U.S. Deputy Agriculture Secretary Stephen Alexander Vaden testifies before the U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee on July 30, 2025. (Photo via committee livestream)
Members of both parties on the U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee chastised a U.S. Department of Agriculture official Wednesday for not consulting Congress before proposing to shift thousands of jobs out of the Washington, D.C., area.
USDA Deputy Secretary Stephen Alexander Vaden defended the sweeping proposal, which Secretary Brooke Rollins announced with a five-page memo last week, saying it would help bring the department closer to the people the government oversees and lower the cost of living for federal workers, while pledging to work with members of the committee over the next month of planning.
“The secretary’s memorandum was the first step, not the last step,” Vaden told Minnesota’s Amy Klobuchar, the top Democrat on the panel, who criticized several aspects of the plan.
The proposal calls for cutting 2,600 of the 4,600 USDA jobs in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia and expanding the department’s footprint in five regional hubs: Raleigh, North Carolina; Indianapolis; Kansas City, Missouri; Fort Collins, Colorado; and Salt Lake City.
Klobuchar said moving workers out of the capital region hurts the constituencies USDA serves. Agency officials should be nearby to meet with members of Congress, other executive branch offices and trade groups that are based in the nation’s capital, she said.
“Whittling down USDA’s resources to do this crucial work puts rural America at a disadvantage when they don’t have people in the room where it happens,” Klobuchar said.
“We have differences across the aisle,” she continued. “But I think every one of my colleagues understands that you need people that can meet with you, you need people that can go over to the White House so that you don’t have people that don’t have the interests of rural America in mind making all the decisions.”
Vaden said the USDA would keep employees in all of the department’s mission areas in the Washington area.
No advance notice
Even Republicans who said they generally agreed with the aims of the proposal indicated they did not appreciate the lack of notice before it was announced.
“I support finding cost savings where you can, I support the idea of moving people out of the D.C. area and out into the field and closer to the farmer,” North Dakota Republican John Hoeven said. “We support the goals, but we want it to be a process where you work with Congress, with the Senate, both the authorizing committee and the Appropriations Committee on it, and we achieve those results together. And I think that’ll help garner a lot more support for the effort.”
In an opening statement, Chairman John Boozman, an Arkansas Republican, thanked Vaden for being available for the hearing on “very, very short notice”
Klobuchar took issue with that description.
“The reason it’s short notice is because the administration put out a half-baked plan with no notice and without consulting agricultural leaders,” she said.
Interest groups were not told ahead of the announcement, Vaden told Klobuchar, though the White House Office of Management and Budget did receive notice.
In response to complaints about the lack of engagement with Congress, Vaden said that lawmakers were notified at the same time as USDA employees, shortly before the announcement was public, and he emphasized that the announcement started a 30-day engagement period that would involve Congress.
He also compared the reorganization plan to the remote work that the department’s workforce used well past the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“From January 2021 to January 2025, the Biden administration, 2,200 employees left Washington, D.C.,” he said. “There was no congressional notice, there was no outcry, there was no committee hearing. For more than 1,700 days, extending well beyond any fair definition of the COVID pandemic, USDA was on a maximum telework footing.”
Midwest Republicans miffed
Some Republicans on the panel offered hearty endorsements to the proposal, including Jim Justice of West Virginia, who used his time to promote the plan instead of questioning Vader.
“I don’t have any questions,” Justice said. “All I’m telling you is, we absolutely need to move and do the very best that we can for these great people.”
But the issue transcended party lines in several cases. Some Republicans whose states were passed over in selecting the proposed hubs had sharp questions for Vaden, while some Democrats who would gain a federal presence under the proposal were less critical.
Hoeven questioned the proposed siting selections, noting Fargo, North Dakota, didn’t have a hub within 600 miles. Fargo is “in the heart of ag country,” Hoeven said.
“What’s magic about five hubs?” he asked. “How much agriculture is there in the state of Utah? We can go through all those things and whether, in fact, it’s actually easier or better for our farmers and our ranchers in North Dakota, given the five hubs you’ve selected.”
Nebraska Republican Deb Fischer said she had discussed with Vaden, prior to his confirmation hearing this year, the possibility of moving some of the USDA’s workforce outside the Beltway, and advocated for Nebraska as a suitable location.
Because of that, she was underwhelmed by the proposal and its introduction.
“I would have liked to see a process that allowed for Nebraska to demonstrate its strong value proposition,” she said. “So while I do agree with the overreaching goal here, I have to express disappointment in how this has been rolled out and the lack of engagement with Congress prior to the announcement.”
Meanwhile, Colorado Democrat Michael Bennet, whose state would see a regional hub that would also house a consolidated U.S. Forest Service office, said he agreed with the plan’s goals.
“I have long called for the idea of trying to relocate people from Washington, D.C., to parts of the country, to partly to get out of the insulation of this place, to just be closer to, in this case, producers, but others as well,” Bennet said. “So philosophically, that’s where I’ve been.”
The Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Aurora, operated by private prison firm GEO Group, is pictured on Jan. 30, 2025. U.S. Rep. Jason Crow said he was denied entry to the facility while attempting an oversight visit. (Chase Woodruff/Colorado Newsline)
WASHINGTON — A dozen Democratic members of Congress filed a lawsuit Wednesday charging that the Trump administration is blocking lawmakers from conducting congressional oversight of federal immigration detention centers.
The suit in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia argues that the Department of Homeland Security’s new policy to limit or block lawmakers from visiting immigrant detention facilities is unlawful. The members cite an appropriations law in effect since 2019 that grants a lawmaker the ability to conduct oversight of such centers without prior approval from the department or Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
“This oversight informs potential legislation on the subject of immigration detention, ensures that administration officials are carrying out their responsibilities consistent with federal law, and ensures that funds appropriated to DHS and ICE are being used appropriately on the ground,” according to the suit.
DHS did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment.
As the Trump administration aims to carry out mass deportations, one of the few tools Democrats, who are in the minority in both chambers of Congress, have is oversight of immigration detention centers.
The lawmakers said that since June, they have tried to obtain information about conditions at DHS facilities “for the purpose of conducting real-time oversight of that facility” and each “of those attempted oversight visits has been blocked by” DHS.
“As part of its campaign of mass deportation, the Trump-Vance administration has stretched the U.S. immigration detention system far beyond its capacity,” the suit said.
The suit cites the deaths of 11 people while in immigration custody in the past five months and the unlawful detainment of U.S. citizens, often without access to legal counsel.
“More people are being held by the United States in immigration detention than ever before, with many facilities housing more individuals than they were built to contain,” according to the suit. “Reports of mistreatment have been widespread and have included disturbing details of overcrowding, food shortages, lack of adequate medical care, and unsanitary conditions.”
The suit is being led by the advocacy group Democracy Forward, which is representing the House lawmakers, most of whom are in leadership roles or top Democrats on committees, such as Bennie Thompson of Mississippi on Homeland Security, Jamie Raskin of Maryland on Judiciary and Robert Garcia of California on Oversight and Government Reform.
The other Democrats include Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chair Adriano Espaillat and Dan Goldman of New York; J. Luis Correa, Jimmy Gomez, Raul Ruiz and Norma Torres of California; Crow and Joe Neguse of Colorado; and Veronica Escobar of Texas.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., speaks during a news conference with Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee member Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., demanding the release of the Epstein files at the U.S. Capitol on July 30, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Democrats on Wednesday began charting a little-known legal path to force President Donald Trump’s administration to release the investigative files on the now deceased Florida sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein.
In a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Democratic members of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, along with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, requested the “full and complete Epstein files” by Aug. 15.
“After missteps and failed promises by your Department regarding these files, it is essential that the Trump Administration provide full transparency. In 2024, President Trump stated on the campaign trail that he would declassify the Epstein files, with his political account on X stating, ‘President Trump says he will DECLASSIFY the 9/11 Files, JFK Files, and Epstein Files,’” according to the three-page letter led by Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan, the committee’s top Democrat.
“We call on you to fulfill those promises of transparency,” the letter, dated July 29, continued.
In addition to Schumer, other co-signers included Sens. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, Andy Kim of New Jersey and Ruben Gallego of Arizona.
Five senators
The senators are invoking a nearly century-old law that compels the executive branch to comply if at least five senators on the committee sign on to a request, Schumer told reporters at a Wednesday press conference.
“While protecting the victim’s identities can and must be of top importance, the public has a right to know who enabled, knew of or participated in one of the most heinous sex trafficking operations in history,” Schumer said.
Blumenthal added that any notes and recordings of Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s interviews last week in Tallahassee, Florida, with Ghislaine Maxwell should also be made public. Maxwell was convicted in 2021 and is now serving a 20-year sentence in a Florida federal prison for conspiring with Epstein to secure and transport minors for sexual abuse.
Along with requesting all investigative materials by mid-August, the senators also demanded a briefing for committee staff by Aug. 29.
Schumer said committee Democrats are “still talking” to Republican colleagues to urge them to join the request.
“And that may help get this public, but if not, there’s recourse in the courts. This is the law,” Schumer said.
A Justice Department spokesperson confirmed to States Newsroom that it received the letter but declined to comment further.
Ghislaine Maxwell subpoenaed
The Justice Department’s decision in early July to keep what are described as the Epstein files out of public view sparked uproar and division among Republicans in Congress, administration officials and Trump’s base.
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chair James Comer, a Kentucky Republican, issued a subpoena for an Aug. 11 deposition with Maxwell. Committee leadership rejected the convicted sex trafficker’s request Tuesday for the condition of immunity, according to media reports.
The continued noise led House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican and Trump ally, to release members early for the six-week August break to avoid votes related to compelling the release of Epstein material.
The DOJ’s unsigned memo on July 7 stated that a review of the files did not reveal an “incriminating ‘client list’” and that no further disclosure of the investigative materials “would be appropriate or warranted.”
Since the memo’s release, the Wall Street Journal revealed that Bondi briefed Trump in May that his name appeared in the Epstein materials. The context in which his name appears remains unknown.
The Journal also reported the existence of a 50th-birthday greeting that Trump drew and wrote for Epstein that featured the outline of a naked woman with Trump’s signature as pubic hair. Trump has denied he made the drawing and sued the Wall Street Journal.
The reports have further fueled calls for the files to be released.
Falling-out between Trump and Epstein
Trump told reporters Tuesday that he had a falling-out with Epstein after the financier began “taking” spa workers, whom Trump said were young women, from his Mar-a-Lago estate. Trump said Epstein “stole” Virginia Giuffre who worked at the Palm Beach, Florida, resort in 2000 at age 16, according to a 2016 deposition.
Giuffre alleged Maxwell and Epstein trafficked her as a teen for illegal sex with influential men, including Britain’s Prince Andrew, who settled with Giuffre and stepped down from his royal duties.
Giuffre became an advocate for victims of sex trafficking. She died by suicide in April.
The Justice Department concluded Epstein harmed more than 1,000 victims.
Epstein was found hanged in August 2019 in his New York City jail cell, where he was awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges.
This story mentions suicide. If you or a loved one are suffering with thoughts of suicide, call or text 988. An online chat option is also available at 988lifeline.org.
A SNAP sign at a farm market in St. Petersburg, Florida. A coalition of state attorneys general is suing the Trump administration to block it from mining personal data from SNAP accounts. (Photo by Lance Cheung/USDA).
A lawsuit filed against the Trump administration by a coalition of attorneys general, including Michigan’s Dana Nessel and Wisconsin’s Josh Kaul, alleges that personal data mined from federal agencies could be used illegally to build a surveillance state unlike the nation has ever seen – putting recipients for things like food assistance at risk if they are being targeted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
SNAP, known as FoodShare in Wisconsin, is a state-administered, federally-funded program that provides billions of dollars in food assistance to tens of millions of low-income families. Personal information is provided to state and federal administrators in order to receive assistance, with an understanding that the information will only be used for SNAP purposes.
