suggested the agency wasn’t making information readily available to the public and noted the few resources that the agency has to investigate cases and track information. 

In a YouTube video posted Thursday, Underly said lawmakers, law enforcement, educators and families would need to come to the table to build a “stronger system that protects every child and respects the rule of law.”  

“Let me be absolutely clear: the safety, dignity, and well-being of Wisconsin’s children is — and will always be — our first and most important responsibility,” Underly said. “We investigate every single complaint we receive. These investigations are conducted thoroughly, professionally, and within the legal authority given to us. Licensure actions — whether it is a suspension, revocation, or voluntary surrender — are not made lightly. They are based on evidence, not speculation; on due process, not headlines.” 

Last week, Underly called the report “misleading” in a letter and requested a retraction or correction from the CapTimes. In response, CapTimes Editor Mark Treinen said the paper  stands by the reporting. 

Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) announced that she is working on a set of bills in response to the article. 

One bill focuses on implementing a criminal penalty for “grooming” of children by sexual predators in state statute. Nedweski also said she is drafting a bill to require school districts to adopt clear policies outlining appropriate communication boundaries between staff and students and a bill to prohibit DPI  from allowing teachers under investigation for sexual misconduct to surrender their teaching license to avoid further scrutiny. 

Lawmakers expressed concern at Underly’s absence, noting the seriousness of the issue. 

At the start of the hearing, Rep. Mike Bare (D-Verona) said he was “disappointed” by Underly’s absence. 

“I am deeply, deeply disappointed that Superintendent Underly could not bring herself to the meeting,” Nedweski, who chairs the committee, said. “These are very, very serious issues.” 

Nedweski said she had a meeting with DPI staff on Monday, but the Underly never reached out to her to ask to reschedule the hearing. She said she would have gladly accommodated a different date.

“I guess she just couldn’t find it important enough,” she added.  

At a press conference after the hearing, Nedweski, Sen. John Jagler (R-Watertown) and U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, who is running for governor in 2026, criticized Underly for her absence. 

“I would call on [Gov. Tony Evers] at this point… do you find this acceptable? Is this acceptable what has gone on here in the state of Wisconsin?” Tiffany asked. “I think it’s time for the governor to call on Jill Underly to either do her job or step aside.”

Tiffany said he would ensure proper investigations and create a public dashboard showing why teachers lose their licenses if he is elected governor. 

DPI representatives and law enforcement discuss lack of “grooming” statute

The hearing began with testimony from Kenosha Chief of Police Patrick Patton, Deputy Chief of Police Joseph Labatore and officer Kate Schaper, who addressed  the difference between investigations conducted by law enforcement and the role of the DPI. 

DPI Deputy State Superintendent Tom McCarthy delivered testimony and answered questions on behalf of Underly and the agency. He was joined by Rich Judge, who serves as DPI’s assistant superintendent of government and public affairs, and Jennifer Kammerud, who serves as the educator licensing director. 

McCarthy began his testimony by laying out the role of the agency in handling sexual misconduct and grooming allegations. He said the agency’s main role is in the state’s licensing system, which is how they can draw attention to people who shouldn’t be in the classroom. 

“When we hear about allegations … we are deadly serious,” McCarthy said. “We use all of the tools that we have available. We do not have subpoena power, but we do attempt to get information from anybody that can support a license investigation case, and given how sensitive these things are, we try to work as thoroughly and quickly as possible.” 

McCarthy noted that DPI typically receives accusations from law enforcement agencies, required reporting from local school districts, complaints from members of the public and from news media reports, which McCarthy said the agency scans frequently. 

Both McCarthy and the law enforcement officers spoke to concerns about the lack of a definition for grooming in Wisconsin state statute.

According to RAINN, grooming is the “deliberate act of building trust with a child, teen, or at-risk adult (such as an adult with a cognitive impairment) for the purpose of exploiting them sexually.”

DPI recommended in its testimony that a definition for grooming should include patterns of flirtatious behavior, making any effort to gain unreasonable access to or time alone with any student with no discernable educational purpose, engaging in any behavior that can reasonably be construed as involving an inappropriate relationship with a student and engaging in any other special treatment not in compliance with generally accepted educational practices.

McCarthy said lawmakers should consider requiring an annual training should they adopt a definition of grooming.

“We need to be reminding folks of the types of behaviors and things that we expect from them. It doesn’t matter what type of school,” McCarthy said. 

Questioning by lawmakers was tense and combative at times. 

Nedweski said she was unclear about why there is confusion over whether grooming can be used to remove a teacher’s license.

Current state law says that a teacher’s license can be revoked due to “immoral conduct,” which is defined as “conduct or behavior that is contrary to commonly accepted moral or ethical standards and that endangers the health, safety, welfare, or education of any pupil.” 

“Do we have to explicitly write the word ‘grooming’ in this law to spell out that grooming is not commonly accepted moral at ethical standards? I tend to believe that most Wisconsinites would think the law is comprehensive. Any kind of behavior that resembles grooming in any definition is already covered there,” Nedweski said. 

McCathy said the statute right now is “vague and ambiguous.” 

“When we find these things we go after them,” McCarthy said. “The department is using all of its authority to put its foot down in the spaces and revoke licenses. We’re doing that in a space right now where the authority doesn’t necessarily back us in every instance.” 

The Assembly Government Oversight, Accountability and Transparency (GOAT) committee voted unanimously to approve a motion to request that Attorney General Josh Kaul provide an opinion on two questions: whether grooming is “contrary to commonly accepted moral or ethical standards” and does grooming “endanger the health, safety, welfare or education” of a pupil. 

Voluntary revocations and information on license status

McCarthy also told lawmakers that they view voluntary surrenders as an important tool for them. He said they will ask educators under investigation to do so throughout the process. 

The agency has noted that it often gives several opportunities for teachers to voluntarily surrender their licenses.

McCarthy said that voluntary surrenders related to a sexual misconduct investigation are most often lifetime surrenders, meaning that in a legal agreement they won’t be able to apply for an educator’s license again.

Revocations and voluntary surrenders are also reported to the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification (NASDTEC) — a national database that state education agencies can access that includes information about the misconduct. That database is not accessible to the public. 

McCarthy noted that information is available on the DPI website on the status of a teacher’s license, though one needs to know a licensee’s name in order to check. The information will say whether an educator’s license is under investigation, has been revoked or voluntarily surrendered, though it doesn’t include information on why. He said the agency is working with old, rigid software that makes it difficult to add additional information. 

Nedweski said she didn’t “buy” the explanation that the agency was giving.

“It’s remarkable because the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services can show you the reason for a license revocation for anyone,” Nedweski said, including explanations for manicurists. “It’s easier for me as a member of the public to find out why a cosmetologist lost their license and why it was revoked than it is for me to find out why a teacher license was revoked… Why is it so hard for us to find out critical safety information?” 

The agency requested $600,000 in the most recent state budget process to modernize its online background checks and licensing platform — a request that was rejected by the Republican-led Legislature.

The agency also suggested that lawmakers consider increasing reporting requirements to all school types and all individuals who are present in schools. McCarthy noted that the agency doesn’t have the ability to revoke licenses of people that don’t have to be licensed — including paraprofessionals and teachers in taxpayer-supported private schools. 

Lawmakers said they plan to provide Underly with other opportunities to speak in public forums about the issue. 

Jagler said the Senate Education Committee, which he chairs, will have an informational hearing on Nov. 4 where Underly will be the only invited speaker.

The Joint Audit Committee also noticed a hearing on Nov. 5 to launch an audit of educational licensure revocation, suspension, restriction and investigation at DPI.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Demonstrators protest outside the immigration processing and detention facility this month in Broadview, Ill. President Donald Trump wants to deploy Texas National Guard members to the Chicago area but has been blocked by federal courts. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

As President Donald Trump prepares to send National Guard troops — from either Oregon, California or possibly Texas — into Portland, Oregon, entrepreneur Sarah Shaoul watches with deep concern.

A three-decade resident of the Portland area, Shaoul leads a coalition of roughly 100 local small businesses, including many dependent on foot traffic. Armed troops could spook customers and, she fears, trigger a crisis where none exists.

“I don’t want this to be a political conversation but, I mean, the fact you bring people from other states who maybe have different politics — I think it shows an administration that’s trying to pit people against other people,” Shaoul said.

Trump’s campaign to send the National Guard into Democratic-leaning cities he describes as crime-ridden has so far reached Los Angeles; Washington, D.C.; Memphis, Tennessee; Chicago and Portland. He has federalized — taken command of — hundreds of active-duty guard members to staff the deployments.

But in the two most recent attempted deployments to Portland and the Chicago area, the Trump administration has turned to out-of-state National Guard troops, the part-time soldiers who often respond to natural disasters.

National guards are usually under the control of state governors, with state funds paying for their work. But sometimes the troops can be called into federal service at federal expense and placed under the president’s control.

In addition to federalizing some members of the Oregon and Illinois National Guard within those states, the president sent 200 Texas National Guard troops to the Chicago area and plans to send California National Guard members to Portland. A Pentagon memo has also raised the possibility of sending some Texas troops to Portland.

Presidents who have federalized National Guard forces in the past, even against a governor’s will, have done so in response to a crisis in the troops’ home state. That happened to enforce school desegregation in Arkansas in 1957 and Alabama in 1963.

But the decision to send one state’s National Guard troops into a different state without the receiving governor’s consent is both extraordinary and unprecedented, experts on national security law told Stateline.

The cross-border deployments evoke concerns stretching back to the country’s infancy, when the Federalist Papers in 1787-1788 grappled with the possibility that states could take military action against one another. While the recent cross-state deployments have all included troops under Trump’s command, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has been an enthusiastic supporter of Trump ordering his state’s National Guard to Chicago.

