Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. departs after testifying in a confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Jan. 30, 2025, in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

A federal judge in Rhode Island will grant a request from Democratic state officials to temporarily prevent President Donald Trump’s administration from cutting state health grants, the judge said at a Thursday afternoon hearing.

U.S. District Court Judge Mary McElroy said the 24 Democratic attorneys general and governors were likely to prevail on the merits of their case seeking to restore funding that the Trump administration’s Department of Health and Human Services abruptly rescinded late last month.

““I’m going to grant the temporary restraining order. The balance of the equities are to maintaining the funding as it is,” McElroy said after brief arguments from attorneys representing a consortium of state governments and HHS. “The harm to the plaintiff states and the plaintiff agencies if we cease that … is clearly irreparable.”

HHS, under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., revoked $11 billion in grant funding to states beginning on March 24, the states wrote in a Tuesday filing requesting the court block the move.

McElroy indicated at least part of her decision was based on the broadness of the Trump administration’s argument.

The administration was hampered from fighting the case after receiving the states’ motion for a temporary restraining order and “4,000 pages of exhibits” mere days ago, Leslie Kane, who represented HHS, said.

“Given the time limitation … it really significantly limits any substantive argument I can make at this time,” Kane said. She still offered a general objection to the “extraordinary emergency relief” she said the states were seeking.

But McElroy, whom Trump appointed during his first presidency, ruled that the “voluminous” record provided by the states weighed in favor of granting the order.

“Given that the government really hasn’t had time to make any kind of objection except a broad objection, I don’t see how I can deny the temporary restraining order on the record that’s before the court, which, again: quite voluminous,” McElroy said.

States scrambling

The rescissions of grant funding in late March from COVID-19-era laws surprised state health departments and led to rapid layoffs and pauses in contract work while states scrambled to understand what other cuts they would need to make.

Sarah Rice, an assistant attorney general in Rhode Island who argued for the Democratic states, listed several effects already or soon to be felt by the states.

In Minnesota, 170 employees had already been laid off, with hundreds more at risk of job loss. Rhode Island employees with extensive training on vaccine storage might be laid off. Subcontractors in Wisconsin were told to pause their work, and Washington state may be unable to move substance abuse and mental health patients from a “high-acuity” treatment setting to community treatment, Rice said.

“These are just exemplars from the very many declarations that the state employees put together,” she said.

States had no advance warning their funding would be pulled, and were especially shocked by the reversal of funding because HHS had told them how to continue to use COVID-19 funding, Rice said.

“This was quite a surprising turn because HHS had prior issued guidance that instructed the states how to modify these programs to comply with the appropriations statutes after the public health emergency related to COVID-19 had ended,” Rice said.

The department had even granted states extensions for various grants as late as June 2027, Rice added.

The attorneys general of Colorado, Rhode Island, California, Minnesota, Washington, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon and Wisconsin and Govs. Andy Beshear of Kentucky and Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania brought the case.

New Nissan cars are driven onto a rail car to be transported from an automobile processing terminal located at the Port of Los Angeles on April 3, 2025 in Wilmington, California. The Japanese automotive maker is being impacted by President Trump’s new 25 percent imported automobile tariffs. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Markets and business owners in the United States and around the world reeled Thursday following President Donald Trump’s announcement of sweeping and steep tariffs that are not “reciprocal” but rather punish many countries that U.S. importers heavily rely on, experts say.

U.S. stocks plummeted, posting the worst one-day drop since June 2020, financial media reported at the closing bell Thursday. Business groups issued criticisms, experts predicted increases in household spending and even a conservative Republican senator pushed legislation that would increase congressional power over tariffs.

Trump unveiled the tariffs Wednesday during a White House Rose Garden event billed as “Liberation Day,” where he told the crowd that trading partners and allies have “torn apart our once beautiful American dream.”

His answer: Signing a “historic executive order instituting reciprocal tariffs on countries throughout the world. Reciprocal. That means they do it to us, and we do it to them. Very simple.”

But economists say the new U.S. tariffs Trump revealed Wednesday — illustrated on a large display table — do not match one-for-one other countries’ levies, as Trump said during his remarks.

Trump held in his hands a chart that claimed to show a list of other countries’ taxes on American imports.

But it was wrong.