Moves by the Trump administration to force various departments to share that data with unrelated agencies, like ICE, sets up a system where the latter could potentially track deportation targets through information provided for SNAP. The USDA has also suggested that it would withhold state funding if states fail to comply with the information sharing mandate, effectively creating a gambit where states must choose residents’ privacy over vital assistance.
“Sensitive information about people shouldn’t be turned over to the federal government simply because they applied for or received assistance through SNAP,” Kaul said in a news release Tuesday. “It’s troubling that the federal government is working to compile this kind of information.”
Nessel, speaking to reporters in a news conference this week that included California Attorney General Rob Bonta and New York Attorney General Letitia James, said the episode was yet another attempt by the Trump administration to illegally use personal and sensitive data under the guise of fighting abuse and fraud.
“My colleagues and I will not allow this administration to trample on constitutional protections or unlawfully exploit the SNAP program in this way,” Nessel said. “Michigan families deserve to have their personal information protected, and I will keep fighting until they receive exactly that.”
Since taking office, reports have indicated that Trump is amassing a huge database of personal information on Americans using that data for undisclosed purposes, much like immigration enforcement. The USDA demands regarding SNAP information appear to be another step toward that goal, the lawsuit posits.
Bonta touched on the consequences of Trump’s White House having that much personal data on Americans at its fingertips.
“It’s a bait and switch of the worst kind,” Bonta said. “SNAP recipients provided this information to get help feeding their families, not to be entered into a government surveillance database or be used as targets in the president’s inhumane immigration agenda. That’s the reality here. This isn’t about oversight and transparency. This is about establishing widespread surveillance under the guise of fighting fraud.”
Bonta added that the attorneys general in the lawsuit are calling the issue what it is: An illegal data grab designed to scare people away from public assistance programs.
James said the entire framework of Trump’s immigration policies was cruelty on public display, but the new demand regarding SNAP was a new low.
“It is outrageous. It is unacceptable,” James said. “This is not for research or to improve a service that millions count on. They are basically trying to weaponize the SNAP program against immigrant communities in violation of the law, and we collectively will not stand for it. That is the administration’s plans, and they have made it abundantly clear.”
States participating in the lawsuit include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.
Erik Gunn of the Wisconsin Examiner contributed to this report.
Michigan Advance is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Michigan Advance maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jon King for questions: info@michiganadvance.com.
The Waukesha County Sheriff Department, one of the agencies that participate in the 287(g) program. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)
The number of Wisconsin county sheriff’s offices participating in a collaborative program with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has jumped from nine to 12 this year, with other forms of cooperation with ICE growing across the state, according to a report by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin.
The report shows more sheriff offices joining the 287(g) program over the last three years. The program carves out dedicated immigration operations within the sheriff’s offices, shares data with ICE and increases local participation in ICE detention requests.
The ACLU report, released Tuesday, is an update from its 2022 report on Wisconsin’s “Jail-to-deportation pipeline.”
“Immigrants have been an important part of the fabric of Wisconsin for many years,” said Tim Muth, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Wisconsin, in a statement released by the ACLU, along with the updated report. “They are a part of our families. They are our coworkers, friends, and neighbors, and the public should know what their local law enforcement agencies are doing.”
The Wisconsin Examiner’s Criminal Justice Reporting Project shines a light on incarceration, law enforcement and criminal justice issues with support from the Public Welfare Foundation.
In 2022, there were eight law enforcement across the state participating in the 287(g). The program allows ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) to partner with state and local law enforcement agencies, who are empowered to dedicate their own resources to pursuing people living without legal immigration paperwork in the United States.
Agencies can participate in 287(g) under a few different models including a “jail enforcement” model that focuses on people without legal immigration status already in local jails on other criminal charges, a “task force” model that gives local law enforcement officers limited authority to enforce immigration law and a warrant service program which allows local law enforcement to serve administrative warrants to people without legal status within county jails.
The participants in 287(g) include the sheriff’s offices of Brown, Fond du Lac, Kewaunee, Manitowoc, Marquette, Outagamie, Sheboygan, Washington, Waukesha (which is listed twice on the DHS website’s “pending agencies” portion), Waupaca, Wood, and Winnebago counties.
A growing number of Wisconsin sheriffs continue to opt into this program, actively contributing to the jail-to-deportation pipeline.
– ACLU of Wisconsin
Six of those sheriffs (Kewaunee, Outagamie, Washington, Waupaca, Winnebago, and Wood counties) joined the program between from March to June of this year. The rest began participating in 287(g) in 2020, according to the ACLU report,
While some law enforcement agencies have joined the program, others have distanced themselves from immigration enforcement. The Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office does not participate in the 287(g) program, and both that office and the Dane County Sheriff limit or prohibit their participation in immigration activities. The Milwaukee Police Department (MPD) also has policies limiting its own involvement in immigration enforcement in the interest of preserving a trusting and cooperative relationship with the community, the policies state.
“The expansion of these agreements enables ICE to further embed its enforcement presence within local jurisdictions, often circumventing community-driven policies against immigration enforcement,” the report states. “These partnerships not only divert local resources from community safety initiatives but also significantly heighten the risk of racial profiling and erode trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities.”
The ACLU has also found that between 2021 and 2024, the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC), along with 29 counties, received over $7 million in federal funds through the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP). The ACLU states that the funds were “in exchange” for data sharing with ICE. Wisconsin Examiner reached out to DOC, the story will be updated with any reply from the the state agency regarding data sharing.
Protesters gather outside of the Milwaukee federal building. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)
That data is just part of a growing immigration enforcement and detention network across the state. From Oct. 2021 to June 2025, according to the report, ICE sent over 3,300 immigration detainers to Wisconsin. These are situations in which ICE requests that a local jail hold individuals for up to 48 hours beyond their scheduled release, the ACLU report states. “Although these detainers are often not accompanied by a warrant signed by a neutral judicial official and lack authority under Wisconsin law,” it explains, “most sheriffs across the state continue to honor them.”
Although over 3,300 individuals have been held between Oct. 2021 and June 2025, the biggest jump in detainer requests occurred this year. Between Jan. 1 and June 10, there were 1,065 ICE detainers in Wisconsin. By comparison there were 942 ICE detainers during all of 2024, 853 detainers during a 12-month period between October 2022 and September 2023 and 474 in the 12 months before that.
“These numbers demonstrate that even without a judge-signed warrant, ICE continues to issue these ‘requests,’ and a significant number of Wisconsin jails continue to comply,” the ACLU’s report states. “This practice is problematic as federal deportation proceedings are civil, not criminal, matters and Wisconsin law does not provide legal authority for law enforcement to act on civil immigration detainers.”
Some sheriff offices are even taking it a step further than 287(g) and SCAAP. New financial agreements have also been arranged with counties such as Brown, Sauk and Ozaukee. In Brown County, the sheriff maintains a $90,000 contract for detention and transportation services, carrying a $70.00 per detainee, per day reimbursement, and another $36.00 per hour, with mileage and funding, for transportation services. Sauk County receives a $106.00 per-diem rate for housing ICE detainees, and Ozaukee County gave ICE the ability to purchase cell space in its jail by building off an existing contract with the U.S. Marshall Service. The ACLU calls this a “concerning trend” of local sheriffs “not only passively complying with ICE requests” but also “actively entering into benefiting from direct financial arrangements to house and transport immigrants for ICE removal activities.”
The report also highlights recent legislation which would require more cooperation with ICE. Republican lawmakers have introduced bills that would compel sheriffs to work with ICE regardless of their own priorities, mandate citizenship investigations of jail detainees, mandate compliance with detainer requests, and other policies.
To counter these advancements, the ACLU is calling on community members to reach out to their local sheriffs and police chiefs to learn more about where they stand on ICE cooperation, push agencies to prioritize community trust over obedience, and engage with lawmakers on the proposed bills.
“These cozy relationships between ICE and many sheriffs are disrupting our communities and funneling immigrant community members into the federal deportation machine,” said Muth.
At a news conference Tuesday in the state Capitol, Rachel Smith of New Berlin speaks in favor of a bill that would make app-based drivers independent contractors and allow the businesses they drive for to provide some benefits. The bill was authored by Sen. Julian Bradly, on the right. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)
Backers of legislation that would block drivers from app-based rideshare and delivery businesses from being declared employees are making a full-court press to persuade Gov. Tony Evers to sign the measure into law.
If enacted,AB 269 would automatically classify drivers for Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and similar businesses as independent contractors — bypassing current Wisconsin laws that differentiate independent contractors from direct employees. It would exclude those drivers from Wisconsin’s unemployment insurance, workers compensation and minimum wage laws.
The bill would also allow those businesses to set up payroll plans to fund benefit programs for drivers, but it would not require them to do so.
Along with other bills that passed both houses after May 8, the Legislature’s calendar requires the independent contractor measure to go to Evers on Thursday, Aug. 7. Evers hasn’t spoken publicly about the bill, but opponents contend it deprives drivers of worker protections in return for meager benefits.
“It just seems to be a PR move to entrench drivers’ status as independent contractors,” said state Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee), who drives for Lyft and who voted against the bill in the Assembly.
A heavy lobbying campaign for which DoorDash has been the most visible sponsor has put all the attention on the benefits provision. On Tuesday, Chamber for Progress, a tech business lobbying group, organized a press conference in the state Capitol to urge Evers to sign the bill.
State Sen. Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin), the bill’s Senate author, said it would allow the driving-app companies “to voluntarily contribute to portable benefit accounts that travel with the worker and allow them to use the funds for health care, sick time or retirement without stripping workers of their independence.”
Gig workers “want to be independent,” said Ruth Whittaker, of Chamber for Progress. “We should protect their independence and the flexibility of gig work, and we should also give them access to benefits.”
Joe DeRose, a retired state employee, said his work driving for DoorDash provided “flexible income to help with rising costs” without tying him to a fixed schedule.
“I strongly support portable benefits,” DeRose said. “These accounts would let app-based workers save for unforeseen events or retirement without giving up the flexibility that makes this work so appealing.”
Rachel Smith of New Berlin said she delivers for DoorDash while building an online wellness business.
“The reality is, like many entrepreneurs and independent workers, I don’t have access to traditional benefits, so this portable benefits legislation would change that,” Smith said. “Portable benefits would let me plan for my future without giving up the freedom that makes this work possible in the first place.”
“Without this offer, there are no portable benefits,” said state Rep. Sylvia Velez-Ortiz (D-Milwaukee), who cast the only Democratic vote for the bill in the Assembly. “This is something that the platforms are wanting to do on their own, and government should not stand in their way of doing what they know is right.”
While Evers hasn’t said whether he’ll sign or veto the bill, its passage with only Republican votes — besides that of Ortiz-Velez — has almost always been a precursor to a veto.
Wisconsin labor laws include a series of tests to determine if a worker is an independent contractor or an employee.
An employee is covered by unemployment insurance, workers compensation insurance and state labor standards that include minimum wage, work hours and overtime regulations. An independent contractor is not.
The worker-business relationship must meet each one of nine qualifications to be exempt fromworkers comp law. It must meet 6 out of 9 qualifications to be exempt fromunemployment insurance. And it must meet all six qualifications to be exempt from the state’swage and hour laws.
The bill would make the app-based rideshare and delivery companies automatically exempt from all three areas of employment law.
They could lose the exemption only if they flunked all four parts of a new four-part test — by prescribing when drivers must be logged in; terminating a driver for turning down an assignment; restricting drivers from working for other app-based companies; and restricting drivers from any other lawful job or business.
“This is a dangerous bill for working people,” Stephanie Bloomingdale, president of the Wisconsin AFL-CIO, said Tuesday.
“It is a bill that will carve out our existing tests to determine unemployment, workers’ comp, wage and hour [standards] with a very simplistic four-part test that would forever remove drivers’ ability to access those kind of benefits that we fought for for decades,” Bloomingdale said in an interview.