The troop movements raise questions of state sovereignty and how far the president can go in using the militia of one state to exercise power in another. At stake is Trump’s ability to effectively repurpose military forces for domestic use in line with an August executive order that called for the creation of a National Guard “quick reaction force” that could rapidly deploy nationwide.

“It’s really like …  a little bit like invading another country,” said Claire Finkelstein, a professor of law and philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania who studies military ethics and national security law.

The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow it to proceed with the Chicago-area deployment, which is currently blocked in federal court. On Monday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the deployment in Portland to move forward, overruling a district court judge, but additional appeals are expected.

The deployments come as Trump has repeatedly threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to expand his ability to use the military for law enforcement. Presidents are generally prohibited from deploying the military domestically, but the Insurrection Act, which dates back to 1792, could be used to bypass restrictions and potentially allow National Guard members to make immigration-related arrests.

For now, Trump has federalized National Guard members under a federal law known as Title 10, which allows the president to take command of National Guard members in response to invasion, rebellions against the United States and whenever the president is unable to execute federal laws with “regular forces.”

He has characterized illegal immigration as an invasion and sought to station National Guard members outside of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, facilities and other federal property.

While Chicago and Portland fight Trump’s moves in court, other cities are bracing for the arrival of troops in anticipation that the deployments will continue to expand. Washington state went so far as to enact a new law earlier this year intended to prevent out-of-state National Guard members from deploying in Washington. The new state law doesn’t pertain to federalized troops, however, only to those that might be sent by another governor.

“I’m incredibly concerned but not necessarily surprised by the president’s method of operation, that there seems to be a theme of fear, intimidation, bullying without a clear plan,” Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell said in an interview with Stateline.

Harrell, who is running for reelection to the nonpartisan office in November, said Seattle officials are monitoring what’s happening in other cities. Any deployment of guard members — whether they were from Washington or elsewhere — would be concerning, he said.

“At the end of the day, they would be following orders with some level of military precision, so my concern isn’t so much out-of-state or in-state. I just oppose any kind of deployment.”

Courtroom fights

Whether the out-of-state status of National Guard members matters legally is up for debate. Experts in national security law are split over whether sending federalized troops across state lines poses constitutional and legal problems, even as they broadly agree the move is provocative.

Joseph Nunn, a counsel in the left-leaning Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program, doubts the cross-state deployment of federalized troops is itself a legal issue.

Still, he criticized the decision to send in out-of-state National Guard and, speaking about Chicago, called the underlying deployment unlawful and unjustified. In ordering troops to Illinois, Nunn said, Trump was abusing his presidential power, regardless of the servicemembers’ home state.

“It is unnecessarily inflammatory,” Nunn said of that choice. “It is, I think, insulting to say we’re going to send the National Guard from one state into another.”

Democrats, especially in cities and states targeted by Trump, condemn the deployments as an abuse of presidential power, regardless of where the troops are from. Republicans have largely supported or stayed silent about Trump’s moves, though Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, who chairs the National Governors Association, has criticized the sending of Texas troops to Illinois.

Abbott wrote on social media in early October that he had “fully authorized” Trump to call up 400 Texas National Guard members. Abbott’s office didn’t respond to Stateline’s questions.

“You can either fully enforce protection for federal employees or get out of the way and let Texas Guard do it,” Abbott wrote on X.

In the Chicago area and in Portland, the Trump administration wants the National Guard outside ICE facilities where small protests have taken place in recent weeks. Dozens of people have been arrested in Portland since June, but there’s been no sign of widespread violence. A Stateline analysis of U.S. Census Bureau and federal crime data found that Trump’s National Guard deployments have not, with a single exception, targeted the nation’s most violent cities.

For weeks federal courts have kept National Guard troops off the streets of Portland and the Chicago area as legal challenges play out, but that could be changing. The Trump administration on Friday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow it to deploy National Guard troops in the Chicago area. If the court sides with the administration, the decision could clear the way for additional deployments elsewhere.

In the Friday filing to the Supreme Court, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote: “This case presents what has become a disturbing and recurring pattern: Federal officers are attempting to enforce federal immigration law in an urban area containing significant numbers of illegal aliens. The federal agents’ efforts are met with prolonged, coordinated, violent resistance that threatens their lives and safety and systematically interferes with their ability to enforce federal law.”

The U.S. Department of Defense didn’t directly answer questions from Stateline about whether further cross-state deployments are planned, saying only that it doesn’t speculate on future operations.

U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut wrote in an order blocking deployment of the National Guard in Portland that a handful of documented episodes of protesters clashing with federal law enforcement during September were “inexcusable,” but added that “they are nowhere near the type of incidents that cannot be handled by regular law enforcement forces.”

But on Monday, a divided three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Trump had “lawfully exercised his statutory authority” to deploy Oregon National Guard servicemembers to Portland. Lawyers for Oregon and Portland are seeking a review by the full appeals court, a move that would put the case in front of 11 appellate judges.

Shaoul, the Portland business leader, said the presence of troops would itself risk creating “drama” at the expense of taxpayers.

“Tell me how that’s helping anybody to go in and intimidate a bunch of people who are dressed up in friggin’ costumes, playing music,” Shaoul said. “I mean, if nothing else illustrates what a joke this is, that should tell you right there.”

10th Amendment concerns

Top Republicans have long telegraphed their desire to use the National Guard to aid immigration enforcement.

In December, before Trump took office, 26 GOP governors — at the time, every Republican governor except Vermont’s Phil Scott — signed a statement promising to provide their national guards to help.

Since Trump’s inauguration, at least 11 Republican governors have ordered National Guard members to help ICE, typically by providing logistical support. At least four states — Florida, Louisiana, Texas and West Virginia — have entered into federal agreements that allow ICE to delegate some immigration enforcement duties, potentially including arrests, to National Guard members.

Trump’s decision to federalize National Guard members goes further, placing troops under the president’s command. The cross-state deployments represent the next step in testing his authority to command guard members.

Finkelstein, the national security law professor, said sending one state’s National Guard into another state raises serious legal issues under the 10th Amendment. The amendment reserves for the states or the people powers not specifically granted to the federal government — the idea at the core of federalism.

A president and governor may reasonably disagree about whether federalization is necessary to help their state, Finkelstein said, but “even that fig leaf” isn’t available when troops are sent to another state. California gets nothing out of the deployment of its National Guard to Oregon, she said. And unless it’s California’s governor — rather than the president — making the choice to deploy guard members elsewhere, it’s a “very real problem” that undermines state autonomy, she said.

Washington state Rep. Jim Walsh, who chairs the Washington State Republican Party, has been monitoring the attempted deployment in Portland, as well as the possibility of a deployment to Seattle. He said Trump has broad discretion under federal law to federalize National Guard members.

Still, Walsh said federalizing the National Guard gives him pause and is something that a hypothetical president — “leave this one out of the equation” — might overuse. But he argued state and local leadership in cities where the National Guard has been deployed have brought the situation on themselves by allowing a breakdown in law and order.

Asked about cross-state deployments, Walsh largely dismissed any legal concerns.

“I guess they would know the area better,” Walsh said of troops deployed in their home state. “But this is kind of a specious argument. … The president, whoever he or she is, can federalize National Guard units.”

Walsh said he doesn’t see a situation at the moment that would necessitate a Guard deployment within Washington state.

But Seattle isn’t taking any chances.

Harrell, the Seattle mayor, signed two executive orders in October, one that pushes back on the practice of federal agents making immigration arrests while wearing masks, and another that seeks to maintain control over local law enforcement resources if the National Guard is deployed in the city.

“I’m critically concerned about what can occur as a reaction,” Harrell said. “That’s exactly what Trump’s goal is, to raise tension and create chaos and to use blue cities as scapegoats.”

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correct the year, 1957, that President Dwight D. Eisenhower federalized National Guard troops to enforce desegregation in Arkansas. Stateline reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@stateline.org.

Advocates gather outside the Hippodrome Theater in Richmond, Virginia, this summer to protest Medicaid cuts. Medicaid covers nearly two-thirds of Black babies’ births in the U.S., federal data shows, and congressional cuts to the program are already limiting reproductive health care in Black and low-income communities. (Photo by Bert Shepherd/Courtesy of Protect Our Care PAC)

At least 90% of Black people surveyed for a new poll said Medicaid is important to them or their families, and more than half either have public insurance or a family member who relies on the program. 

“Medicaid is critical for so many things with regards to making sure that we’re healthy and addressing health disparities. By losing it or weakening it, it is just going to disproportionately harm our communities,” said Regina Davis Moss, the president and CEO of In Our Own Voice: National Black Women’s Reproductive Justice Agenda. 

Davis Moss’ organization commissioned the 10-state poll, which includes views from California, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Nonpartisan research firm PerryUndem conducted the survey between May and June and interviewed 500 Black adults in each state. 

The findings, shared exclusively with States Newsroom, show a significant number of Black people who want children are not yet planning to have them due to cost and health care concerns. 

Results were released just as several Planned Parenthood clinics that served Black patients with low incomes closed after a law took effect blocking certain reproductive health clinics affiliated with abortion providers from receiving Medicaid reimbursements until July 2026.

Louisiana’s Planned Parenthood clinics, which never offered abortions in their decades of service, closed on Sept. 30. Sixty percent of the Baton Rouge and New Orleans patients were Black and most have Medicaid insurance, States Newsroom reported. One of two Planned Parenthood locations in Memphis, where more than 60% of the population is Black, temporarily closed its doors during the first week of October due to Medicaid cuts, Tennessee Lookout reported. 