The problem with the chart

Vietnam does not charge a 90% tariff on American imports, as the chart said. Rather its rate for imported U.S. goods was on average 9.4% in 2023, according to the World Trade Organization.

“The actual calculation (circulated by the White House) doesn’t factor in other countries’ tariffs,” said Brad Setser, senior fellow on global trade at the Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank focused on international affairs.

In other words, Setser told States Newsroom Thursday, “It’s a tariff on big bilateral trade deficits.”

And so, what does that mean? And why did the president’s chart say that the U.S. would now be charging a 46% tax on every imported good from Vietnam?

Vietnam is a small country, but a competitive exporter, particularly in broadcasting equipment, microchips and computers. And the U.S. is a big customer.

In 2023, the U.S. imported $118 billion in goods from Vietnam, while Vietnam imported about $9.6 billion in U.S. products that year, according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity, a trade data project with roots at MIT.

The White House claimed on the chart that Vietnam applies a 90% tariff on the U.S. — when actually that percentage is roughly the dollar amount of the U.S. trade deficit divided by the dollar amount of how much the U.S. imports from the country. So, $120B – $10B = $110B, then divide that by $120B, and you get roughly 91%.

Trump said he would be “kind” and give trading partners “discounted” tariff rates by about half, and that’s how Vietnam landed at a 46% tax on its imports into the U.S.

“So Vietnam got hit with a huge tariff. It is literally that simple,” Setser said.

Economists and journalists almost immediately took to social media to question the glaring inaccuracy.

‘Bombshell’ tariffs

The new rates are a “bombshell” on U.S. allies and trading partners, said Jack Zhang, a professor of political science who runs the Trade War Lab at the University of Kansas.

Vietnam tried to head off Trump’s announcement in March by cutting levies on U.S. imports and signing “big purchase agreements,” Zhang said, but it didn’t work.

Historically countries have negotiated tariffs product by product in “laborious” talks, Zhang said.

“You know, ‘You reduce tariffs on your stuff, I will reduce tariffs on maybe some other stuff.’ And it nets out to be fair. This sort of lazy, back-of-the-envelope kind of calculation based on the trade deficit, it makes it really hard to negotiate in those terms,” he said.

Products from the European Union will now be taxed at 20%, Japan’s new rate is 24%, and South Korea’s 25% — all significant U.S. allies and trading partners. The EU has already threatened to retaliate if the U.S. does not come to the negotiating table.

Countries carrying a trade surplus with the U.S. — meaning they import more American goods than they sell back to the U.S. — did not escape the policy, as Trump imposed a universal 10% tariff on every nation.

The United Kingdom, which runs a trade surplus with the U.S. and in 2023 charged an average of 3.8% on imported American products, will now see a 10% tax on its items headed to U.S. buyers. Australia, whose Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called the tariffs “totally unwarranted,” faces the same situation.

Trump’s informational table falsely stated that the U.K., Australia and a host of other countries — including the Heard and McDonald Islands, inhabited by penguins and seals — have been charging a 10% tax on American goods.

‘Damage to their own people’

Trump did not include Canada and Mexico in his announcement Wednesday.

But those countries are already subject to up to 25% taxes on steel, aluminum and other imports that the administration enacted in March, after declaring emergencies over illicit fentanyl and immigrants crossing the northern and southern borders.

Additionally Trump’s 25% foreign car tax launched Thursday.  The neighboring countries factor big into the automobile supply chain.

“Given the prospective damage to their own people, the American administration should eventually change course, but I don’t want to give false hope. The president believes that what he is doing is best for the American economy,” Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said Thursday in remarks that streamed on C-SPAN. Carney said he and Trump have agreed to economic and security negotiations next month.

The proposed tariffs will amount to an average $2,100 tax increase per American household, according to an analysis released Thursday by the center-right Tax Foundation, which advocates for lower taxes.

The average levy on all imports will reach 18.8%, compared to 2.5% in 2024, according to the foundation’s modeling.

Numerous trade and advocacy groups spoke out against the tariffs.

The National Association of Manufacturers urged the Trump administration to “minimize tariff costs for manufacturers that are investing and expanding in the U.S.”

The center-right Taxpayers Protection Alliance issued a scathing statement Thursday. “​​American consumers and taxpayers should be appalled by this executive overreach,” said its president David Williams.