“They could offer benefits without taking away these tests,” she added. “And what they’re really after is taking away these tests.
Although Bradley described the bill as giving Wisconsin gig drivers “access to benefits like health care, dental and retirement savings,” critics say that those kinds of benefits are unlikely to accrue under the system the law describes.
In Pennsylvania, DoorDash has established a trial benefits program without a law in place there. A report commissioned for the program found that participants on average were able to save about $400 over the course of a year.
“It’s just a savings account with a very meager contribution from the companies,” said Laura Padin, director of Work Structures at the National Employment Law Project (NELP), who sent a letter to Evers urging him to veto the bill. “Real employment-based benefits are worth so much more than that.”
The U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., is pictured on Tuesday, April 9, 2024. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)
States led by Democrats should resist the temptation to conduct their own mid-decade redistricting in response to Republicans in the Texas Legislature moving to redraw U.S. House lines before the 2026 elections, officials with the nonpartisan election integrity group Common Cause said on a press call Tuesday.
While blasting Texas Republicans’ effort to remake congressional districts in the middle of a decade — instead of after the decennial census, as is typical — the officials said the creation of nonpartisan redistricting commissions that take the job out of politicians’ hands was a better policy than joining a redistricting arms race.
Common Cause, a national organization with several state chapters, is often aligned with progressive causes, but advocates for fair redistricting regardless of party.
Emily Eby French, the policy director for Common Cause Texas, said election infrastructure should be neutral, arguing against the suggestion from California Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democrats that blue states pursue mid-decade redistricting for partisan advantage.
“Our election infrastructure is not supposed to have a thumb on the scale for either side,” French said.
“In Texas, conservatives press their thumbs so hard on the scale that it feels impossible to overcome,” she continued. “Maybe a quick fix would be to have Democrats press their thumbs on their own scales. But then it’s just rigged elections across America. The real solution is for Democrats to help us lift the Republican thumb off of the Texas scale and every other scale in America until we reach free and fair elections for everyone.”
Russia Chavis Cardenas, the deputy director for Common Cause California, added that Newsom should not “fight fire with fire.” Partisan redistricting processes inherently disadvantage communities of color, she said.
California’s independent redistricting commission, made up of five Democrats, five Republicans and four nonpartisan members, is the “gold standard … (an) independent and community-led process,” Dan Vicuna, senior policy director for voting and fair representation at Common Cause’s national office, said.
The state should not sacrifice that model for short-term political gain, he said.
Texas redistricting
Republicans held a 220-215 advantage in the U.S. House following the 2024 elections. Those elections happened on district maps drawn after the 2020 census.
The GOP House majority was helped in part by Texas’ 2020 district map, which produced Republican wins in nearly two-thirds of the state’s districts.
Civil rights groups sued over the new lines, claiming that some districts discriminated against Black and Latino voters.
Texas Republicans resisted calls to redraw the lines, but the U.S. Justice Department this month sent a letter urging state leaders to reconsider.
The letter “was sloppily and transparently creating a pretext for Texas legislators to redraw the state’s gerrymandered congressional map and somehow gerrymander it even more in favor of Republicans,” Vicuna said Tuesday.
President Donald Trump quickly dissolved that pretext, putting the issue in nakedly political terms on a call with Texas Republicans. Trump said the state’s lines should be redrawn to create five additional U.S. House seats, the Texas Tribune reported. A president’s party typically loses congressional seats during midterm elections.
Following the letter, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, called a special session to address redistricting, among other things.
Dem states respond
In addition to Newsom, leaders in the Democratic strongholds of New York and Illinois are considering retaliating by initiating their own mid-decade redistricting processes, according to a New York Times report.
Other prominent national Democrats are calling for the party to be more aggressive in redistricting.
U.S. Sen. Ruben Gallego wrote on X last week that Democrats should break some heavily Democratic majority-minority districts to help win more seats.
In follow-up posts responding to replies, Gallego, an Arizona Democrat, wrote that Democrats should gerrymander districts in their favor.
“It’s bad when everyone does it,” the first-term senator and former House member wrote about gerrymandering. “But Dems should not unilaterally disarm till GOP does.”
Gallego’s post was retweeted by Jessica Post, a campaign strategist who previously led Democrats’ state legislative campaign arm. But the party’s current establishment is largely not commenting.
A July 23 memo to Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee contributors from Heather Williams, who succeeded Post as the group’s president, mentioned the Texas redistricting, but said it only raised the stakes for statehouse races in the next three election cycles in advance of 2030 redistricting.
“Today, as Donald Trump and his allies in the states are openly pushing to draw new, gerrymandered seats in Texas to protect the GOP’s meager House majority leading up to 2026, it’s clear this is just a preview of what’s to come,” Williams wrote. “The 2030 redistricting fight has already begun.”
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the official campaign arm for House Democrats, did not respond to a message seeking comment Tuesday.
Vicuna, with Common Cause, urged reporters to see redistricting not as a partisan conflict, but as an issue of voter representation.
“This familiar framing that makes redistricting entirely about a political fight between parties is also kind of the problem,” he said. “This is ultimately about fair representation for communities, getting to have a say, being at the table when decisions are made about whether they can have fair representation. And I think that’s what we’re really talking about here, not just the food fight between the parties.”
Emil Bove, President Donald Trump's nominee to be a judge for the 3rd Circuit, testifies during his Senate Judiciary Committee nomination hearing on June 25, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate on Tuesday night confirmed President Donald Trump’s former criminal defense attorney, Emil Bove, to a lifetime position on the federal appeals bench, in the face of whistleblower allegations and criticism from former judges and advocates.
Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine broke with their party and joined all Democrats in a 50-49 vote to oppose Bove’s confirmation to the U.S. Appeals Court for the 3rd Circuit, which handles cases for Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Bove, 44, currently holds the position of principal associate deputy attorney general at the U.S. Justice Department. Trump initially appointed Bove as acting attorney general at the start of the president’s second term.
The former federal prosecutor and private defense attorney faced numerous accusations of misconduct throughout his confirmation process.
Democrats walked out of a July 17 committee vote to advance Bove’s nomination, largely protesting the GOP-led panel’s refusal to hear further testimony from a whistleblower who alleged Bove suggested defying a federal court order.
Longtime Justice Department senior official Erez Reuveni, who served in the first Trump administration, blew the whistle on Bove for a March 14 meeting during which he allegedly suggested subordinates tell the federal courts “f— you” if a judge ordered a halt to Trump’s deportation flights to El Salvador. A second whistleblower corroborated the alleged comment, according to a CNN report Sunday.
Senate Democrats, former judges and advocates also voiced concern over Bove’s alleged unethical behavior, including questions about his role as a top Justice official in the dismissal of federal bribery charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams and in the firing of prosecutors who worked on cases probing the Jan. 6, 2021, storming of the U.S. Capitol.
Bove has denied any wrongdoing.
Critics also pointed to a trail of allegations from Bove’s former colleagues in the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York that he created a hostile work environment, as first reported by Politico in February.
‘Unfair accusations and abuse’
On Monday, the Washington Post reported that a third whistleblower had come forward, this time alleging the top Justice Department office misled the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in testimony regarding the dropped charges against Adams.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, who chairs the committee tasked with vetting judicial nominees, said on the floor ahead of the vote that Democrats “grossly mischaracterized” allegations against Bove.
“I have serious concerns with how my Democratic colleagues have conducted themselves — the vicious rhetoric, unfair accusations and abuse directed at Mr. Bove,” the Iowa Republican said.
Grassley said he asked Bove to put in writing his response to the latest whistleblower accusations.
“In his letter, Mr. Bove flatly denies the allegations that he misled the committee,” Grassley said.
In the seven-page letter made public by Grassley Tuesday evening, Bove dismissed the accusations as a “partisan smear campaign” and a “sham.”
“I understand that a lifetime appointment to a federal court of appeals is a serious matter. I welcome serious scrutiny of my record and my service to this country. My record includes 32 appeals, 13 trials, nearly a decade as a federal prosecutor, clerkships in federal trial and appellate courts, successfully defending the President of the United States, and helping lead the Department of Justice,” Bove wrote.
“Principled evaluation of that record, separated from the raw political warfare by Democrats that has tainted this process, confirms that I will be a fearless, independent judge committed to justice and the rule of law,” he continued.
‘So wrong, so unusual’
Senate Democrats railed against the nomination Tuesday.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said ahead of the vote the allegations against Bove “were not minor episodes of prosecutorial misconduct.”
“What we’re about to do is so wrong, so unusual, that even if these remarks will have no effect whatsoever, I feel obliged to come to the floor,” the Rhode Island lawmaker said.
Sen. Dick Durbin, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, wrote in a social media post that “Three credible whistleblowers have come forward with serious allegations against Emil Bove, a Trump judicial nominee. Republicans are ignoring them and rushing to confirm Bove anyway.”
“They’re afraid of the truth… and Donald Trump’s wrath. Shameful,” Durbin, of Illinois, continued.
In a statement issued Tuesday afternoon by the Not Above the Law Coalition, the organization’s leaders said Bove is “unfit for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench.”
“His record of misconduct and disdain for the rule of law is a direct threat to judicial independence and Americans’ rights and freedoms. Any senator who votes to confirm Bove is making clear that their loyalty lies with Donald Trump, not the people they serve or the Constitution they swore to uphold,” the statement continued from the coalition’s co-chairs, including Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen; Praveen Fernandes, vice president of the Constitutional Accountability Center; Kelsey Herbert, campaign director at MoveOn; and Brett Edkins, managing director for policy and political affairs at Stand Up America.
Susan Monarez, President Donald Trump’s nominee to be the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, testifies during her confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions on June 25, 2025. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)
Monarez — whom the Senate confirmed on a party-line vote, 51-47 — will now be responsible for the national public health agency within the Department of Health and Human Services. The Atlanta-based agency has faced backlash as HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pursues a vaccine-skeptical agenda.
GOP Sens. Bill Hagerty of Tennessee and Dan Sullivan of Alaska did not vote.
Monarez was the acting director of the CDC between January and March. She previously served as the deputy director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, which is part of HHS.
Monarez, who has a Ph.D. in microbiology and immunology, will be the first person without a medical degree to hold the title since 1953.
The White House originally selected former Florida U.S. Rep. Dave Weldon to lead the CDC but withdrew the nomination in March.
Monarez’s confirmation followed a procedural vote earlier Tuesday that saw her advance, 52-47, along party lines.
Kennedy continues to face scrutiny after he fired all 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, in June and named eight new members — a number of whom are viewed as skeptical of vaccines.
Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, launched an investigation alongside seven Democratic members of the committee Tuesday regarding Kennedy’s firings and replacements within the critical vaccine panel.
“By removing all 17 of ACIP’s members and replacing them with eight individuals handpicked to advance your anti-vaccine agenda, you have put decades of non-partisan, science-backed work — and, as a result, Americans’ lives — at risk,” the senators wrote in a letter to Kennedy.
Those seven Democratic committee members include Sens. John Hickenlooper of Colorado, Lisa Blunt Rochester of Delaware, Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, Andy Kim of New Jersey and Tim Kaine of Virginia.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, center, announces his agency's plans for deregulation from an Indianapolis trucking facility on Tuesday, July 29, 2025. At left is Indiana Gov. Mike Braun and at right is Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita. (Photo by Leslie Bonilla Muñiz/Indiana Capital Chronicle)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency submitted a proposal Tuesday to rescind a 2009 finding that has provided the foundation for the agency’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change, drawing strong opposition from Democrats and climate groups.
Administrator Lee Zeldin said the EPA would scrap what is known as its endangerment finding, established under President Barack Obama. The determination called climate change a danger to human health and therefore gave the EPA power to regulate the greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide from cars and trucks.