“Proximity is important, and the fact that these clinics have to close means that individuals needing their services will go without,” said Danielle Atkinson, executive director of Mothering Justice, a national advocacy group based in Michigan. 

Four Planned Parenthood clinics closed in her state this spring after the Trump administration cut millions of Title X family-planning funding, Michigan Advance reported.  

“They’ll go without STI testing. They’ll go without cancer screening. They’ll go without counseling,” Atkinson said. 

The ban on Medicaid for some reproductive health providers was part of a larger reconciliation package that is also set to slash nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid more broadly over the next decade. 

“Medicaid is a lifeline for Black women, girls and gender-expansive people,” Davis Moss said. The state and federal program covers nearly two-thirds of Black births, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and almost half of all births nationwide. 

Maternal health advocates are bracing for the impact of Medicaid cuts on labor and delivery units, which have already been closing at a rapid pace over the last 10 years, especially in rural communities. A maternity ward in northeast Georgia, one of the states included in the poll, will close at the end of the month partially due to Medicaid cuts, Georgia Recorder reported in September. 

Findings from the In Our Own Voice poll also show that Black people of reproductive age — 18 to 44 in this case — want children but are not planning to have them, citing high costs of living. 

California had the biggest disparity of 28 percentage points: 56% want children but only 28% plan to have them. 

“I believe some of the reasons they said are not new issues that we are grappling with, but it’s deeply concerning because they are being exacerbated in this current administration,” Davis Moss said. 

At least 69% of Black people polled in each of the 10 states said they worry about being able to take care of children or more children than they already have, while at least 67% cited housing costs and 57% pointed to child care expenses. 

“In a lot of these states, the cost of child care is more expensive than a year of tuition, which is such a barrier for people to be able to: one, go into the workforce, two, have that early intervention and early education that really sets their children up for success, and three, give individuals and families the opportunity to go and explore careers and learning opportunities,” Atkinson said. 

Abortion restrictions played a factor in family planning, too, though in smaller numbers. At least 45% said they don’t want children because they or their loved one could die from pregnancy, while 43% worry about miscarriage care and 30% said abortion bans are stopping them from growing their families. 

Three of the states included in the poll — Florida, Georgia and North Carolina — have abortion bans stricter than 20 weeks. Voters in California, Michigan and Ohio approved reproductive rights amendments in recent years that secured the right to an abortion up to fetal viability, while Nevada and Virginia may have similar safeguards in place after the midterms. 

A majority of voters in each of the 10 states say abortion should be legal in all or most cases and at least 78% say Black women should make the decisions about pregnancy that’s best for them. 

Overall, at least half of Black adults polled are struggling with economic security. Black women of reproductive age were more likely to expect less safety and security throughout the rest of Republican President Donald Trump’s second term than Black men. 

“We’re getting ready to celebrate our 250 years, and all the things that we have fought for and all these things that we have gained in terms of civil rights and human rights, they are under threat like never before,” Davis Moss said. 

Women gather outside a Goodwill store inside the Elmwood Correctional Facility in 2024 in Milpitas, Calif. A Council on Criminal Justice report warns that criminal justice policies are failing to address the unique needs of women, from arrest to incarceration. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

A new report from the nonpartisan think tank Council on Criminal Justice warns that policies and practices across the nation’s criminal justice systems are failing to address the distinct factors that drive women into the system — and in doing so, are harming families and undermining public safety.

The report, which was released early this month, calls on states and local communities to reconsider how they respond to women at the earliest stages of criminal justice involvement — from arrest and pretrial detention to charging and sentencing — and to focus more on prevention, treatment and family stability.

“Women are no less responsible for their actions than men, and should be held accountable,” said Stephanie Akhter, the director of the council’s Women’s Justice Commission.

“If we really want to stop crime and put people on a path to success, then we need to take an individualized approach and craft responses that are fair and in service of those goals,” Akhter told Stateline.

The report outlined four major policy recommendations: prioritizing alternatives to arrest, basing pretrial detention decisions on public safety and flight risk, considering women’s unique circumstances during charging and sentencing, and prohibiting sexual contact between law enforcement officers and people in custody.

The authors also urged state and local leaders to invest in research and data collection to better understand women’s experiences in the justice system and the factors that may contribute to criminal behavior, including domestic violence, economic instability, substance use and mental illness.

“We need to know more about what’s bringing them into the system,” Akhter said. 

The report comes as new federal data shows the female prison population is growing faster than the male population. The female state prison population increased about 5% nationwide between 2022 and 2023, according to the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics. Most states saw gains of fewer than 100 women, with Texas being the only state where the number of incarcerated women rose by more than 500. 

Roughly 58% of women incarcerated in state prisons were parents of minor children in 2016, compared with 46% of men, according to a 2021 Bureau of Justice Statistics research brief.

The latest national FBI data shows a similar trend in arrests: Women accounted for 27% of all adult arrests in 2024, nearly double their 14% share in 1980, according to the council’s report. The share of violent offense arrests among women also has steadily risen, from 11% in 1986 to 21% in 2024. 

A separate report from the council’s Women’s Justice Commission examined how communities respond to women in crisis. The authors found that some crisis intervention systems are not designed to meet women’s specific needs, and that more research is needed to understand women’s experiences and long-term outcomes.

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

An excavator works to clear rubble Oct. 23, 2025 after the East Wing of the White House was demolished. The demolition is part of President Donald Trump's plan to build a ballroom on the eastern side of the White House. (Photo by Eric Lee/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Workers this week demolished the East Wing of the White House, originally built in 1942, to make room for construction of a ballroom that President Donald Trump had said wouldn’t impact the building. 

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the roughly $300 million project during a Thursday briefing, saying it is the next in a long line of additions and renovations to the campus that have taken place throughout the country’s history. 

“Just trust the process,” Leavitt said. “This is going to be a magnificent addition to the White House for many years to come and it’s not costing the taxpayers anything.”

The project is being fully financed by Trump and several private donors, including Amazon, Apple, Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., Caterpillar Inc., Comcast Corporation, Google, Lockheed Martin, Meta Platforms, Microsoft, T-Mobile, Union Pacific Railroad, investors Cameron Winklevoss and Tyler Winklevoss, among others. 

Trump said later in the day that he plans to allocate “millions of dollars” to the ballroom and has spent his own money on other White House projects, including floors and lighting in the Palm Room. 

“I spent millions of dollars on this building, taking care of it,” he said. “It was not properly maintained and now it’s starting to gleam like it should. It should really gleam.”

Photos from The Associated Press appeared to show the ballroom demolition, which was first reported Monday, complete.

Leavitt said tearing down the East Wing did not need approval from the National Capital Planning Commission, according to a legal opinion from that organization, an executive-branch agency responsible for managing federal construction projects in and around Washington, D.C. 

“Their general counsel has said when it comes to phase one of this project, the tearing down of the current East Wing structure, a submission is not required legally for that,” Leavitt said. “Only for vertical construction will a submission be required and that’s a legal opinion from them and we are following that legal opinion.”

Design modified

Trump said in late July that construction of the ballroom “won’t interfere with the current building” and ballparked the price at $200 million.  

“It will be near it but not touching it. And pays total respect to the existing building, which I’m the biggest fan of,” Trump said at the time. “It’s my favorite. It’s my favorite place. I love it.”

Leavitt, when pressed Thursday why the president didn’t tell Americans he would need to demolish the entire East Wing, said designs were modified throughout the process. 

“The plans changed when the president heard counsel from the architects and the construction companies, who said that in order for this East Wing to be modern and beautiful for many, many years to come, for it to be a truly strong and stable structure, this phase one that we’re now in was necessary,” Leavitt said.

She didn’t offer an explanation for why the price had increased by $100 million, repeatedly saying no taxpayer money would go toward the ballroom. 

Security plans, official name unknown

Leavitt declined to say whether the project will include upgrades to the bunker that sits below the East Wing, known as the president’s emergency operations center, citing security concerns. 

“Like any security enhancements that are made on the White House grounds, those will be made and maintained by the United States Secret Service,” she said. 

Trump is also deciding what exactly to name the new ballroom, though Leavitt declined to detail what he’s considering.  

“There will be an official name,” she said. “I will let the president announce that once he firmly decides on it.”

Trump is not currently considering any other major construction or renovation projects on the White House grounds, though Leavitt didn’t rule out that could happen during the remainder of his term, which will last until Jan. 20, 2029. 

“Not to my knowledge, no,” Leavitt said. “But he is a builder at heart, clearly. And so his heart and his mind is always churning about how to improve things here on the White House grounds. But at this point in time, of course, the ballroom is really the president’s main priority.” 

Call for preservation

The nonprofit National Trust for Historic Preservation sent a letter earlier this week urging an immediate halt to demolition of the East Wing “until plans for the proposed ballroom go through the legally required public review processes, including consultation and review by the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts, and to invite comment from the public.”

President and CEO Carol Quillen wrote the 90,000-square-foot ballroom could easily dwarf the 55,000-square-foot White House. 

“As we approach the 250th Anniversary of our country’s founding, the preservation of historic places that represent our nation’s history has never been more relevant or important,” Quillen wrote. “We urge you to take into account the deep reverence that all Americans hold for this iconic place, and to initiate the review process that can ensure the preservation of the historic White House for future generations.”

The National Capital Planning Commission could not be reached for comment Thursday since it is closed due to the ongoing government shutdown. The Commission of Fine Arts did not immediately return a request for comment. 

The White House Historical Association writes on its website that the East Wing was constructed in 1942 “to house additional staff and offices, reflecting the growing complexity of the federal government during World War II.” 