States Newsroom spoke to small business owners from around the country who expressed fear about the cost of day-to-day supplies. One Arizona coffee shop owner told the news outlet that he purchased a year’s supply of disposable coffee cups from China last year in anticipation of Trump igniting a trade war.

Trump announced a 34% tax on Chinese imports Wednesday, and some experts say that will stack on top of the existing 20% tariffs Trump imposed during his first administration that were kept in place by former President Joe Biden.

Senators want more control over tariffs

A bipartisan pair of senators introduced on Thursday what they’ve titled the “American Trade Review Act of 2025,” aiming to claw back congressional power over the president’s near unilateral decision-making on U.S. tariffs.

“Inflation and high costs are a threat to the stability and prosperity of American businesses of all sizes, to our farmers and to our consumers,” Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington state said on the Senate floor. She and Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa are co-sponsoring the legislation.

“We live now in an interconnected world, a global economy, and advances in technology and transportation have brought that world closer and closer together. We have a global economy,” Cantwell continued.

States Newsroom sent a list of questions to the White House regarding their informational table of tariffs presented Wednesday and an opportunity to respond to criticism.

In a statement, White House spokesperson Kush Desai said, “Trillions in historic investment commitments from industry leaders ranging from Apple to Hyundai to TSMC are indicative of how this administration is working with the private sector while implementing President Trump’s pro-growth, pro-worker America First agenda of tariffs, deregulation, tax cuts, and the unleashing of American energy.

“These America First economic policies delivered historic job, wage, and investment growth in his first term, and everyone from Main Street to Wall Street is again going to thrive as President Trump secures our nation’s economic future,” the statement continued.

TSMC, a Taiwanese mega semiconductor producer, received $6.6 billion in direct funding from the U.S., plus $5 billion in cheap loans, under Biden’s administration after he signed the CHIPS and Science Act, according to an analysis by the Council on Foreign Relations. The country announced an additional $100 billion investment in early March.

Trump announced a 32% tariff on the island nation.

The seven members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court hear oral arguments in 2023. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

The Wisconsin Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday in a case related to a statewide literacy program that considers Gov. Tony Evers’ partial veto power and lawmakers’ handling of emergency funds.

The case comes as the result of the last state budget and efforts by state lawmakers, Gov. Tony Evers and the Department of Public Instruction to overhaul literacy programs in Wisconsin. 

During the 2023-25 budget cycle, lawmakers placed $50 million aside in an emergency fund controlled by the Joint Finance Committee that was meant to go towards funding new literacy programs. Lawmakers also passed AB 321 — now 2023 Wisconsin Act 20 — to establish the policy portions of the initiative, which included creating a new office in the Department of Public Instruction and instructing the agency to hire literacy coaches and create a grant program. 

Lawmakers subsequently passed SB 971, now 2023 Wisconsin Act 100, to create a mechanism for DPI to spend the money when the funds were transferred. A partial veto by Gov. Tony Evers caused lawmakers to sue, saying it wasn’t an appropriations bill therefore not subject to a partial veto.  Evers argued that the law included an appropriation and further asserted that DPI has been urging lawmakers to release the funds, which will lapse back into the state’s $4 billion budget surplus if not used before June 30.

Before the Supreme Court heard the case, a Dane County judge had ruled Evers’ veto proper, but said there wasn’t a case for the release of the funds. Both parties appealed to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed to take the appeal directly

Assistant Attorney General Charlotte Gibson, the Department of Justice lawyer for DPI and Evers, argued that lawmakers don’t have the power to withhold the money and the court should order the release of the money to DPI. 

The issues at hand, Gibson said, “reflect an interlocking strategy to control how the executive branch spends funds and to limit the governor’s partial veto power. It involves dissecting appropriations into multiple bills and crediting funds set aside for executive agency programs to [the Joint Finance Committee] to control their destination and use. Those efforts are illegal, and they misread the governor’s veto authority.” 

Gibson said that the intention of the law, and the money being placed in the emergency fund, was to give money to specific agencies for specific purposes. A brief notes that “over the past few decades, the Legislature has increasingly used that appropriation not for emergencies, but rather to fund anticipated expenses through a legislative committee that purports to retain veto power over how the executive branch spends appropriated money.” 