The finding provided the framework for numerous EPA regulations, including a 2024 rule requiring increasingly strict tailpipe emissions standards.
But Zeldin, who announced the proposal during an appearance in Indianapolis, said that framework created uncertainty for auto manufacturers and buyers and hurt the wider economy.
President Donald Trump’s EPA would eliminate the finding, he said.
“With this proposal, the Trump EPA is proposing to end sixteen years of uncertainty for automakers and American consumers,” Zeldin said in a written statement. Under Obama and President Joe Biden, the agency “twisted the law, ignored precedent, and warped science to achieve their preferred ends and stick American families with hundreds of billions of dollars in hidden taxes every single year.”
The announcement touched off outrage from congressional Democrats and groups that advocate for strong action to curb the climate crisis.
“With this action, Trump and EPA Administrator Zeldin are putting massive corporate polluters in the driver’s seat at EPA and it will be everyday Americans who pay the price – with their health, their energy bills, their jobs, their homes, and even with their lives,” House Energy and Commerce ranking Democrat Frank Pallone of New Jersey wrote in a statement.
“The only winners from this proposal are corporate polluters who will be allowed to dump unlimited pollution into our communities without any consequences.”
EPA denies it has authority
In a Tuesday notice in the Federal Register, the EPA said it would rescind all greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles, consistent with its opinion that the endangerment finding was unlawful.
“The EPA no longer believes that we have the statutory authority and record basis required to maintain this novel and transformative regulatory program,” the agency said.
Supreme Court cases in recent years, including a decision that limited the EPA’s power to regulate power plants and a decision that denied federal agencies were due deference in drafting regulations, indicated the endangerment finding overstepped, the EPA said in a news release.
Repealing the finding would increase consumer choice, lower prices for goods delivered by truck and save $54 billion annually in associated taxes, the EPA said.
The agency will accept public comments on the proposal until Sept. 21.
Health and economic impact
Despite the Trump EPA’s assertion that the move would save money for Americans, climate groups said the opposite was true, and that the finding would hurt access to alternative energy sources.
“The reason (Trump) is doing this is not scientific,” former Washington Gov. Jay Inslee said in an interview with States Newsroom. “It’s just his slavish devotion to his billionaire friends in the oil and gas industry that he wants to help, and destroy the ability of Americans to get clean and cheap — I want to emphasize cheap — electricity. This is not just a health issue. It’s a financial health issue, basically denying Americans the ability to get the most reasonably priced electricity in America.”
Inslee, a Democrat who sought his party’s presidential nomination in 2020 on a platform that emphasized climate issues, is a national spokesperson and executive with the advocacy group Climate Power.
“It’s a reckless move that will make Americans less safe and hurt our economy by slowing the growth of affordable clean energy and fueling the heat waves, storms, floods, and wildfires that threaten people’s homes and communities,” U.S. House Natural Resources ranking Democrat Jared Huffman, of California, said in a statement.
Democrats and environmental groups also argued the scientific evidence clearly showed greenhouse gas emissions were harmful.
“You can’t with a straight face argue that pollution is not endangering human health,” Inslee said. “Look at the deaths that are piling up. Flash floods and heat domes, asthma and cardiovascular events. This stuff is bad for human health. I don’t know how you can make the argument otherwise.”
Lawsuits ahead
Legal challenges from Democratic attorney generals are almost certainly imminent, Inslee said Tuesday afternoon.
“If a lawsuit hasn’t been filed yet, I’ll have to call (Washington Attorney General) Nick Brown and tell him to hurry up,” he said. “It’s been a couple hours now.”
In a statement, Brown said he would “consider all options if EPA continues down this cynical path. We won’t stand by as our children’s future is sacrificed to appease fossil fuel interests.”
U.S. Reps. Adriano Espaillat and Nydia Velazquez, both New York Democrats, speak to the media opposite the Jacob K. Javitz Federal Building, where they unsuccessfully attempted to gain access to Immigration and Customs Enforcement holding facilities to observe on June 8, 2025 in New York City. (Photo by Adam Gray/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — The massive tax and spending cuts package signed into law by President Donald Trump earlier this month will affect not only Latinos using federal safety net programs but also those living in communities vulnerable to environmental pollution, Democrats and advocates said during a Tuesday virtual press conference.
The president’s domestic policy agenda bill that congressional Republicans passed without Democrats’ approval, through a process known as reconciliation, made permanent the 2017 tax cuts and provided billions of dollars for immigration enforcement by cutting funds for clean energy, environmental justice grants, food assistance and Medicaid, a health care insurance program for low-income people.
Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Adriano Espaillat, Democrat of New York, said the bill passed through reconciliation reduces spending on “Medicaid dramatically and (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) dramatically.”
He said Democrats in their messaging should focus on the changes coming for Medicaid and how the cuts will impact people across the United States. Republicans’ numerous changes to health programs, predominantly Medicaid, will reduce federal spending during the next decade by $1.058 trillion.
“It’s really a conversation about life and death, because if you’re on Medicaid and now they’re cutting your benefits, the treatment that you receive to save your life could be in jeopardy,” Espaillat said.
Rural hospitals and Latinos
Rep. Raul Ruiz, a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, said the cuts to Medicaid are “devastating,” especially to hospitals in rural communities.
“First, what hospitals will do is they will close services that aren’t the money-making services for a hospital, like pediatrics, labor delivery and mental health, and then beyond that, they’ll eventually just close their hospital,” said the California Democrat, a former emergency room doctor.
“This is devastating because usually these rural hospitals serve a high Latino population, medically underserved, resource-poor areas,” Ruiz said. “If you have a medical emergency and you don’t have a local emergency department or hospital to go to, chances of your survivability during an emergency greatly drops.”
Antonieta Cádiz, the executive director of Climate Power En Acción, said that most of those effects, such as new reporting requirements for Medicaid patients that could result in people losing coverage, won’t be felt until after the midterm elections in 2026, when those changes go into effect.
Climate Power En Acción is an arm of the clean energy advocacy group Climate Power that focuses on reaching out to Latinos about the impacts of climate change.
She said Democrats should lean into immigration policy and push back against the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration crackdown and plans for mass deportations.
“Democrats need to take this opportunity and need to be able to bring people in to share in their vision of what a functional immigration system is,” she said. “It is very frustrating that we are not seeing again, more Democrats really leaning in on this issue.”
Espaillat acknowledged that Democrats’ communication strategy on immigration “has been one of our weaknesses.”
“We at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus have done a good job at first, exposing the inequities and irregularities and discriminatory practices of immigration to the degree that now we’re seeing,” he said.
“In addition to that, I think it’s important that we message on Medicaid … SNAP, and then, of course, environmental justice is one that’s also a real path for which we are working on having a very structured and disciplined message,” Espaillat continued.
Higher energy bills
Cádiz said the bill Republicans passed will lead to a loss of clean energy jobs and it also lessens incentives for energy efficient appliances, which will lead to higher energy bills for Latinos. Compared to the average U.S. family, Latino households pay roughly 20% more in energy costs, according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
“It guts clean energy programs crucial for savings amid rising heat and energy demand, leaving us with higher bills,” she said of the bill. “This is a direct attack on Latino families, workers and every person struggling with rising costs to meet essential needs.”
She added that environmental justice grants totaling $300 million were eliminated, while roughly 15 million Latinos live in communities with high levels of air pollution.
Espaillat said that the cuts to clean energy programs provided by the Biden administration’s massive climate and clean energy bill, which also passed through the process of reconciliation but under Democratic control, benefited local communities.
“Now there’s going to be a major disinvestment for these programs,” he said.
A medical worker prepares to vaccinate people at a pop-up COVID-19 vaccination clinic in a rural Delta community in April 2021 in Leland, Miss. The Mississippi State Department of Health, like other state health departments, is concerned about the potential loss of federal funding. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
Between 2016 and 2022, as congenital syphilis cases rose nationally and especially in the South, Mississippi saw a one thousand percent increase — from 10 to 110 — in the number of newborn babies who were hospitalized after contracting the disease, known to cause developmental issues, intellectual disabilities, and even death.
So in 2023, the state Department of Health mandated that all medical practitioners screen for the disease in pregnant mothers, and it has been running advertisements to spread awareness.
Annual congenital syphilis cases in Mississippi rose from 62 in 2021 to 132 in 2023, according to state data. The number fell to 114 last year. There have been 33 cases so far this year.
That work won’t stop despite potential budget cuts, Dr. Daniel Edney, Mississippi’s state health officer, said in an interview. “We’re going to keep doing what we have to do, you know, to keep it under control.”
State by state, public health departments take a similar approach: They monitor, treat and try to stem preventable diseases, alongside their host of other duties. But in the coming year, health department officials — with their agencies already strapped for cash — fear they’ll find it much more difficult to do their jobs.
President Donald Trump’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2026 would cut the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention budget by more than half, from $9.3 billion to $4.2 billion. The proposal serves as a wish list from the administration, a blueprint for the Republican-controlled Congress as it works through upcoming spending legislation.
If lawmakers hew to Trump’s vision, then state and county public health departments would be hit hard. States contribute to their own health departments, but a lot of them rely heavily on federal funding.
And around half of local public health department funding comes from federal sources, primarily the CDC, as noted in a 2022 report from the National Association of County & City Health Officials.
“The federal government provides a lot of funding, but the actual implementation of public health programs happens at the state and local level,” said Josh Michaud, associate director of global health policy at KFF, a health policy research group. “Each state has its own approach, in many ways, to how public health programs are overseen, how they’re funded, how they are implemented.”
In announcing his department’s share of the proposed budget, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said Trump’s goals align with “new priorities in reversing the chronic disease epidemic.”
But many local health leaders point to the longtime mission of state public health departments in preventing the spread of disease.
“Local public health is on the front lines preventing communicable disease, operating programs to prevent chronic disease, ensuring our septic and well water systems are safe,” said Dr. Kelly Kimple, acting director of North Carolina’s Division of Public Health within the Department of Health and Human Services.
“I’m very concerned,” Kimple said, “especially given the magnitude of funding that we’re talking about, as we can’t keep doing more with less.”
Clawing back COVID-era grants
Other federal budget cuts also have states worried.
Many state public health departments grew alarmed when the Trump administration announced in March that it would be clawing back $11.4 billion in COVID-era funding for grants that were slated to extend into 2026.
Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia sued. A federal district court in Rhode Island temporarily blocked the cuts, and the case remains tied up in court.
The court’s preliminary injunction may not protect temporary staff or contractors, though. Public health departments have been laying off staff, cutting lab capacity and reducing immunization clinics, said Dr. Susan Kansagra, chief medical officer for the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials.
Historically, public health departments receive funding in “boom and bust” cycles, meaning they tend to get more federal support during emergencies, said Michaud, of KFF. But “since the Great Recession of 2008, there was a general decline in public health support funding until the COVID pandemic.”
For example, KHN and The Associated Press reported that between 2010 and 2019, spending on state public health departments declined by 16% per capita and spending for local health departments fell by 18%.
Nationally, syphilis cases reached historic lows in the 2000s, thanks to robust prevention efforts and education from public health officials. By 2022, however, cases reached their highest numbers nationally since the 1950s.
“In the wake of the COVID emergency, you’ve seen a sort of backlash to what people had been calling the overreach of public health and imposing vaccination requirements and lockdowns and other public health measures,” Michaud told Stateline.
Smallpox, cholera and typhoid
Public health departments and officials go back to the 19th century, when there was a greater emphasis on sanitation efforts to prevent spread of diseases such as smallpox, cholera and typhoid, which were rampant at the time.
By the end of the century, 40 states had established health departments, which to this day are responsible for water sanitation, tracking the spread of disease, administering vaccinations, furnishing health education, providing screenings for infants and some prenatal care for moms at local clinics, offering family planning services, and tracking and treating sexually transmitted infections, among other things.
What we're seeing now is a complete upheaval of the funding going into public health.