“The East Wing’s construction was highly controversial due to its timing during wartime,” the website states. “Congressional Republicans labeled the expenditure as wasteful, with some accusing (President Franklin D.) Roosevelt of using the project to bolster his presidency’s image. The secretive nature of the construction, tied to military purposes, further fueled suspicions. However, the East Wing’s utility in supporting the modern presidency eventually quieted critics.”

Michael Gableman | Up Front screen shot

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Susan Crawford issued an order Thursday recusing herself from former Justice Michael Gableman’s disciplinary case with the state Office of Lawyer Regulation. 

Gableman faces a suspension of his law license for his conduct during his widely derided review of the 2020 presidential election. The Supreme Court is responsible for delivering the length of his suspension and determining any monetary penalties he’s responsible for paying. 

Crawford’s recusal comes after Gableman had filed a motion requesting that she not participate in the case because of comments she made about him on the campaign trail earlier this year. However, Crawford isn’t recusing at Gableman’s request. 

Instead, Crawford wrote, she is stepping aside from weighing in on the case because part of the allegations against Gableman are his actions during an open records lawsuit against him in the circuit court of Dane County Judge Frank Remington. Crawford, formerly a judge in that circuit, said that because of her proximity to Remington’s court, she learned facts about that case that are not considered part of the official record in the disciplinary matter. 

“I believe it is likely I was exposed to information and impressions related to Attorney Gableman’s conduct and demeanor in the circuit court that fall outside of the record before this court,” she wrote. “Because I may have been exposed to factual allegations beyond those Attorney Gableman has chosen not to contest, I may have ‘personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.’”

Because she recused herself for another reason, Crawford dismissed Gableman’s request as moot.

Gableman had also requested the recusal of Justice Rebecca Dallet, arguing that comments she made about his judicial record when she announced her campaign for the Court in 2017 meant she couldn’t impartially assess his case. In an order, Dallet denied the request, writing that her comments about him in 2017 have nothing to do with how she assesses actions he took in 2021. 

“Although Gableman tries to characterize my comments as reflecting a view of ‘Gableman’s moral turpitude,’ and his ‘professional judgment and character,’ no objective reasonable observer would understand them as such,” she wrote. “Simply put, I expressed my disagreement with Gableman’s actions as a candidate and justice between 2008 and 2018. That disagreement is irrelevant to whether he engaged in attorney misconduct in 2021 and 2022, and whether I can impartially adjudicate claims that he did so now.”

With Crawford recusing, the Court is divided 3-3 between liberals and conservatives — though conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn has previously sided with the Court’s liberals in cases relating to the 2020 presidential election.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., talks to a reporter in the basement of the U.S. Capitol on Thursday, Oct. 23, 2025. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The Senate Thursday failed to advance a Republican measure and rejected unanimous agreements on two related bills from Democrats that would have paid federal employees and contractors who have continued to work amid the government shutdown, which entered day 23. 

The stalemate constituted the latest example of how dug in to their arguments both parties are as the shutdown that began Oct. 1 drags out, as well as the heightened political tensions in the upper chamber when it comes to striking a deal to resume government funding.  

Most federal employees will miss their first full paycheck on Friday or early next week. More than 42 million Americans, some 40% under the age of 17, are also at risk of delayed food assistance if Congress doesn’t address a funding shortfall expected by Nov. 1 in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. 

Senate Democrats Wednesday sent a letter to U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins over concerns that the agency has warned states to hold off on processing SNAP benefits. They contended the agency has the resources to keep payments flowing.

“We were deeply disturbed to hear that the USDA has instructed states to stop processing SNAP benefits for November and were surprised by your recent comments that the program will ‘run out of money in two weeks,’” according to the letter. “In fact, the USDA has several tools available which would enable SNAP benefits to be paid through or close to the end of November.”

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., introduced a bill Wednesday to continue SNAP funding through the shutdown. During Thursday’s briefing, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the administration would “absolutely support” the legislation.

Deadlock on federal worker pay

In the Senate, a measure from Wisconsin GOP Sen. Ron Johnson on a 54-45 vote did not reach the 60-vote threshold needed to advance in the chamber. Its failure means that federal employees who have continued to work will not be paid until the shutdown ends.

Democratic senators who agreed to the measure included Pennsylvania’s John Fetterman and Georgia’s Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock. Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota changed his vote in order to reconsider the measure. 

“I don’t think it makes sense to hold these federal workers hostage,” Warnock told States Newsroom in an interview on his vote Thursday. “If I could have a path to give some of these folks relief while fighting for health care, that’s what I decided to do.”

A separate measure from Maryland Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen also failed to move forward after Johnson objected. Van Hollen requested unanimous consent to approve his bill that would have also protected federal workers from mass Reductions in Force, or RIFs, that President Donald Trump has attempted during the shutdown. 

A second Democratic bill, from Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., was narrower, only including pay for federal workers. But when he requested unanimous approval for his measure, it was also blocked by Johnson.

Senators then left Capitol Hill for the weekend. On Wednesday, the Senate took a failed 12th vote to provide the federal government and its services with flat funding through Nov. 21.

Senate Republicans have pressed Senate Democrats to approve the GOP-written stopgap measure. But Democrats have maintained that they will not support the House measure because it does not extend tax credits that will expire at the end of the year for people who buy their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act Marketplace.

Layoffs cited by Van Hollen

Van Hollen argued his bill would protect workers from the president’s targeting of certain federal agencies and programs.

“We certainly shouldn’t set up a system where the president of the United States gets to decide what agencies to shut down, what they can open, who to pay and who not to pay, who to punish and who not to punish,” Van Hollen said on the Senate floor before asking for unanimous consent to move the bill forward.

Johnson objected to including Van Hollen’s provision to ban federal worker layoffs during a shutdown. President Donald Trump’s efforts to lay off thousands of federal workers during the shutdown have been on hold since last week, after a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order that was later expanded.  

However, Johnson said he was willing to add into his own bill the provision from Van Hollen to pay furloughed workers.

“I’m more than happy to sit down with you. Maybe we should do that later today,” Van Hollen told Johnson during their debate on the floor.

Shortly after, Peters introduced a near-mirror version of Van Hollen’s bill, except that his measure would not prohibit layoffs — essentially what Johnson told Van Hollen he would agree to.

“We all say we agree on this, so let’s just pass this bill now,” the Michigan Democrat said before asking for unanimous consent to advance the legislation.

Johnson also objected to that proposal.

“It only solves a problem temporarily. We’re going to be right back in the same position,” Johnson said in an interview with States Newsroom about why he rejected Peters’ proposal.  

Johnson said he talked with Peters and Van Hollen after the vote and “we’ll be talking beyond this.”

‘Waste of time’ for House to meet

Even if the Senate passed the bill sponsored by Johnson or Van Hollen, it’s unlikely the House, which has been in recess since last month, would return to vote on either measure.

At a Thursday morning press conference, House Speaker Mike Johnson argued that Republicans already passed a stopgap measure to pay federal workers and that Senate Democrats should support that legislation. 

Johnson said bringing back the House would be a “waste of time,” noting that Democrats would not vote on the Republican proposal. 

“If I brought everybody back right now and we voted on a measure to do this, to pay essential workers, it would be spiked in the Senate,” said the Louisiana Republican. “So it would be a waste of our time.”

Duffy warns of flight delays due to shutdown

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy joined Johnson and House Republicans during their press conference. 

He said that flight delays have increased due to staffing shortages.

More than 50,000 TSA agents and more than 13,000 air traffic controllers have continued to work without pay during the government shutdown. 

“They’re angry,” Duffy said of air traffic controllers. “I’ve gone to a number of different towers over the course of the last week to 10 days. They’re frustrated.”

Next Tuesday, air traffic controllers will not receive their full paycheck for their work in October, Duffy said.

He added that the agency is already short-staffed — by up to 3,000 air traffic controllers.

“When we have lower staffing, what happens is, you’ll see delays or cancellations,” Duffy said. 

The FlightAware tracker said there were 2,132 delays within, into or out of the United States of unspecified length reported by Thursday afternoon, compared to 4,175 on Wednesday, 3,846 on Tuesday and 6,792 on Monday.

A shortage of air traffic controllers helped play a role in ending the 2019 government shutdown, which lasted 35 days, after thousands of commercial flights were ground to a halt. 

Michael Gableman in Dane County Circuit Court on Thursday, June 23 | Screenshot via Wisconsin Eye

Former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman could be forced to pay $48,192 to cover the costs of the state Office of Lawyer Regulation’s investigation into him for his conduct during his widely derided review of the 2020 presidential election. 

That review of the election, which did not turn up any proof of wrongdoing, has resulted in 10 counts of misconduct being filed against the former judge. Late last month, he agreed to have his law license suspended for three years because of the charges. 

Last week the OLR filed a statement arguing that the case against Gableman should follow Supreme Court precedent, which would mean the costs incurred by the OLR investigator and independent referee overseeing the case should be paid by the lawyer under investigation. The referee issued a recommendation stating that there was no reason the case shouldn’t follow the existing precedent.

Both the responsibility for paying the bill and the ultimate punishment will be decided by the state Supreme Court. 

Also last week, Gableman filed a motion in his case last week seeking the recusal of liberal justices Susan Crawford and Rebecca Dallet.

Gableman’s filing notes that Crawford called him a “disgraced election conspiracy theorist” and accused him of leading a “sham” investigation of the 2020 election during her campaign earlier this year. 

His filing notes comments Dallet made in 2017 after she had announced her campaign for the Court but before Gableman had decided not to run for another term. Dallet accused Gableman of not recusing himself from cases in which he had a conflict of interest, called his 2008 campaign “one of the most unethical” in state history and said he was a “rubber stamp for his political allies.”