Gibson said that the purpose of the emergency fund statute was not to serve as “a holding pen for lots of money that the Legislature wanted to give [the committee] power over,” but lawmakers are using it “to say, actually, we can spend it on whatever purpose…” 

“We think to correct the constitutional violation here, this agency can order those funds to be released,” Gibson said. 

Justices questioned Gibson on why the funds would need to be released to DPI if there was never an appropriation.

“The reality is the money’s sitting in a fund right now, and it hasn’t done anything with it,” Justice Rebecca Dallet said. “For all, we know they are going to use it for an emergency and not give it to anybody for anything else … that just hasn’t happened yet.”

Gibson replied that DPI has asked for the money and lawmakers haven’t given it to the agency. 

“But, I’m saying, [JFC] hasn’t appropriated it anywhere,” Dallet said. “Is DPI having an emergency where you think this is emergency money that you should get…?” 

“No, we think it’s unconstitutional for DPI not to get the money.” Gibson said. 

“Even if you were right, that the statutory structure here is constitutionally problematic, I still don’t see how you win and get the money, because that is not what the law says,” Justice Brian Hagedorn said. “There’s no provision of law that actually gives the money to DPI or appropriates the money to DPI.”

Gibson noted that the co-chairs of the committee Sen. Howard Marklein and Rep. Mark Born have said the money is earmarked for the purpose of the literacy programs. 

“What we’re struggling with is that we understand that there are hints and clues, earmarks — so different from an appropriation — and the way I’m looking at it, it could probably be parked in that fund indefinitely and that’s where I’m struggling with what’s the legal nexus,” said Justice Janet Protasiewicz. 

Ryan Walsh, the attorney representing the Legislature, argued Evers’ veto was inappropriate because the bill was not an appropriation bill, and that the remedy should be that the bill is law as passed by the Legislature, without Evers’ veto. 

“You can’t have an appropriation bill that makes no appropriation. It just doesn’t make sense,” Walsh said. However, he also said that if he is wrong then it means the law was improperly enacted because lawmakers passed it by voice vote, not roll call as is required of appropriations bills. 

Walsh said that under his argument the money would stay in JFC and go back to the treasury at the end of the biennium. 

“It doesn’t go to DPI,” Walsh said. “There is no obligation for [JFC] to disperse this money.” 

Justice Jill Karofsky said that she didn’t disagree about the discretion of the committee, but asked about the potential for lawmakers to abuse the discretion. 

“There aren’t really any guardrails here,” Karofsky said. 

Walsh said abuse “just doesn’t happen.” 

“What would stop the Legislature from emptying every last dollar of the Wisconsin treasury into a [JFC] emergency account?” Karofsky asked further. 

Walsh said many things could prevent that from happening, including the governor refusing to sign a budget that does so. 

Walsh also said the emergency account is a small portion of the state budget. He said that in the last 10 years the percentage of the budget that has gone to the supplemental account has ranged from 0.06% in the 2017-19 budget to 0.33% in the 2021-23 budget.

Justice Ann Walsh Bradley said she thought “part of why we are here [is] that some want us to take a look at this structure — allowing JFC to have this discretion — and that to not address it would be a rather lame opinion.”

Walsh said that he didn’t think the Court needed to reach the constitutional question. 

“I don’t think anybody is insisting that you decide whether [Wisconsin should retain the] supplemental funding structure, which has been in place a long time, and by the way, the governor and the Legislature are assuming it’s still in place,” Walsh said. “We have a new budget pending… There are lots of reasons to be cautious here.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Dr. Mehmet Oz speaks during a confirmation hearing with the Senate Finance Committee in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on March 14, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Oz has been confirmed as President Donald Trump’s nominee to be administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate on Thursday confirmed former television personality and onetime Pennsylvania political candidate Mehmet Oz as director of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The 53-45 party-line vote places Oz at the helm of the federal agency responsible for administering health care programs relied on by 1 in 4 Americans, including children, seniors and lower-income people.

His confirmation comes as Republicans in Congress look to Medicaid, a state-federal partnership that covers medical expenses for some low-income and older Americans, as a source for hundreds of billions in spending cuts to help pay for extending the 2017 GOP tax law.