– Josh Michaud, associate director of global health policy at KFF
Kimple pointed to measles as a current example of a disease that’s spreading fast. When North Carolina’s health department detected a case in the state, she said, the department “identified and contacted everyone who might have been exposed, helped people get tested, worked with doctors to make sure they knew how to respond.”
That’s the legacy of local public health, Michaud said.
“The federal government cannot decide, ‘This public health program will happen in this state, but not that state,’ that kind of thing. And cannot declare a national lockdown. The COVID pandemic tested a lot of those boundaries. It really is a state and local responsibility to protect public health. And that’s always been the case, since the beginning of our country,” Michaud said.
“And what we’re seeing now is a complete upheaval of the funding going into public health.”
A major cut in services
Kimple said she’s seen recent progress in her state in the support for funding public health.
“North Carolinians viewed our work as highly important to improving health and well-being in the state, and appreciated the local presence, the reliable information, the role in prevention and efforts to protect, in particular, vulnerable communities,” she said.
Similarly, Edney said that Mississippi state lawmakers were showing more support, despite some setbacks in 2016 and 2017. New federal cuts could throw a wrench in the health department’s economic plans and its ability to reach small communities.
“Now the federal rug is being pulled out from under us,” he said.
Edney said he expects the federal share of his department’s public health funding to fall from its current 65% to around 50%.
Edney said he’s been trying to strengthen Mississippi health department’s longevity by diversifying its revenue streams by, for example, accepting private donations.
The state will not stop doing its “core” work, he said, regardless of federal funding.
“We’re not going to cut back on services at the county health department, because what we do now is all mission critical,” Edney said.
Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.
Children, with one of their teachers, at the Waunakee child care center operated by Heather Murray. (Photo courtesy of Heather Murray)
I have owned and operated a child care center for the past 19 years. Not only do I make sure staff and the bills are paid, I clean toilets, clean windows and change diapers. I have devoted my life to educating and caring for young children. I didn’t go into this profession to line my pockets with money. But everyone in my field deserves a living wage and to know they are supported in their community. My goal is to create a safe and nurturing learning environment for the children who enter my center. My belief is that their parents have decided to partner with us to make sure their children are getting the best possible environment to learn and grow.
Creating this high-quality environment for children has become increasingly hard over the years for child care providers in Wisconsin. Parents can’t pay more and providers need to keep qualified staff and pay them a liveable wage. For my center, wages for employees went up by $4 an hour recently to keep up with the other businesses in my community.
I started advocating and organizing around child care and early education right before the latest state budget cycle. I found there were some pretty big hurdles to jump over to get our legislators to listen to child care providers.
I’ve heard legislators tell providers “all you want is money.” I’ve heard them say “these women just need to learn how to run their business.” My favorite observation is: “We don’t need child care. Women should just stay home and take care of their children.” It wasn’t easy to get anyone at the Capitol to take providers seriously. In the last state budget child care received no funding. Wisconsin was one of six states that did not put any state money into child care or early education. Gov. Evers did find a way to support providers with direct payments using federal money, which helped keep many providers’ doors open throughout the state.
Meanwhile, advocates and early educators kept coming to hearings, talking about what we do on a daily basis and how that is important to our communities and the state.
Providers across Wisconsin held Community Conversations and Day Without Childcare events. Many elected officials from both sides of the aisle received tours of centers. Providers also sent letters to the editor and talked with every type of news outlet that would listen. I am so proud of all the providers who stepped up and continued to push this message that what we do is important and we deserve support. As a result, ideas at the Capitol started to shift.
I spoke to legislators from both sides of the aisle. I heard legislators starting to talk about the “child care crisis” and realize that it wasn’t happening just because we didn’t know how to run our businesses. They started to say out loud that parents shouldn’t have to pay 25% of their income for child care. Legislators who previously wouldn’t have said they supported child care investment said they would try and get something done.
In the end, the new state budget wasn’t ideal but it did do two things: Direct payments will continue to go to providers for the next year and early education is finally funded with state dollars in the Wisconsin budget.
Does this budget solve everything? No. Does it provide the $330 million Evers sought in direct payments to providers? No. Did Wisconsin for the first time put state money into early education? Yes — including $110 million in direct payments to providers Does it deregulate child care, increasing the number of infants and toddlers one staff person can care for and allowing 16-year-olds to count as full-time assistants? Yes.
Child care center operator Heather Murray and some of the children in her care look out over the neighorhood outside Murray’s center in Waunakee. (Photo courtesy of Heather Murray)
I absolutely do not think deregulation is the answer to the child care crisis. I believe it is harmful to children. I will not be participating in the deregulated infant/toddler program outlined in this budget. I know I cannot get staff in my center to continue work when I ask them to take care of three more toddlers on their own. A single teacher in this proposed program would take care of seven toddlers ages 18 months and up. Right now that same teacher is expected to care for four toddlers that age. Even though some states have this ratio, the National Association for the Education of Young Children clearly states best practice is 1:4 for this age group.
I would also not hire a 16-year-old as an assistant teacher to add to my staff. I don’t believe 16-year-olds are ready to handle large groups of small children and provide the quality time and interaction they need; 16-year-olds are still children themselves. And since they are in school themselves, they are not that much help with the labor shortages centers experience all day long.
I’m grateful that Gov. Evers made child care a priority, and that our state finally joined the majority of other states in providing some support for this essential resource in the state budget.
Advocating for policy changes is a constant back and forth. Much of the time you don’t get what you want. This means that we must go back in two years, to make Wisconsin’s child care support better and more durable. Child care advocates have created a strong network and we are not done advocating for the change needed for providers to keep their doors open and for educators to earn a living wage. I believe child care is infrastructure and a public good. Together with other child care providers, I will continue to advocate and educate our leaders about how a well supported child care system is essential to our community and our economy.
Heather Murray (seated at the lower right, in the dark gray shirt) along with some of the children from her child care center, joined state legislators in the Wisconsin Capitol to show their support for a child care investment in the state budget. (Photo courtesy of Heather Murray)
President Donald Trump and European Union leaders announced a trade framework over the weekend that will set 15% import taxes on EU goods. (Photo by Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump and European Union leaders announced a trade framework over the weekend, just days ahead of Trump’s self-imposed Friday deadline to increase import taxes and his emergency tariffs come under scrutiny in federal appeals court Thursday.
Under the agreement, a 15% tariff will be applied to all products, with some exceptions, coming into the U.S. from the 27 member nations that make up the EU.
The 15% rate will also apply to automobiles, down from the 25% levy on foreign vehicles that Trump ordered in April. Trump’s 50% sectoral tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum will remain unchanged for the EU. The deal exempts certain products, including aircraft, from tariffs altogether.
Tariffs are import taxes paid to the U.S. government by businesses and other buyers that import foreign goods.
“Fifteen percent is not to be underestimated, but it was the best we could get,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told reporters during a press conference Sunday.
Similar to the deal Trump announced with Japan on July 23, the EU has agreed to invest $600 billion in the United States over Trump’s term. The bloc of nations has also agreed to purchase $750 billion in U.S. energy, including liquid natural gas, over the next three years as a way to wean off of Russian fossil fuels.
‘Fundamentally rebalancing’
The White House touted the deal as “fundamentally rebalancing the economic relationship between the world’s two largest economies,” in a press release issued Monday.
The U.S. imported more goods from the EU than it exported by about $235.8 billion in 2024, according to Census data.
Trump had threatened to raise what he describes as “reciprocal” tariffs — tariffs on products outside sectoral categories of steel, aluminum and vehicles — to 30% by Aug. 1 on products from Europe, Japan and numerous other trading partners.
Trump set the date as the new deadline for his “Liberation Day” tariffs to take effect. The president announced the tariffs in early April and then promptly paused them after markets plummeted around the globe. The episode triggered a trade war with China, during which U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods peaked at 145% before the two parties agreed to negotiate.
Appeals case looms
President Donald Trump holds up a chart while speaking during a trade announcement event in the White House Rose Garden on April 2, 2025. Trump dubbed the event “Liberation Day.” (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
On what the president described as “Liberation Day” on April 2, Trump heralded a universal 10% tariff on all foreign products, plus staggering additional so-called reciprocal import taxes on countries across the globe that carry trade imbalances with the U.S.
Trump justified the steep duties by declaring trade imbalances a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
In February, Trump became the first president to trigger tariffs under the 1977 emergency powers law when he increased import taxes on Canada, Mexico and China in response to illegal fentanyl smuggling.
The emergency tariffs are at the center of a case that will go before the U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit Thursday.
The case stems from two lawsuits, now consolidated, filed by a handful of businesses and a dozen Democratic state attorneys general who argued the president doesn’t have authority to impose tariffs under the emergency law.
The U.S. Court of International Trade struck down Trump’s emergency tariffs as unconstitutional on May 28.
Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon were among the states that brought the suit.
V.O.S. Selections, a New York-based company that imports wine and spirits from 16 countries, led the business plaintiffs. Others included a Utah-based plastics producer, a Virginia-based children’s electricity learning kit maker, a Pennsylvania-based fishing gear company and a Vermont-based women’s cycling apparel company.
Upon appeal from the White House, the Federal Circuit allowed Trump’s tariffs to remain in place while the case moved forward.
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh. (Miles Maguire | courtesy of the photographer)
Republican lawmakers are proposing a state law to limit tuition increases after the University of Wisconsin system approved another tuition hike earlier this month.
The Board of Regents voted earlier this month to increase tuition by 5% at most UW campuses. UW-Green Bay is the exception with a 4% tuition increase after opting out of an additional 1%. UW-River Falls received a 5.8% increase in tuition to help support student success initiatives.
According to the UW system, the increase will be an average of about $382.
The draft bill, coauthored by Sen. Andre Jacque (R-New Franken) and Rep. David Murphy (R-Greenville), would prohibit the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents from increasing undergraduate tuition by more than the consumer price index increase in a given year. The authors said the latest increases were “roughly double the increase in the Consumer Price Index over the past year.”
“Now more than ever, the Legislature must implement a common sense law placing controls on these types of skyrocketing tuition increases,” the lawmakers wrote in a cosponsorship memo. “That’s why we are again introducing legislation to cap tuition and fee increases for in-state Wisconsin undergraduates at levels no higher than the rate of inflation.”
UW spokesperson Mark Pitsch said in a statement responding to the bill that the UW is “among the most affordable across the U.S.”
“It is critical that we have the flexibility to maintain the quality that students deserve and parents expect,” Pitsch said.
UW President Jay Rothman proposed the tuition increases earlier this month following the signing of the new state budget, which provided a little over $250 million to the UW system — an amount that fell below the requests the system had said would be necessary to avoid tuition increases.
“After a decade of a tuition freeze and lagging state aid, we believe we have struck a balance for students and families with this proposal and the recent state investments in the UWs as part of the 2025-27 biennial budget,” Rothman said in a statement at the time.
This is the third consecutive tuition increase since the end of the 10-year tuition freeze — a trend that comes as state funding makes up a smaller portion of the UW system’s budget.
State funding currently makes up about a fifth of the UW’s total revenue. In contrast, state general purpose revenue made up 41.8% of the UW System’s budget in 1984-85.
Regent Ashok Rai said that even with the state investment, there continues to be a gap between the funding and the UW system’s ability to keep up with inflation and compensation increases for faculty and staff.
“The proposed tuition rates will ensure that UWs remain affordable compared to our neighboring peers,” Rai said.
According to the UW, its tuition increased just 7.7% from 2015 to 2025 — a rate below the tuition increases for its peers in other states, which had tuition increases ranging from 21.7% to 28.8% over the 10 years.
Earlier this month, Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson said the state would provide $11 million in funding if Planned Parenthood loses its lawsuit and federal support. There are 30 clinics in the state that serve 10,000 patients every year. (Photo by Jake Goldstein-Street/Washington State Standard)
Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide are once again protected from a “defunding” provision passed by Congress after a federal judge in Massachusetts granted an emergency request for a new preliminary injunction.