Gableman argues that these comments create the appearance of bias and that the justices shouldn’t weigh in on his punishment. If they were to recuse, the Court’s conservatives would hold a 3-2 majority — though Justice Brian Hagedorn sided with the Court’s liberals in the 2020 election cases it decided.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan speaks with furloughed federal workers on Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2025. Pocan, a Democrat, brought pizza for the group and discussed the current federal shutdown. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

Ellie Lazarcik worked in a few different industry jobs after moving to Madison in 2017. None of them really fit, she says. Then she learned that the U.S. Forest Service Forest Products Lab in Madison was hiring.

Coincidentally, she knew of the lab from a visit she made “way back when I was in college, for a wood sculpture class of all things,” Lazarcik said Wednesday.

“Over a decade had passed since then, and I saw a job opening come up in the lab and thought, ‘Why not? That place was really amazing when I visited. They had really cool stuff going on then, and they probably still have really cool stuff going on,’” she recalled.

She applied and got the job.

That was five years ago. Her job title is physical science technician in the lab’s building and fire science program. Her work supports other members of the research team — setting up lab tests, preparing samples and then running them through the testing or analysis process and sorting through the data afterward.

“And I love what I do,” Lazarcik said.

Since President Donald Trump took office in January, “there have been a lot of really sort of rapid-fire changes,” she said. “We’re on our toes a lot trying to figure out what we can or can’t pursue in terms of research.”

Still, she has continued to find the job engaging. “We’ve been able to keep doing cool projects,” Lazarcik said. “I’ve been involved in some interesting stuff in the lab — but it has been challenging.”

Since Oct. 1, however, Lazarcik has been furloughed along with hundreds of thousands of federal workers on account of the federal government shutdown.

“This is my first furlough and I’m not particularly enjoying it,” she said. Missing a paycheck is one reason, but it’s not the only one.

“It is pretty uncomfortable not knowing when I will get paid next, when I can go back into the lab and continue working on projects that got stopped abruptly,” Lazarcik said, “It’s stressful.”

Lazarcik is married and  her husband “has a job and a paycheck, which definitely helps,” she said. “But going from a two-paycheck household to one has been a pretty stark difference.”

On Wednesday, Lazarcik brought her toddler in his stroller over to the Social Security Administration office on Madison’s far West Side. U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Black Earth) and members of his staff stopped by a little after noon with boxes of pizza as a token of appreciation for some of the furloughed federal workers.

About 18,000 federal employees live in Wisconsin, and about 8,000 are expected to be out of work currently due to the shutdown, the state labor secretary, Amy Pechacek, said at a virtual news conference on Thursday, Oct. 18.

“We’re seeing you and we very much appreciate what you’re doing,” Pocan told the group of just over a dozen federal employees who turned out. “We understand the sacrifice you and your families are making.”

Even before the shutdown, the Trump administration fired about 200,000 federal workers, Pocan said.

“These actions are illegal,” he said, but added that they are likely to drive some people out of the federal workforce. “We’re going to lose a lot of good, qualified people with experience.”

Pocan said communication in Washington, D.C., between the Republican majority in both the House and the Senate and Democrats has been at a standstill.

“I’d prefer we were there now, negotiating to get things done. But we’re not,” Pocan told the group. “We’re seeing a lot of things happen this session that aren’t normal.”

In September the Republicans sought to pass a continuing resolution on spending that if enacted would have averted the shutdown. A majority voted for the measure in the House, but in the U.S. Senate there were not enough votes to clear the 60 needed to advance most bills in the upper chamber.

Democratic support is necessary to meet that threshold, but Democratic lawmakers argued that in return for their votes they should have an opportunity to have some input into the continuing resolution.

Their demands have included extending enhanced subsidies for health insurance premiums sold through the federal HealthCare.gov marketplace and reversing cuts to Medicaid that Republicans included in their big tax cut and spending cut bill enacted in July.

In previous spending standoffs, Pocan said, leaders of both parties in both houses of Congress have been able to hash out agreements, usually avoiding a shutdown altogether or else managing to resolve one before it drags on.

“This time, though, so much has changed,” Pocan said.

A bipartisan deal failed in December after Trump and Elon Musk opposed it. Congress managed to approve another stopgap spending bill two days later that carried the federal government to March 2025.

“Then we had to start over in March,” Pocan said. That measure was unpopular with Democrats, he said, but enough Senate Democrats voted for it to pass,  funding the federal government through Sept. 30.

“And immediately we saw recissions — illegal again — and more illegal actions by the Trump administration taking funds away,” Pocan said. That history over the last 10 months has made Democrats wary of a deal that doesn’t address their priorities, he added.

Lazarcik hopes Congress acts soon to pass legislation that ends the shutdown. In the meantime, she gets by, tapping into savings, “looking at where you can squeeze a little bit tighter,” and skimping on putting aside funds for retirement — “which is really hard.”

Not everyone understands, however.

“I hear a lot  of people talk about, ‘Oh, man, that must be cool.’ It’s really not,” she said. “It’s pretty stressful having to try to plan when you can’t know when your next paycheck is coming.”

She is grateful for a support network of close friends and family members. “[They] do understand furlough is not just some crazy vacation you get to go on,” Lazarcik said.

The forest products lab has had a strong feeling of community that Lazarcik has always enjoyed. That has persisted during furlough, “even in this time when we’re not all going to the same building every day.”

Coworkers have stayed connected, reaching out to each other to meet up, talk and “de-stress,” Lazarcik said. “Even though we’re not all working on a regular schedule and we’re not getting paychecks, we still are supporting each other, and that’s been really great.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Halle Berry calls for Wisconsin lawmakers to advance a bill related to menopause education as Rep. Robyn Vining and Sen. Dianne Hesselbein watch. (Photo courtesy of Vining's office)

Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) and Rep. Robyn Vining (D-Wauwatosa) brought in a big name — award-winning actress Halle Berry — this week to help them call for better education on perimenopause and menopause. 

Berry, who wasn’t able to be at the hearing in real time, has become an advocate nationally for raising awareness of menopause and advocating for changes. She joined the Wisconsin bill authors at a virtual press conference on Tuesday afternoon, and her testimony was played at a Senate Health Committee public hearing Wednesday. The committee also took testimony Wednesday on bills to help with falls prevention among older Wisconsinites and on medical marijuana. 

“This is not a political issue — I promise you, it’s not. It is a human rights issue,” Berry said. 

Menopause is the period of time usually in middle age when a woman has not had her period for 12 consecutive months. Perimenopause is the period of time when hormone levels fluctuate and decline and a woman begins transitioning into menopause. It typically lasts between 4 years and 10 or more years.

Women can reach menopause at different ages, but often women reach it between 45 and 55. Symptoms typically begin during perimenopause. 

During the hearing, Vining listed part of a long list of symptoms that women can experience when they hit perimenopause and menopause.

“Wisconsin women deserve to know what is happening to their bodies. Wisconsin women deserve to access to information that can help explain symptoms like increased anxiety and depression, brain fog, frozen shoulder, concerns about increases in cholesterol, decreases in bone density, sleeplessness, night sweats, increased sensitivity and pain in joints, vertigo, gut issues, loss of libido, the unusual exhaustion, confusing dryness, hot flashes, and more,” Vining said. “Many women say, ‘I don’t feel like myself’ and they deserve to know why that is and what they can do about it.”

Berry said her experience started with “excruciating” pain in her vagina and her OB-GYN telling her that it was herpes “and probably one of the worst cases” he had seen. 

“I had just started dating a new guy, one year into a wonderful new relationship, and [my doctor] said, ‘Well, go have a talk with this guy [because] you have herpes.’”

Berry said she and her partner both got tested and found that neither of them had herpes. She said that when she went back to her doctor, he said that he didn’t know what was wrong with her. She saw another doctor, when she started experiencing dry mouth, who suggested she might have had an autoimmune disorder. She saw the first doctor again when she started experiencing dry eyes. 

It was then that he reluctantly told her she was experiencing menopause. 

“Why couldn’t you just say that to me? You’re my health care provider. You’re my doctor,” Berry said she asked her OB-GYN. “He said, ‘because my patients don’t want to hear they’re in menopause. It scares them. They think they’re getting old.’” 

“I have real life examples of how more education would have saved me almost four years of self-exploration and self-diagnoses,” Berry said.  “I would have loved to have gotten this information from my health care providers.”

Lack of education about menopause is connected to stigma, she said.

Hesselbein and Vining are lead authors on a bill meant to help women in Wisconsin get the information that they need. 

SB 356 would require the Department of Health Services to partner with health care providers, including obstetricians and gynecologists, community health centers and hospitals, to educate women on symptoms and other issues surrounding perimenopause and menopause. The bill is bipartisan with Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevera (R-Appleton) as a cosponsor. 

Under the bill, DHS would also be required to create digital and physical informational materials to be distributed to women who are or are soon to experience perimenopause and menopause. 

The authors said it was discussions with their friends and shared experiences that led them to introduce the bill. 

“We’re all talking about the same thing right now,” Hesselbein said. “[Halle Berry is] having this problem with all the resources she has, and as a state employee with my health insurance, I also ran into some obstacles where people weren’t giving me the correct information. …How many other women in the state of Wisconsin are going through this?” 

Hesselbein said a big moment for her was when she was dealing with “frozen shoulder” — a condition that causes pain, stiffness and limited range of motion in the shoulder joint and is common during perimenopause. 

“I didn’t know what it was, and I thought it’s not related to menopause,” Hesselbein said. “They gave me a cortisone shot, which was really great because it released the frozen shoulder, and I had [physical therapy] after that… I talked to friends about it, they’re like, ‘oh, yeah, I’ve had that too.’”

Hesselbein said the bill is based on a similar model adopted in Pennsylvania. 

“It is my hope that we can pass this bill so that we can get Wisconsin women the help they deserve and in the process of doing so that we can destigmatize honest and forthright conversations and discussions about menopause and perimenopause,” Vining said.

Falls prevention awareness

Rep. Rick Gundrum (R-Slinger) and Sen. Andre Jacque (R-New Franken) are seeking to cut down on the number of falls that Wisconsin residents are experiencing through a state grant to raise awareness for prevention. 

“If passed, the impact that this bill would have on Wisconsin’s older population is significant,” Gundrum said during the public hearing. “Falls are the leading cause of injury-related death and hospitalization for seniors. According to the CDC, Wisconsin has the highest fall death rate among older adults in the country.”

According to a recent Department of Health Services report, emergency medical services responded to 35,564 more falls-related calls in 2024 when compared to 2019 — an increase of nearly 10,000 a year or 7.4% a year since 2019. 

Speculation on why the state’s high fall death rate includes Wisconsin’s cold weather, the amount of alcohol that is consumed in the state and that the state may be better at reporting death-related falls.

SB 410 would provide $900,000 across 2025-26 and 2026-27 to the Wisconsin Institute for Healthy Aging, a nonprofit that oversees the Falls Free Wisconsin Coalition. The coalition is responsible for a statewide initiative to reduce older adult falls and works to raise awareness; curate and share best practices in falls prevention; gather and report falls data; and address policy and systems changes. The state funds provided under the bill would be used by the organization to support falls prevention awareness and initiatives. 

A legislative council staffer told lawmakers in response to a question that the bill in its current form is  “really a broad charge to the Institute for Healthy Aging for how they’d want to spend the money in the category of falls.” 

“I think it would kind of remain to be seen exactly how, what initiatives they’ve spent the money on,” the staffer said. “The bill gives the Institute broad latitude to figure out how to use the money.” 

Jill Renken, executive director of the Wisconsin Institute for Healthy Aging, told the committee that she has seen the benefits of programs through her own mother, who had started falling in her home after she retired. She said that she encouraged her mother to take a class at the local aging and disability resource center, which she said can reduce falls by 31%. 

“I noticed that she was applying what she learned… She was doing her exercises. She talked with her pharmacist about her medications. My dad made some home safety modifications in the home,” Renken said. “I’m so excited that she has not fallen. It’s been over two years.” 

Renken said the organization for the last decade has worked to diversify funding, but there isn’t enough to sustain their activity.

“State investment is critical in order to maintain the stability of the programs, to maintain the services that we offer and also to grow the program so we can make a much more significant impact in our communities,” Renken said. “We want more older adults to be able to have access to these programs and services. We want to increase awareness so that people know what these services exist.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A view of medical marijuana products at a New York medical marijuana cultivation facility. Wisconsin Assembly Republicans have proposed a bill to legalize medical cannabis in the state under strict conditions. (Drew Angerer | Getty Images)

“Illness does not discriminate,” said Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point) during a hearing of the Senate Committee on Health on Wednesday. “It affects people from all walks of life. There is no doubt that each and every one of us knows someone that has suffered through an illness and struggles to find ways to make it through each day.” 

Testin was speaking in favor of SB 534, a bill introduced by Republicans to legalize medical cannabis in Wisconsin. If passed, the bill would allow registered patients to have cannabis in a non-smokeable form such as a concentrate, oil, tincture, edible, pill, cream or vapor. The bill would also create an Office of Medical Cannabis Regulation attached to the state health department and tasked with overseeing the budding program. 

Testin shared a story about his grandfather, whom he described as his role model and as “the reason I decided to take a life of public service.” Back in the 1990s, Testin’s grandfather was diagnosed with lung cancer, which then metastasized to bone cancer. 

The senator recalled watching his grandfather undergo chemotherapy. The man “was a big guy,” Testin said, “and we watched him wither away.” At that moment, over 25 years ago, “my family made the very difficult decision to go outside the law to get him marijuana,” Testin said. “It gave him his appetite back, and it gave him time that we probably otherwise would not have had.”

Testin said his story was not unique. Although other medications exist, he said that many “come with side effects that can make living a normal life much more difficult.” He noted that 40 states, including Wisconsin’s neighbors Michigan, Illinois and Minnesota, give patients access to medical cannabis when recommended by doctors. Texas is the most recent state to legalize medical cannabis, he noted

“So both red and blue states alike have been able to come together and recognize that this is a viable option,” Testin said. “Medicine is never a one size fits all, and it’s time for Wisconsin to join the majority of the country and add another option which may help patients find relief they need.”

Legislation’s provisions

Under the proposed bill, medical cannabis sales would be tracked through the state’s prescription drug monitoring program. Pharmacists would also be required to be on-site at dispensaries. The legislation would only cover certain conditions: cancer, seizures or epilepsy, glaucoma, severe chronic pain, severe muscle spasms, severe chronic nausea, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, inflammatory bowel disease, and any terminal illness, including patients with a life expectancy of less than a year. 

Patients must be at least 18 years old. Minors could have access if there is  written consent “from all” of their parents or guardians. Patients would be given registration cards and would be charged $20 a year to remain on the registry. 

The bill also prohibits dispensaries or their staff “from claiming that medical cannabis may cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent any disease or medical condition.” Dispensaries would also be prohibited from “advertising their services to the general public, with certain exceptions.” 

The bill includes a provision preventing courts from considering  lawful use or possession of cannabis, or being registered as a patient, when determining  custody or placement of a child, except where the child has access to the cannabis. Unlawful possession or use could still be used against parents in court, however. The bill also protects people who lawfully possess cannabis against housing discrimination, and prevents local governments from regulating legal medical cannabis programs or using zoning laws to restrict the location or operation of a legal cannabis operation. 

Support and opposition

Earlier this year, two-thirds of registered voters polled by Marquette Law School said that cannabis should be legalized in Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Wellness Coalition has registered with the Wisconsin Ethics Commission in support of the legislation and the Wisconsin Medical Society against it, The Alzheimer’s Association, Outdoor Advertising Association, and Pharmacy Society have all registered their positions as “other.” 

People from a variety of backgrounds also spoke during the public hearing. Many supported legalizing cannabis, but had concerns about restrictions in the bill. 

“This should not be a partisan issue,” said Testin. “It is clear that we as a state need to begin having a real discussion about medical cannabis legalization, and it is our hope that this bill will be the first step. It’s time for Wisconsin to provide our citizens with another option in their health care.” 

Sen. Mary Felzkowski (R-Tomahawk), who has proposed  medical cannabis legislation for years, echoed that sentiment. 

“Wisconsin is on an island surrounded by neighboring states that allow the use of medical cannabis products,” Felzkowski said during the Wednesday hearing. “Someone who suffers from a serious health condition should not have to make the choice to travel to another state or break the law so that they can try an alternative medicine for relief.”

Felzkowski recounted her battles with breast cancer, first when she was 40 years old, which resulted in a double mastectomy, and then a stage 4 diagnosis a decade later. She described the side effects of opioids that doctors prescribed to control her pain as “something nobody should have to live through.” 

She said her oncologist called medical cannabis  “another tool in the toolbox, and it could help a lot of people.” 

 “Here we are sitting in our Ivory Tower, denying that for people that really need it, and it’s wrong that we’re doing that,” Felzkowski said.

Legislators are divided

Lawmakers hope to get more colleagues behind the bill. Yet, despite lagging behind many other states, Wisconsin’s Legislature still struggles with just talking about cannabis. “We are not going to be talking about overall legalization for cannabis products,” said Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevera (R-Appleton), as she chaired a meeting of the Senate Committee on Health on Wednesday. “So, if you’re here to testify on how this should be 100% legal, this is not the spot for you today.” 

The Legislature held its first public hearing on legalizing cannabis in 2022 in the Senate. Rep. Patrick Snyder (R-Weston), who also spoke during Wednesday’s hearing, said in an interview with the Wisconsin Examiner that he’s optimistic that the new bill will survive the Senate. “My goal this time,” Snyder told Wisconsin Examiner, “is something we haven’t done yet since I’ve been here and that is to have a hearing in the Assembly, where people I talk to can come down and explain their situations.”

Snyder said he hears from constituents who want the state to legalize medical cannabis. When he talks to Republicans who oppose the bill, he said, “I try to tell them first of all, this is something that helps a person. This is something that is going to be focused on folks that really need it.” 

Snyder stressed that “these are people not looking for shortcuts to get marijuana, I mean they could do that without [legalized medical cannabis].” Rather, his constituents are people who often don’t want to travel so far north or south to get their medicine, or who would prefer going to a local farmer or dispensary instead.

The bill’s critics include Republicans who feel medical cannabis would only lead to legalizing recreational use, which they don’t want, as well as Democrats who criticize the bill’s restrictive framework and want Wisconsin to legalize recreational use of cannabis. 

Even with the Republican bill’s restrictions on the form in which cannabis can be used and its system of rigorous licensing, testing and enforcement, Snyder said there are “far right” Republicans in the Assembly who need to be won over. 

Felzkowski said of the 24 states that allow recreational marijuana, 15 did so through ballot measures, which aren’t available in Wisconsin. “So that’s never going to happen in the state,” she said. 

Nine states that have legalized recreational  marijuana after legalizing medical cannabis “are solid blue states like Illinois, New York, and Connecticut,” she said. “Wisconsin is not a solid blue state.”  