The order from U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, appointed by former Democratic President Barack Obama, comes one week after an initial injunction blocked only certain clinics from receiving Medicaid funds under the new law. One of the affiliates that filed the lawsuit, Planned Parenthood Association of Utah, along with affiliates that did not provide abortion services or that did not bill Medicaid more than $800,000 in fiscal year 2023 were protected, which covered a fraction of the 600 clinics nationwide.
In Washington state, where abortion access is legal and available until fetal viability, Gov. Bob Ferguson announced on July 9 that the state would provide the $11 million in federal funding lost if the lawsuit is unsuccessful. There are 30 Planned Parenthood clinics in Washington that serve 10,000 patients every year, and Medicaid covers about half of them, Washington State Standard reported.
The national group, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said the initial decision was disappointing and asked the court to reconsider, which Talwani granted Monday.
Attorneys for the Trump administration appealed the initial injunction on July 23, and told the court they opposed the emergency request for a new injunction.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America and affiliates in Massachusetts and Utah sued just a few days after Congress passed the bill that included the provision the organization said directly targeted their services for Medicaid funding cuts — a longstanding goal of anti-abortion advocates and many Republican elected officials. Federal Medicaid dollars cannot be used for abortion services except in cases of rape, incest, or certain health conditions.
The clinics rely heavily on Medicaid funding to provide standard reproductive health care at little to no cost, including treatment for sexually transmitted infections, cancer screenings and contraception. Planned Parenthood provides services for about 2 million patients every year, and 64% of clinics are in rural areas or places with health care provider shortages.
In the order, Talwani said the law — part of a sweeping package of tax and spending cuts approved by a party-line vote — unfairly targets Planned Parenthood for punishment without a trial, and violates free speech constitutional rights by preventing the organization from advocating for reproductive health care.
Attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice have argued Congress was free to target those clinics because “larger providers carry out more abortions and receive more government subsidies,” and said the law is meant to “stop federal subsidies for Big Abortion.” Talwani said those arguments were not persuasive, and that it is unlikely they can justify the defunding as part of a goal to reduce abortion.
“… it is unclear how including only entities that are non-profits and provide medical services in underserved communities is in any way related to reducing abortion. Nor is it clear how withholding Medicaid reimbursements from Planned Parenthood Members who do not provide abortion furthers that end,” Talwani wrote.
Dominique Lee, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, called the ruling a “powerful reminder that patients, not politics, should guide health care.”
Lee said in a statement: “In Massachusetts and beyond, we will keep fighting to ensure everyone can turn to the provider they trust, no matter their insurance or zip code.”
Sheena Scarborough, mother of Sade Robinson, a 19-year-old woman murdered last year, thanked Rep. Shelia Stubbs for her efforts calling attention to the violence Black women and girls face. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)
For the third session in a row, State Rep. Shelia Stubbs (D-Madison) is calling on Wisconsin lawmakers to create a task force to examine the violence African American women and girls face and develop policy solutions to prevent others from going missing and being murdered.
The bill would establish a 17-member task force to produce a report on the issue. Members would include two Senators, two Assembly representatives and other stakeholders, along with law enforcement representatives and representatives from advocacy or legal organizations, including those that focus on Black women and girls.
“This is my third time to try and get a critical piece of legislation passed into law,” Stubbs said at a press conference Friday.
Stubbs, inspired by a similar task force in Minnesota and one focused on Indigenous women in Wisconsin, first introduced the proposal during the 2021-2023 legislative session, but it failed to gain traction. The second iteration of the bill, during the 2023-25 session, passed the Assembly but stalled in the Senate as former Sen. Duey Stroebel initially refused to allow the bill to move forward. It eventually received a public hearing and was approved by a committee but never advanced to a vote on the Senate floor.
“Can anyone tell me why this critical legislation could not get scheduled? Can you tell these families why their loved one was not important enough to at least get a hearing?” Stubbs asked at the press conference. “It is not fair to these victims and their families that they have to continue to wait for this Legislature to do something.”
Stubbs said Wisconsin has the “worst disparity in the nation” when it comes to Black women and girls being killed. A 2022 investigation by the Guardian found five Black women and girls were killed each day in the U.S. in 2020. Wisconsin was the worst in the country, with the rate doubling that year.
Coauthors on the new bill include Rep. Pat Snyder (R-Weston), Sen. Jesse James (R-Thorp) and LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee).
“I’m demanding that we get an answer,” Stubbs said. “I am demanding that we get justice. How many more victims do we need in this state before we do something?”
Stubbs was joined at the press conference by Sheena Scarborough, mother of 19-year-old Sade Robinson, who was murdered last year.
“The things that we have gone through as a family,” Scarborough said. “They stand behind me knowing exactly what it’s like being a victim of a severe traumatic crime in the worst possible way… We are still dealing with ongoing trauma daily.”
Scarborough said there wasn’t enough support as she dealt with law enforcement and navigated the criminal justice system for the first time following her daughter’s murder. The lack of support pushed her to start the Sade’s Voice Foundation, she said. The nonprofit was formed to advocate and provide support for the families of missing Black women and girls.
“There weren’t many other supports through this time…. It doesn’t matter if you are Republican or Democrat. These are our babies. This was my daughter. She was a granddaughter. She was a sister. She had her whole life ahead of her,” Scarborough said. “The task force is definitely needed.”
The task force would examine several related issues. They include systemic causes of the violence Black women and girls experience, the appropriate methods for tracking and collecting data on violence against Black women and girls, government practices including policing related to investigating and prosecuting crimes against Black women and girls, measures that could reduce violence against them and ways to support victims and their families.
The final report, which would be due by 2027, would need to recommend policies and practices that would be effective in reducing gender violence and increasing the safety of Black women and girls and help victims and communities to heal from violence.
Angela Arrington, the social action coordinator for Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., said that the task force could help address the persistent violence that Black women and girls face.
“They are more likely to experience homicide, sexual assault and other forms of violence than their white counterparts, and these cases often go unsolved or receive less attention,” Arrington said. “The epidemic of violence is a complex issue with deep-rooted historical and systemic causes requiring comprehensive and coordinated action to address.”
Attorney General Josh Kaul said lawmakers are needed to establish a task force and that a state investment must be included.
“People are ready to step up,” Kaul said. “The problem now is not whether there is interest among folks in collaborating and working to identify solutions. What we need is legislative will. We need the legislators and the Senate and the Assembly to pass legislation that will help ensure we have this task force… It’s clear that there is a need not just for action, but for there to be an investment so that we can seriously consider these issues.”
He alluded to the new budget approved earlier this month that was celebrated as a bipartisan compromise by legislative leaders and Gov. Tony Evers.
“The Legislature was so close to passing legislation that would help us move forward on this issue, but we’ve seen there’s an opportunity for some compromise in this legislative session,” Kaul said.
The bill includes one position supported with state funding of $80,200 in 2025-26 and $99,500 in 2026-27.
Kaul said the additional Department of Justice employee would be essential to coordinate the work of the task force, including gathering data that may be needed.
A similar task force focused on Indigenous women and girls was formed in 2020 by Kaul after legislation failed. Kaul started that task force without state funding by using federal funding from the Violence Against Women Act. He said at the press conference that the agency doesn’t have funding for a similar pathway for the proposed new task force.
“This is a really significant issue that takes the investment of time and resources, and I don’t want to see a group come together without having the resources they need to be successful,” Kaul told reporters. “I want to see this done properly and right and that’s what this bill would do.”
Brooke Rollins believes she is waging a new American Revolution, leading a crusade against Biblical darkness and guiding U.S. agriculture into a “golden age.”
In her first six months as the nation’s top agriculture official, Rollins has reshaped the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s focus — “more farmer, less climate,” she summarized. Her leadership will make farmers more prosperous than ever before, she proclaimed.
“This is making America and American agriculture great again,” she told Congress.
But her management has left many within USDA unmoored and frightened. Mass firings have purged scientists, whose discoveries underpin modern agriculture, from seeds to soil management. Indiscriminate terminations will likely deter younger, qualified candidates from joining the effort to address agriculture’s pressing challenges, such as adapting to climate change and containing animal diseases like bird flu.
Rollins-approved funding freezes and cancellations have squeezed small farmers and risked their trust. Rural communities could be kneecapped: Rollins has proposed cutting resources for broadband initiatives and Rural Development, the agency that invests in farmers’ communities.
The divestment of staff, science and sustainability programs at USDA isn’t just a budget cut; it could be a direct threat to the nation’s food system. Experts warn of far-reaching consequences: unsafe food for consumers, more invasive and economically damaging pests for farmers, and an agriculture industry forced to adapt to climate change with less scientific insight.
“We might see more farming in the dark, essentially,” said Michal Happ, a climate change and rural community expert at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.
Investigate Midwest spoke with multiple agricultural experts and more than 30 current and former USDA employees to better understand Rollins’ leadership style, her impact on the department and the profound consequences her administration will have for farmers, rural families and consumers.
What emerged was a picture of a leader who has brought sweeping changes and largely embraced President Trump’s agenda of downsizing the federal government. However, Rollins has also been tasked with managing Trump policies that she has privately rebuked and cuts made before she assumed office.
Trump tapped Rollins to head the massive federal department at a crucial time for American agriculture. Farmers are grappling with changing weather patterns, shifting trade policies, and even internal administration critiques of pesticide use — a report from Health Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again” commission, which Rollins applauded, slammed farms’ pesticide reliance.
Trump has praised Rollins’ performance. In mid-April, as an aside during a press conference, Trump thanked her for lowering egg prices. “Brooke Rollins, secretary of agriculture, did a great job,” he said. During his first term, she maneuvered into his inner circle and, as Politico reported, has quickly become “one of the most powerful conservatives in the country.”
Rollins has said her mission is to be the voice of farmers in Trump’s cabinet. She appears to have pull with the president, but questions remain about her influence over decisions affecting the USDA and its staff.
Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, appeared to wield significant control over department operations, at least until recently. It influenced everything from policy language to which USDA offices remain open, according to court records and Rollins’ hearing testimony.
In a statement to Investigate Midwest, the USDA rejected any characterization that Rollins was not solely responsible for department actions.
“The claims you cite are absurd and without merit,” it said. “Secretary Rollins was appointed by President Trump to lead the Department and to insinuate that anyone other than the Constitutionally directed cabinet officer is making the decisions at USDA is unwarranted.”
She’s also been sandwiched between Trump’s signature policy, an extreme stance on immigration, and the reality of agriculture’s labor force.
“We might see more farming in the dark, essentially.”
Michal Happ, a climate change and rural community expert at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
Because of immigration raids, some farms’ labor pools have been depleted, and, already, some fields have not been harvested. Farmers have pleaded for relief. In early June, Rollins pushed Trump to pause enforcement on farms, The New York Times reported. After the news broke, Rollins proclaimed she was in lockstep with Trump.
Raids on farms resumed days later, but Trump recently expressed support for giving farmers discretion over undocumented workers.
“Brooke Rollins brought it up, and she said, ‘So, we have a little problem. The farmers are losing a lot of people,’ and we figured it out, and we have some great stuff being written,” he said during a July 4 speech.
On July 8, Rollins said undocumented farmworkers would receive “no amnesty.”
Farming is inherently risky. Making a living depends on good weather and profitable markets. Farmers try to limit variables, but Rollins’ first months have added disorder into the food system, said Mike Lavender, a policy expert for the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.
“All of it is this theme of creating needless uncertainty and confusion amongst people who are trying to do the exact opposite in order to be successful in their livelihoods, support their families and ultimately support their communities,” he said.
The USDA did not directly answer questions about Rollins’ tenure, and, in a statement, it said she was cleaning up a mess left by her predecessor, Tom Vilsack.