Another 16 states have only legalized medical cannabis. Hawaii, the first state to pass a comprehensive medical cannabis program in 2000, still does not allow recreational cannabis, she said.  

“Fortunately, Wisconsin is able to learn from the experience of other states,” said Felzkowski. “We can create an effective program with safeguards, so patients and small businesses can benefit from medical cannabis products, while preventing abuse, or those without medical need from gaining access.”

A boy plays with a wooden numbers puzzle. Sensory exercises like this are often used in special education classrooms. (Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Proposed mass layoffs at the U.S. Department of Education have raised alarm among disability advocates and Democratic lawmakers over the potential impact on millions of students with disabilities. 

Advocates warn that the department cannot carry out its legally mandated functions for special education services and support at the staffing levels put forward by President Donald Trump’s proposed reduction in force, or RIF. 

The agency is also reportedly weighing a transfer of special education programs to a different department. 

“If we’ve learned anything this year, it’s that the fight is just beginning,” Rachel Gittleman, president of American Federation of Government Employees Local 252, which represents Education Department workers, told States Newsroom. “And we’re going to do everything we can to fight these illegal firings and the dismantling of the department, but it is just beginning.”

Trump’s administration took another axe to the department earlier this month amid the ongoing government shutdown, effectively gutting key units that serve students with disabilities. The affected offices administer $15 billion in formula and discretionary grant programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, provide guidance and support to families and states and investigate disability-based discrimination complaints, among other responsibilities. 

Though a federal judge has temporarily blocked the administration from carrying out the layoffs, the ruling provides only short-term relief as legal proceedings unfold. 

The administration moved to lay off 465 department employees, including 121 at the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, or OSERS, 132 in the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, or OESE, and 137 in the Office for Civil Rights, or OCR. 

The layoffs also hit the Office of the Secretary, Office of Communications and Office of Postsecondary Education. 

“You can’t look at any of this in a silo,” Gittleman said. “When you’re thinking about special education specifically, you also have to think about the fact that OESE, the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, also saw an almost full RIF as well.” 

Gittleman called the civil rights office “the place that ensures families have a place to go for help when students are denied access for education based on their disability.”

“That was also almost entirely gutted,” she said. “So you’re debilitating these programs in multiple ways because … kids with disabilities benefit from OESE programs, OCR assistance and OSERS programs.” 

Those three units had already been hit with a separate set of department layoffs earlier this year. 

Parents as advocates

Katy Neas, CEO of The Arc of the United States, an advocacy group for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, said that while IDEA has not been changed and the rights of children with disabilities continue, the government’s ability to enforce and implement those rights has deteriorated. 

OSERS is responsible for managing and supporting IDEA, which guarantees a free public education for students with disabilities and is in its 50th year. The umbrella unit OSERS includes the Office of the Assistant Secretary, Office of Special Education Programs and the Rehabilitation Services Administration.

“You take away the knowledge of the folks at the U.S. Department of Education at the Office of Special Education Programs — the law is complex, the combination of the federal law with state laws is complex — you need that trusted source of accurate information, and so, I think it’s going to make the implementation of this law that much more difficult,” Neas told States Newsroom. 

During the 2022-2023 school year, 7.5 million students in the United States received services through IDEA, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, a federal agency. 

Neas encouraged parents to “know your rights” and “understand what the law does and does not do for your child, and don’t take no for an answer.” 

She said parents “really have to be well-versed in what the law requires schools to provide to their child,” and “have to be the ones that insist that the law is implemented with fidelity, because they’re the ones that are going to be on the front lines trying to make that happen.” 

‘Flabbergasted’

Jacqueline Rodriguez, CEO at the National Center for Learning Disabilities, said the RIFs would make it “impossible” for the Office of Special Education Programs to “carry out its statutory requirements.” 

Rodriguez, whose organization advocates for people with learning and attention issues, said “we had hundreds of staff doing this type of work — the statutory requirements are monitoring, compliance, guidance, support — it’s not just pressing a button and issuing funding.” 

She also noted that advocacy groups, including hers, are “flabbergasted” regarding the sweeping layoffs of special education staff because of the contrast with previous assurances Education Secretary Linda McMahon has made to both Rodriguez and Congress about supporting students with disabilities. 

“I am not stunned that the administration would try to dismantle something that was legally required in place,” she said. “But I am flabbergasted that the secretary would sit and give congressional testimony at her confirmation hearing. She did it at the oversight hearing. She sat in front of me and said, ‘No, Jackie, this administration supports kids with special needs. We will always be good advocates. You don’t have to worry.’”

Just days after the layoff notices were sent out, McMahon took to social media to downplay the consequences of the shutdown on her department.   

Two weeks into the shutdown, “millions of American students are still going to school, teachers are getting paid, and schools are operating as normal,” McMahon wrote. 

The secretary added that “it confirms what the President has said: the federal Department of Education is unnecessary, and we should return education to the states.” 

McMahon also specified that “no education funding is impacted by the RIF, including funding for special education.” 

Rodriguez said McMahon’s post indicates the secretary believes the “status quo is perfectly reasonable — when we know that’s not the case — and she dismantles every opportunity for a kid with a disability to actually have his or her legally-entitled education.”

“I am beyond being polite and providing professional deference because there has been no consideration or deference to kids with disabilities for the last 10 months,” she added.

The groups that advocate for students with disabilities are united in their opposition, Rodriguez continued.

“Disability organizations across the country are united, we are all talking to one another,” she said. “We all work collaboratively, and we are in concert, lock and step.”

Congressional Dems fiercely oppose cuts 

Meanwhile, a slew of Democratic lawmakers expressed outrage and concern over the department RIFs in two separate letters to the administration this month. 

Reps. Lucy McBath of Georgia, Mark DeSaulnier and Lateefah Simon of California, led dozens of fellow House Democrats in an Oct. 17 letter voicing to McMahon and White House budget director Russ Vought their “deep opposition” to the layoffs and urging them to “immediately reverse course and rescind the termination notices that were sent to these workers.”

In another letter to McMahon, 31 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus wrote Monday that “punitive, reckless actions like these latest firings demonstrate how President Trump and …Vought are relishing the government shutdown they caused — and are treating students as political pawns,” adding: “That is outrageous — and flatly unacceptable.”

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, led the letter, along with: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York; Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; and Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, ranking member of the Appropriations subcommittee overseeing Education Department funding.

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., talks with reporters inside the Capitol building in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, Oct. 21, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The government shutdown became the second longest in U.S. history Wednesday, though the mounting repercussions for dozens of federal programs, including food aid for some of the country’s most vulnerable residents, failed to spur any momentum in Congress. 

The Senate was unable for the 12th time to advance a stopgap spending bill that would have reopened the government and kept funding mostly on autopilot through Nov. 21. 

The 54-46 vote was nearly identical to those that have come before, a predictable outcome since neither Republicans nor Democrats are talking to each other. The legislation needed at least 60 votes to advance under the Senate’s legislative filibuster. 

Nevada Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto and Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, both Democrats, and Maine independent Sen. Angus King voted with Republicans to advance the legislation. Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul voted no.

The vote came shortly after Oregon Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley held the floor for nearly 23 hours, speaking at length about his concerns and objections to President Donald Trump’s administration. 

The government staying shut down much longer will lead to a funding shortfall for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which is relied on by 42 million low-income Americans, nearly 40% of them children younger than 17. 

Despite that looming deadline, congressional leaders remain in their political silos, just as they have since before the shutdown began 22 days ago. They’ve repeatedly held press conferences and meetings with their own members instead of making the types of compromises needed to keep government functioning on the most basic level. 

Republican leaders are waiting for Democrats to help advance the stopgap spending bill in the Senate and say they won’t negotiate on anything until after that happens. 

Democrats maintain they won’t support the House-passed continuing resolution until there is bipartisan agreement to extend tax credits that are set to expire at the end of the year for people who buy their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act Marketplace. 

Johnson warns funding process at risk

The stalled short-term spending bill is supposed to give lawmakers more time to work out agreement on the dozen full-year government funding bills, which Congress was supposed to pass by the Oct. 1 start of the fiscal year. 

But Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., warned during a morning press conference that lawmakers may scrap that process for a second year in a row if Democrats don’t advance the continuing resolution soon. 

“We’re getting closer to November. It is going to be more and more difficult with each passing hour to get all the appropriations done on time,” Johnson said. “We acknowledge that, but we have to do this on a day-by-day basis.”

House Democratic leadership dismissed the notion of a longer temporary spending bill or continuing resolution, possibly for a full year, during an afternoon press conference. 

Democratic Whip Katherine Clark, of Massachusetts, said her message to Republicans is, “Why are you talking about the length of the (continuing resolution)? Come to the table and negotiate with us. End this health care crisis, help the American people.”

Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries sidestepped specifics when asked about a longer stopgap funding bill.

“At this point, we need to reopen the government. We need to enact a spending bill that actually meets the needs of the American people in terms of their health, their safety and economic well-being, particularly in terms of driving down the high cost of living, while at the same time decisively addressing the Republican health care crisis that grows greatly by the day,” the New York Democrat said.

Lawmakers have been unable to approve all the annual funding bills on time since 1996 and have consistently relied on stopgap spending bills to give themselves more time to work out agreements between the House and Senate. 

The alternative to full-year government funding bills is to use a series of stopgap spending bills, or one that lasts the entire year that keeps spending mostly on autopilot. 

Either option requires bipartisanship to gain the support of at least 60 senators, since Republicans control 53 seats. That means the only solution to the shutdown is for Republican and Democratic leaders to compromise. 

But that seemed like a remote possibility Wednesday. 

Democrats criticize layoffs

House Democrats’ Steering and Policy Committee held a mock hearing where they railed against Republicans and Trump for how they’ve managed unified control of government. 

House Appropriations Committee ranking member Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., rebuked Trump administration officials for trying to lay off federal workers by the thousands and for canceling funding to projects in regions of the country that vote for Democrats. 

“It is a corrupt abuse of power that they have chosen to carry out,” DeLauro said. 

White House budget director Russ Vought and Trump, she said, “have launched a scorched earth campaign to decimate the federal government and the programs and services the American people depend on.”

Rob Shriver, managing director of the civil service strong and good government initiatives at Democracy Forward, who worked as deputy director at the Office of Personnel Management during the Biden administration, said the layoffs could negatively affect federal operations for years. 

“The government has had historic challenges in recruiting young people and recruiting tech talent, and what this administration is doing is turning it into a workforce that doesn’t try to recruit the best and the brightest, but that tries to recruit the most loyal,” Shriver said. 

Lawsuit gains more unions

The Trump administration’s efforts to lay off thousands of workers during the shutdown have been on hold since last week, when a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order that was later expanded.  

The lawsuit was originally brought by the American Federation of Government Employees and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. It expanded last week to include the National Federation of Federal Employees, the National Association of Government Employees and the Service Employees International Union.

The updated restraining order issued by U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Judge Susan Illston applies to any federal department or agency that includes employees represented by those unions, even if the Trump administration doesn’t recognize their contracts. 

Illston on Wednesday granted a request to add the National Treasury Employees Union, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers and American Federation of Teachers to the case. 

Illston wrote that she found “good cause exists to modify the existing TRO without a written response from defendants due to the emergency nature of this case.” 

Those three unions represent hundreds of thousands more federal workers, including those at the departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Interior, Justice and Veterans Affairs. 

Employees at the Environmental Protection Agency, Internal Revenue Service, National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Social Security Administration are also represented by the three new unions seeking to join the case. 

The next stage in the lawsuit comes on Oct. 28, when the judge has set a hearing to determine whether to issue a preliminary injunction in the case. 

‘Patently illegal’

AFGE National President Everett Kelley wrote in a statement released Wednesday that the “administration’s move to fire thousands of patriotic civil servants while the government is shut down is patently illegal, and I’m glad we are able to expand our lawsuit to protect even more federal workers from facing termination.”

“President Trump has made no secret that this is about punishing his political enemies and has nothing to do with the actual work that these employees perform,” Kelley added. “Data provided by the administration under court order illustrates how vast and unlawful these intended firings are and validates our union’s determination to challenge this illegal action.”

Ashley Murray contributed to this report. 

President Donald Trump speaks as FBI Director Kash Patel and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi look on during a press conference in the Oval Office on Oct. 15, 2025. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said late Tuesday he is personally owed a massive payment from the Department of Justice and would have the authority to approve it, saying he was “damaged very greatly” during the government’s investigations into his alleged hoarding of classified documents and Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

Responding to a question about reports that he was seeking up to $230 million in compensation from the Justice Department, Trump replied, “I don’t know what the numbers are. I don’t even talk to them about it. All I know is that they would owe me a lot of money, but I’m not looking for money.” 

“I’d give it to charity or something. I would give it to charity, any money. But look what they did. They rigged the election,” Trump said, apparently referring to his false claim that President Joe Biden did not win the 2020 election. Trump’s attempt to overturn the election results, including sparking the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot, was the subject of a separate federal criminal investigation.

The situation shines a spotlight on ethical concerns that Trump’s former defense attorneys, who now occupy top positions at the Justice Department, would presumably play a role in deciding whether the president receives the money. 

Trump claimed he would make the final call on whether to pay himself the damages.

“It’s interesting because I’m the one that makes the decision, right? And you know that decision would have to go across my desk, and it’s awfully strange to make a decision where I’m paying myself,” Trump told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins Tuesday evening after a White House Diwali celebration.

The New York Times reported Tuesday that Trump submitted claims in 2023 and 2024 seeking compensation for violations to his rights during a special counsel probe into whether his 2016 presidential campaign colluded with Russia, and violations to his privacy when federal agents searched his Florida Mar-a-Lago residence in 2022 for classified documents.

“But I was damaged very greatly, and any money that I would get, I would give to charity,” he added.

The Department of Justice declined to comment on the status of Trump’s claims.

“In any circumstance, all officials at the Department of Justice follow the guidance of career ethics officials,” department spokesperson Chad Gilmartin said.

Attorney General Pam Bondi has been a vocal advocate and legal adviser for Trump on multiple probes, including the handling of the 2016 Russian meddling inquiry. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche defended Trump during the government’s investigation into classified documents stored at Mar-a-Lago following the president’s first term. 

Stanley Woodward, the former defense lawyer for Trump’s co-defendent in the classified documents probe, now heads the Justice Department’s civil division, which reviews compensation claims, according to the Times.

When asked Wednesday morning, House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters he was not aware of the details, but largely defended Trump.

“I didn’t talk with him about that. I know that he believes he’s owed that reimbursement. What I heard yesterday was if he receives it, he was going to consider giving it to charity. I mean, he doesn’t need those proceeds. But we’re for the rule of law, we’re for what is just and right. And it’s just absurd. As has been noted here several times this morning, they attack him for everything he does. It doesn’t matter what it is,” the Louisiana Republican said.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a New York Democrat, slammed Trump’s request for compensation as the president trying to “rob taxpayers of $230 million to continue to line his pockets.”

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

A “SNAP welcomed here” sign is seen at the entrance to a Big Lots store in Portland, Oregon. (Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — More than 42 million low-income Americans are at risk of losing food assistance Nov. 1 if the government shutdown continues.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which operates the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, has about $6 billion in a multi-year contingency fund. That’s short of the roughly $9 billion needed to cover a full month of the program.

Even if a shutdown deal were reached immediately, the time needed to process the payments and make them available for recipients means benefits would likely be delayed.

The shortfall is caused by the shutdown, which hit its 22nd day Wednesday. The fund is supposed to maintain a balance of about $9 billion, but $3 billion of the funds expired at the end of the fiscal year Sept. 30. Because Congress has not approved the next year’s funding, the fund only has $6 billion.

USDA would have to come up with the remaining $3 billion. The department could try something similar to its shuffle of more than $300 million in tariff revenue into its Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC, through the rest of the month. 

It’s unclear if USDA plans to use the SNAP contingency fund or any other maneuvers to extend benefits.

Nearly 40% of the 42 million SNAP recipients nationwide are children 17 and younger, according to the USDA. About 20% are seniors aged 60 and older and the remaining 40% are adults aged 18 to 59.

USDA did not respond to multiple requests for comment from States Newsroom.

Parties in Congress remained nowhere near a deal to end the shutdown as of Wednesday.

States scrambling

A Democratic congressional staffer familiar with the SNAP program said that even if Congress passes a stopgap before Nov. 1, the month’s benefits will still be delayed because it takes time to process the benefits and there are limited vendor processors.

The program issues electronic benefits on a card that can be used like cash to purchase food. States will upload either all or part of a month’s benefits on the first day of the month.

Even in states that say they have enough funds to extend SNAP through November, such as North Dakota, state officials have said they are unable to load the funds on the cards. 

Kansas officials said once Congress passes a stopgap, the state can distribute benefits to the state’s 188,000 SNAP recipients within 72 hours, meaning any deal would have to be completed by next week to avoid an interruption of services. 

Other states, including Minnesota, have halted new enrollments in SNAP. 

Wisconsin’s Gov. Tony Evers warned that 700,000 residents are at risk of losing their SNAP benefits. 

Tennessee officials have informed SNAP recipients — nearly 700,000 people — that it received notice from USDA that SNAP funding will cease entirely on Nov. 1 if the government shutdown doesn’t end.

Unheeded warnings

USDA on Oct. 10  warned states to hold off on sending SNAP files to electronic benefit transfer vendors due to the government shutdown

“Considering the operational issues and constraints that exist in automated systems, and in the interest of preserving maximum flexibility, we are forced to direct States to hold their November issuance files and delay transmission to State EBT vendors until further notice,” SNAP acting Associate Administrator Ronald Ward wrote. 

“This includes on-going SNAP benefits and daily files,” Ward continued. 

Last week, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said that SNAP will run out of funds by the end of the month if Congress fails to strike a deal and end the government shutdown.

U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat, speaks on the Senate floor on Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2025. Merkley began speaking Tuesday evening. (Screenshot via C-SPAN)

U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley spoke on the Senate floor for nearly 23 hours beginning Tuesday night against what he called President Donald Trump’s authoritarian actions. 

Merkley started speaking after 6 p.m. Eastern on Tuesday and ceded the floor at about 5 p.m. Wednesday.

The marathon speech was not a traditional filibuster, in which a senator holds the floor indefinitely to block action on a piece of legislation, as the chamber has been stalemated for weeks over government spending. 

Instead, Merkley spokespeople say he is seeking to draw attention “to how Trump is ripping up the Constitution and eroding our democratic institutions.”

Merkley read from the book “How Democracies Die,” blasted the administration’s efforts to control media companies that broadcast critical content, such as CBS and Disney, and spoke against Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to Democratic-led cities. 

The speech follows thousands of No Kings demonstrations throughout the country Saturday that saw millions protest against Trump, particularly an immigration crackdown and the use of military troops for policing. 

Early in his speech, Merkley focused on the National Guard deployments, which include Portland, Oregon. 

“This is an incredible threat to our nation, to the entire vision of our Constitution, to the entire platform on which our freedom exists,” he said.  “If you remove a clear standard as to whether there is a rebellion, and just say a president can deploy the military on a whim in places he doesn’t like, … then you have flung the doors open to tyranny.”