“Secretary Rollins is working to reorient USDA to put Farmers First and be more effective and efficient at serving the American people,” the department said. “President Biden and Secretary Vilsack left USDA in complete disarray, including hiring thousands of employees with no sustainable way to pay them.”
In congressional hearings, Rollins said the USDA, which has lost more than 15,000 employees, has enough staff to fulfill its mission. Trump’s desire to make new deals with trading partners — which is causing confusion and financial anxiety for farmers — will create stability for agricultural producers, Rollins has said.
“I do believe, with every fiber of my being, that this era of unlimited or unprecedented prosperity for the ag community is just around the corner,” Rollins told Congress in June. “I’m just really, really sure of that.”
Rollins has painted the present as being “strikingly similar” to the time of the American Revolution, a period she often invokes in speeches. She has also cast her leadership in Biblical terms, citing Romans 13:12, saying she wears an “armor of light” in her current position.
“There is just a lot of darkness — not with this White House or my current boss, President Trump, or our cabinet, but the government in general,” Rollins told Decision Magazine, a religious publication, during an interview last month.
The USDA did not answer when asked if Rollins views rank-and-file employees as part of the “darkness.” But her management of employees varies drastically from her two predecessors, Vilsack and Sonny Perdue, Trump’s first agriculture secretary.
Perdue was a veterinarian and, as governor of Georgia, had led a large bureaucracy, experience that translated into running a complex federal department in a “thoughtful, analytical way,” said Kevin Shea, a USDA employee for 45 years under Republican and Democrat administrations.
“The first Trump administration at USDA was run very professionally,” Shea said. Now, however, “the USDA political leadership seems to be particularly scornful of its career workforce.”
For instance, very little information filters down to employees. Leadership has not effectively communicated what it wants, so it’s been a “gradual process of learning what is and is not OK,” said Ethan Roberts, president of AFGE Local 3247, a union representing government employees, and a nine-year USDA employee.
Agency staff used to plan months or years ahead, but that’s difficult now because they don’t know if they’ll still have jobs or if the office will exist, said one current employee who requested anonymity for fear of reprisal.
Her two predecessors regularly sent department-wide emails that communicated their goals and priorities, current and former employees said. Rollins seems to have a different audience in mind.
“She just posts on X what she’s doing,” said Laura Dodson, the vice president of AFGE Local 3403 and a longtime USDA employee. X, the social media company owned by Musk, requires an account to view posts. “It just seems everything’s coming from DOGE and whatever the White House is saying about federal employees.”
The first Trump administration also instituted funding freezes and reduced staff, including relocating USDA offices out of Washington, D.C. One of the affected agencies was the Economic Research Service, which provides insights into markets the industry relies on.
In 2019, Dodson and her colleagues were called into a conference room. If their job description was called, they would remain where they had established their lives. The others, the vast majority, would be relocated to Kansas City, Missouri. Employees started crying.
Despite that episode from Trump’s first term, Dodson said, the tone of his second stint is markedly different as DOGE, overseen by Musk until May, has wantonly carved up federal agencies.
“They still maintained a veneer of respectability. They were trying to do this for the greater good,” she said about the USDA under Perdue. “Now, with people like Elon Musk, it’s clear this is not the pursuit of efficiency. It’s the pursuit of cruelty.”
DOGE slashes a scared staff
Before Rollins was sworn in, DOGE and USDA’s new political appointees began slashing.
Budget officers received a flowchart instructing them to block any money from the Inflation Reduction Act or the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, two major economic infusions during the Biden presidency, The New York Times reported. Judges have ruled the freezes illegal.
Officials, including new chief of staff Kailee Buller, submitted plans for mass firings to Musk’s quasi-governmental organization, court records show. DOGE thought it needed reworking. Then, on Feb. 13, Buller met with Noah Peters, a DOGE operative in the White House. Buller “shared her experiences terminating the employees ‘cause that process was underway at Agriculture,” Peters said.
Rollins took over that night, and, the next day, thousands received termination notices. When Congress pressed her on the mass firings, Rollins shifted responsibility. “That happened before I was sworn in,” she said.
While job cuts and funding freezes were pursued, there appeared to be little knowledge of the USDA’s work.
For instance, school nutrition researchers were told to flag any studies that included the word “class” — an attempt to discover funding for diversity, equity and inclusion, a Trump target, said one employee who asked for anonymity for fear of reprisal.
Another time, DOGE’s main liaison to the USDA, Gavin Kliger, requested that the word “tracking” be added to the list of words to flag in grants that could be terminated, according to an email included in a lawsuit.
“Tracking the exact carbon output of soybean yields does not provide a direct benefit to farmers,” he reasoned in an email to staff, “and we can reallocate that funding in a way that more directly benefits farmers.”
Kliger’s LinkedIn resume does not show any experience in agriculture. He graduated from the University of California-Berkeley in 2020 and has worked exclusively for tech and artificial intelligence companies. He has helped slash staff and funding at other agencies, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
It’s unclear how he came to this understanding about carbon tracking.
Carbon is essential to soil health, producing higher yields. Knowing how much carbon is escaping their soil can help farmers adopt better soil management techniques. This not only helps farmers grow more efficiently but helps keep the plant from warming. Soy industry groups have expressed the importance of tracking carbon footprints.
Also, under a Biden-era rule, measuring carbon output helps put money directly in farmers’ pockets — they can sell their output on carbon offset markets.
Despite this misguided reasoning, Kliger appears to have had considerable influence at the USDA.
In the same email, he said he wanted to surpass DOGE’s goal of cutting $120 million in climate-focused grants by a certain date. “I spoke with the Secretary tonight who was supportive of these initiatives – working on getting a memo formalized for her signature in parallel,” he wrote.
Above is an excerpt from an email exchange between USDA staff and DOGE’s main USDA liaison, Gavin Kliger, in which he said he wanted to surpass DOGE’s goal of cutting $120 million in climate-focused grants by a certain date.
Kliger did not respond to requests for comment to his USDA email address. The USDA did not respond when asked about the email or how much influence Kliger had.
“All decisions made at the USDA are at the direction of secretary Rollins to best fulfil (sic) president trumps (sic) agenda,” the department said.
Kliger appears to have moved on. The USDA said his access to the National Finance Center, which manages employee payroll, has been “deactivated due to lack of use. … We would refer you to” the Small Business Administration.
While voices with no agricultural experience have been elevated, those with expertise — USDA employees — have been pushed aside and silenced, current and former employees said.
One skirmish between DOGE and the USDA’s rank-and-file has involved the Trump administration’s return-to-office policies. Some Republican leaders and Musk have claimed that allowing employees to work remotely is a waste.
In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic forced remote work for staffers at the Farm Service Agency, which helps farmers access federal funding. As the year progressed, Perdue, the agriculture secretary at the time, considered calling workers back to the office.
However, an internal study found that employees had actually been more efficient, said Charles Dodson, a 30-year FSA veteran who retired late last year.
Despite that, Trump ordered remote workers back to offices when he retook the presidency. At the same time, DOGE began canceling leases of local offices around the country.
At a May hearing, members of Congress accused Rollins of being unaware that local FSA offices were being closed. Rollins did not deny the accusation. Then at a June hearing, she said the General Services Administration, a DOGE target, was behind the closures. (Some offices have since reopened.)
On the ground, the situation has caused confusion and consternation for USDA employees.
When one employee reported to a new office, they were told they weren’t on the list of transfers. How could they follow the order to report to an office if they weren’t allowed in? Another USDA employee, a researcher, was ordered to report to a Forest Service trailer in the woods. And another employee, according to NPR, was told to report to a shed where a boat was stored.
The USDA has also intimidated its workforce, current and former employees said.
According to Roberts, the department veteran and union representative, USDA scientists have been instructed to deflect questions from university researchers — their frequent collaborators — about the agency’s internal affairs.
“They’re being told to say those things for fear it looks like the USDA is silencing them,” he said, “which they are.”
Surveillance also has increased. While the government has used software to monitor employee emails for years, the Trump administration has altered it to detect emails sent to a personal or college account. As part of a leak investigation, one staffer was placed on administrative leave after emailing their personal account, even though it did not contain the leaked material officials were looking for.
The USDA did not respond to a question about the leak investigation.
Some employees have responded by doing only what is asked of them, not going above and beyond. Dodson, the retiree, recounted what a current staffer told him: “I’m afraid to do anything else. I just want to survive and not get fired.”
Navigating agriculture’s latest challenges
In May, after thousands had been forced to leave the USDA, Rollins reassured Congress the department had adequate staffing to perform its mission. For instance, she said, no one from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or APHIS — which includes veterinarians and staff battling invasive diseases and pests — had left.
They were “key, critical components,” she said.
The comment shocked APHIS employees. Two weeks earlier, several hundred employees who helped keep pests out of the U.S. accepted the administration’s deferred resignation offers, which would pay them to not work for months. (Some returned after the offers were rescinded.)
Overall, roughly 15% of APHIS’s 8,000 employees have departed following the administration’s attempts to cut headcount, according to DTN. That includes about 400 from the agency’s Plant Protection and Quarantine division, which keeps invasive species out of the U.S., and about 350 veterinarians, said Shea, the longtime USDA employee who was the agency’s leader under Presidents Obama, Trump and Biden.
The cuts will have a ripple effect, particularly during emergencies, he said. To respond, employees will be moved from their regular duties, leaving others to pick up the slack.
The lack of staff is a major obstacle, Shea said.
“There couldn’t be a worse time to lower our guard,” he said. “APHIS cannot do its job with that level of personnel. It simply cannot do it. I’ve never been more concerned about the agency’s ability to carry out its mission going forward.”
The USDA has implemented a hiring freeze, but in April it exempted APHIS. The agency has posted job listings online.
“Secretary Rollins will not compromise the critical work of the Department,” the USDA said. The exempted positions “carry out functions that are critical to the safety and security of the American people, our national forests, the inspection and safety of the Nation’s agriculture and food supply system.”
Another challenge Rollins has faced is trade, the lifeblood of U.S. agriculture.
When Trump returned to office, he generated chaos in the agricultural markets by starting a trade war and implementing higher tariffs. In response, Rollins has embarked on a global tour to establish new trade partners.
She has announced a few “Make Agriculture Great Again trade wins.” She recently proclaimed that Namibia, an African country, agreed to accept frozen poultry from the U.S. The Biden administration had opened the market after allaying the country’s concerns about bird flu. Also, she declared Costa Rica accepting U.S. dairy a win for Trump. An industry trade group said the “win has been several years in the making.”
Rollins has said repeatedly that the agricultural trade deficit — the U.S. imports more products from overseas than it exports — is bad for the country. The tariffs were intended to address the deficit, but the narrative hit a snag in early June.
Politico reported the USDA had delayed a regularly scheduled report because it showed Trump’s tariffs could exacerbate the trade deficit. Days later, Rollins defended the delay. “I want to be sure every piece of research we move out is the best, the best-cited, etc.,” she told Congress. (The hearing was about a week after news broke that the MAHA report, which Rollins supported, cited nonexistent studies.)
Perhaps the most pressing issue facing Rollins is helping the agriculture industry as it grapples with climate change, which is altering how farmers grow food and commodities. Rollins, however, has denied the planet is warming.
Her husband is an executive at an oil and gas company, and in a 2018 speech, she said “research of CO2 being a pollutant is just not valid,” according to Inside Climate News. More recently, she led the America First Policy Institute, which pushes Trump’s agenda. She employed another Trump loyalist, Carla Sands, who once said the idea of climate change is “Marxism to control humanity,” according to Politico.
In January, before Rollins was sworn in, USDA employees were directed to “unpublish any landing pages (on the USDA’s website) focused on climate change,” according to court records. Research involving climate change has also been effectively banned, current employees said. If studies include words such as “climate,” “clean energy,” “sustainable construction” or dozens of others, the research will not be funded.
Climate change is having profound effects on agriculture. For instance, the Corn Belt — considered the prime region for growing the valuable commodity used in everything from soft drinks to gasoline — is inching northward. In decades, instead of Iowa and Illinois, Minnesota and the Dakotas could be America’s breadbasket, researchers have predicted.
More recent research shows that, as the world keeps warming and farming gets harder, U.S. corn production could fall by 40% by century’s end.
If the USDA ignores climate issues, farmers could be struggling alone, said Happ, of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.
“They want to adapt to what’s going on,” he said. “They want to still have their land there and steward it for the next generation or two. Without those resources, they’re going to just have to figure it out on their own.”
The USDA did not respond when asked about Rollins’ household’s financial stake in fossil fuels. At a congressional hearing, Rollins agreed with a representative who said sound policy follows sound science. The USDA did not respond when asked why the USDA was not following climate change science.
Promises of healthy food waylaid
In March, Rollins cancelled more than $1 billion in funding that paid small farmers to supply fresh meat and produce to schools and food banks. Supporters of the initiatives — named the Local Food for Schools and Child Care and Local Food Purchasing Assistance programs — said they helped local economies and supplied nutritious meals to growing kids.
In a Fox News appearance, Rollins argued the funding was non-essential because it was a COVID-era program. The funding has helped farmers in most states, according to the USDA’s website.
Nullifying those programs undercut another initiative of the Trump administration, the MAHA push to castigate processed foods and promote healthy products, said Debbie Friedman, with the Food Insight Group, which studies food system infrastructure. At the press conference releasing the MAHA report, Rollins referred to herself as a “MAHA mom.”
“While the MAHA concept is terrific,” said Friedman, specifically referencing its stance on improving the food supply, “the action steps they’re taking are the exact opposite. It’s all talk.”
Rollins has also overseen a divestment in food safety research.
The USDA has forced out 98 of 167 food safety scientists at the Agricultural Research Service, a department arm that studies how to prevent deadly pathogens, such as E. coli or Salmonella, from entering the food supply.
Foodborne illnesses could become more prevalent because the work the scientists were doing will likely just end, said Roberts, the union representative who works for the Agricultural Research Service.
“Who knows what we’ve lost? What discoveries or products that were going to be invented that we’ll just never see?” Roberts said. “We’ll be stuck with the tools we have now.”
A robust food safety system, with research and vigilant monitoring, is necessary to help prevent foodborne illnesses, which not only can hospitalize consumers but also have long-lasting health consequences, said Barbara Kowalcyk, a longtime food safety researcher who is now at George Washington University. In a 2013 study, Kowalcyk and her colleagues showed foodborne infections could lead to, among other conditions, chronic kidney disease, arthritis and cognitive deficits.
An example of science and government oversight working in concert to save lives stems from a deadly outbreak in the 1990s, she said. After eating undercooked hamburgers at Jack in the Box, more than 700 people fell ill and four children died.
The scandal put the USDA’s food safety system under an intense microscope, and the department changed how it protected America’s meat supply. Instead of eyeing and smelling a carcass, the USDA began testing for pathogens, a monumental task to implement.
The original testing procedure was first developed in the 1960s and refined over the decades. Since the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service began using the system — named Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point — cases of foodborne illness from beef have declined dramatically.
“Lots of effort went into that,” Kowalcyk said. “We don’t see the same level of outbreaks in ground beef that we used to.”
Rollins plans on altering the USDA’s, and the country’s, future through her actions. Cutting funding to farmers, axing scientists, instilling fear in remaining employees — it’s about changing the country’s course.
“It isn’t just about the next four years,” she told Breitbart in May. “It’s about the next 250 years.”
But it could all backfire on farmers, rural communities and consumers, said Lavender, with the national sustainable agriculture coalition.
“The draining of expertise at USDA,” he said, “whether that’s scientific expertise or just expertise of people who have been there for a period of time and have built up knowledge — it will ultimately come home to roost.”
The library at the Green Bay Correctional Institution. Wisconsin Books to Prisoners and the Wisconsin Department of Corrections plan a second test of having books sent to incarcerated people. (Photo courtesy of Wisconsin Department of Corrections)
The Wisconsin Examiner’s Criminal Justice Reporting Project shines a light on incarceration, law enforcement and criminal justice issues with support from the Public Welfare Foundation.
The nonprofit Wisconsin Books to Prisoners told the Wisconsin Examiner that another pilot project involving the nonprofit and the Wisconsin Department of Corrections will take place in the next six to eight weeks.
The collaborations between the nonprofit and the department might lead to the books project being permitted to send used books to people incarcerated in prisons across the state.
The department said last year that it could no longer accept used books from anyone, including the nonprofit. The DOC cited concerns about drug smuggling and alleged that some book shipments tested positive for drugs. This led to scrutiny of the department’s rationale for the used book ban.
“We have hundreds of requests for books that haven’t been fulfilled since the only-new-books policy was established,” Camy Matthay of Wisconsin Books to Prisoners said over email.
In an August 2024 email to the books project, a DOC official said the concern was not with the nonprofit but with people who would impersonate it.
In late June, the books project organizers said they were able to send used and new books to Oakhill Correctional Institution in a pilot program. The books were added to the library collection, making them available for checkout by those who requested them.
DOC communications director Beth Hardtke said the pilot program was designed to allow the DOC to test and refine its screening process for donated reading materials to ensure safety.
Hardtke said that between 2019 and 2023, 20 incarcerated people died of drug overdoses in DOC facilities, while none have died of drug overdoses in 2024 or so far in 2025. She also cited a study about harmful effects that can occur when incarcerated people are exposed to drug-soaked paper strips.
“The goal is to eventually allow WBTP to send reading materials to individuals at any DOC facility — safely,” Hardtke said in late June.
Hardtke said at the time that starting July 1, WBTP would be able to send requested materials directly to individuals at Oakhill instead of the library.
Instead, the DOC has asked for a second pilot, Matthay said. For that, the books project will send books to a library at a second prison, Redgranite Correctional Institution. Matthay said this pilot will take place in the next six to eight weeks.
“Should our books pass inspection without issues at prison number two, WBTP hopes to return to fulfilling our mission, i.e., sending books directly to prisoners who request books from us,” Matthay said.
She said the group is not likely to return to sending books to prisoners directly before September.
Matthay said that per the DOC’s request, the group will no longer fulfill requests for specific titles. Instead, prisoners are asked to request books by subject matter or genre.
She said the group provides tracking numbers that will validate the source of the books, and that the nonprofit will also include embossed receipts.
According to Wisconsin Books to Prisoners, in August 2024, the group asked the DOC if the organization could resolve the concerns about impersonation by providing a postal service tracking number for every package of books it ships.
Hardtke said the department recognizes the importance of education and books as part of rehabilitation and maintains libraries at all institutions, offers books on electronic tablets and has educational partnerships with the University of Wisconsin System and the state’s technical colleges.
Critics have raised questions about the quality of the selection on the tablets and whether the quality of the libraries varies by institution.
Matthay said that when boxes of books have been returned to the nonprofit over the years, the cause was confusion in the mailrooms.
In late June, the nonprofit said that many of the packages of new books sent to prisoners had been returned to the group. Sending new books to prisoners is not banned by the DOC.
“We think this problem will resolve itself,” Matthay said, as the DOC establishes better lines of communication between the agency’s headquarters and the institutions that take in the books.
“The DOC understands that this will improve security for WBTP as well as the DOC,” Matthay said. She added that “it is also understood that when these pilots are completed and if we get a greenlight, that the new policy — whatever that may be — needs to be clearly communicated to all employees (and prisoners too) to avoid confusion.”
This report was updated Monday 8/28/2025 with new information on the timeline for the start of the next pilot and the confirmation that it will involve Redgranite Correctional Institution.
Multiple ambulances and police vehicles respond to a shooting at CrossPointe Community Church in Wayne, Mich., in June. Homicides fell 17% in the first half of 2025 compared with the same period in 2024, according to the Council on Criminal Justice’s latest crime trends report. (Photo by Emily Elconin/Getty Images)
Amid recent political rhetoric about rising crime and violence in American cities, a new analysis shows that violent crime has continued to decline this year.
Homicides and several other serious offenses, including gun assaults and carjackings, dropped during the first half of 2025 across 42 U.S. cities, continuing a downward trend that began in 2022, according to a new crime trends report released Thursday by the nonpartisan think tank Council on Criminal Justice.
Homicides fell 17% in the first half of 2025, compared with the same period in 2024, among the 30 cities that reported homicide data, according to the report.
During that same period, five cities saw increases in homicide — ranging from 6% in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to 39% in Little Rock, Arkansas.
While the report’s authors say the continued drop in violent crime — especially homicides — is encouraging, they note that much of the decline stems from a few major cities with historically high rates, such as Baltimore and St. Louis.
More than half of the cities studied have higher homicide rates than before the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, though, the analysis found that there were 14% fewer homicides during the first half of 2025 compared to the same period in 2019.
The authors say more research is needed before crediting any specific policy or practice for the continued drop in violent crime.
The group’s findings come as President Donald Trump continues to amplify concerns about crime, at times citing misleading statistics and narratives.
In a Truth Social post earlier this week, Trump claimed that cashless bail — a practice that allows people charged with a crime to be released pretrial without paying money, unless a judge deems them a threat to public safety — were fueling a national crime surge and endangering law enforcement.
He wrote: “Crime in American Cities started to significantly rise when they went to CASHLESS BAIL. The WORST criminals are flooding our streets and endangering even our great law enforcement officers. It is a complete disaster, and must be ended, IMMEDIATELY!”
Some research suggests that setting money bail isn’t effective in ensuring court appearances or improving public safety. Opponents of ending cash bail often raise concerns that released suspects might commit new, potentially more serious crimes. While that is possible in individual cases, studies show that eliminating cash bail does not lead to a widespread increase in crime.
The Truth Social post also marked a sharp shift from Trump’s remarks during a June roundtable with the Fraternal Order of Police, where he claimed the national murder rate had “plummeted by 28%” since he took office — a figure that overstates the decline and overlooks the fact that murder rates began falling well before he returned to office.
According to data consulting firm AH Datalytics, which manages the Real-Time Crime Index — a free tool that collects crime data from more than 400 law enforcement agencies nationwide — the number of homicides between January and May 2025 was 20.3% lower than the same period in 2024.
Similarly, data released in May by the Major Cities Chiefs Association showed that homicides fell roughly 20% in the first quarter of 2025 compared with the first three months of the prior year. The group’s data is based on a survey of 68 major metropolitan police departments nationwide.
Researchers at the Council on Criminal Justice note in their report that it’s difficult to pinpoint a single reason for the drop in homicides, but they note that fewer people appear to be exposed to high-risk situations, such as robberies.
Most major crimes fell in the first half of 2025 compared with the same period last year, according to the council’s report.
Motor vehicle thefts dropped by 25%, while reported gun assaults fell 21%. Robberies, residential and non-residential burglaries, shoplifting, and aggravated and sexual assaults also saw double-digit declines
Drug offenses held steady, while domestic violence reports rose slightly — by about 3%. Carjackings declined 24% and larcenies were down 5%.
Compared with the first half of 2019, before the pandemic and nationwide reckoning over racial justice and policing, overall homicides are down 14%, robberies by 30%, and sexual assaults by 28%.
Still, more than 60% of the cities in the council’s study sample report homicide rates that remain above 2019 levels.
Motor vehicle theft remains the only crime tracked in the report that is still elevated compared to pre-pandemic levels — up 25% since 2019 — although it has declined sharply since 2023.
The council also released another analysis on the lethality of violent crime, showing that while violent incidents have decreased, the share of violence that ends in death has increased significantly. In 1994, there were 2 homicides per 1,000 assaults and about 16 per 1,000 robberies. By 2020, those figures rose to 7.2 and 55.8, respectively.
Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.
Login