Oz testified during his confirmation hearing in mid-March that there are several “painful truths” confronting federal programs within CMS.

“Health care expenditures are growing 2 to 3% faster than our economy; not sustainable. The Medicare trust fund will be insolvent within a decade, that’s the 2.9% taken out of your paycheck,” Oz said. “Medicaid is the number one expense item in most states, consuming 30% of those state budgets, and that’s crowding out essential services like schools and public safety that many of you spent your careers trying to develop. Our health care cost per person in this country is twice that of other developed nations.”

Oz said that chronic disease, which he argued is “linked to poor lifestyle choices,” drives much of the federal spending on health care. He singled out obesity as a central issue.

Oz testified he intended to “empower beneficiaries with better tools and more transparency,” “incentivize health care providers to optimize care with real-time information” in part by using artificial intelligence to “liberate doctors and nurses from paperwork,” and modernize efforts that track waste, fraud and abuse.

‘Ludicrous wellness grifting’

Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said during the hearing that Oz’s comments during a failed Senate campaign about privatizing Medicare were unacceptable.

Wyden also criticized Oz for promoting products on this daytime television show that had no scientific research supporting their claims of improving people’s health or preventing disease.  

“Dr. Oz has used his program to promote some of the most ludicrous wellness grifting that I’ve heard about to date,” Wyden said.

Idaho Republican Sen. Mike Crapo, chairman of the committee, said during a floor speech Thursday that Oz was well qualified to run CMS.

“At his hearing, Dr. Oz spoke strongly about his desire to modernize the CMS and encourage a healthy lifestyle for all Americans,” Crapo said. “His vision for treating the underlying causes of chronic disease and equipping providers with innovative technologies to serve patients will also be a much- needed sea change at CMS.”

CMS scope

The agency manages several federal health programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program and the health insurance marketplaces established by the Affordable Care Act.

The agency spent more than $1.5 trillion during the last full fiscal year, about 22% of all federal spending.

The more than 6,000 people who work at CMS as well as contractors “process over one billion Medicare claims annually, monitor quality of care, provide the states with matching funds for Medicaid benefits, and develop policies and procedures designed to give the best possible service to beneficiaries,” according to the latest financial report.

CMS is one of many agencies housed in the Department of Health and Human Services that is subject to restructuring plans from Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Oz background

Oz received his undergraduate degree from Harvard University before earning a joint M.D. and MBA from the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and Wharton Business School.

He starred in the daytime show “Dr. Oz,” which ran from 2009 until 2022.

He won the Republican primary in the 2022 Pennsylvania U.S. Senate race but was defeated during the general election by Democratic Sen. John Fetterman.

When President Donald Trump announced in November he intended to nominate Oz to lead CMS, he wrote that Oz would “cut waste and fraud within our Country’s most expensive Government Agency, which is a third of our Nation’s Healthcare spend, and a quarter of our entire National Budget.”

Justice Ann Walsh Bradley speaks at an election night party for Justice-elect Susan Crawford. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Justice Ann Walsh Bradley will retire from the Wisconsin Supreme Court in July with one more title on her curriculum vitae: chief justice.

Bradley, the Court’s most senior member, was elected by her colleagues Thursday to serve as the leader of the Court. She’ll succeed outgoing Chief Justice Annette Ziegler, whose second two-year term in the top position ends April 30.

Bradley’s term will run about two months starting May 1, and she’ll step down June 30 in anticipation of her retirement. In preparation for that, the justices also elected Justice Jill Karofsky to fill out the remainder of the two-year chief justice term, ending April 30, 2027. 

Both Bradley and Karofsky, who was elected to the Court in 2020, are members of the Court’s liberal majority. 

From the late 19th century to the mid-2010s, the state Supreme Court’s chief justice had been selected by seniority. In 2015, a constitutional amendment drafted by the Legislature’s Republican majority changed the selection process to a majority vote of the Court’s seven justices. The amendment also instituted a two-year term for the chief justice.

The amendment was aimed at unseating Justice Shirley Abrahamson, the Court’s first woman justice. Abrahamson had been chief justice since 1996, the second-longest to serve in the position. After voters ratified the amendment in April 2015, a majority of the justices — at the time, five conservatives — elected Justice Pat Roggensack chief. They reelected her in 2019, then elected Ziegler as her successor in 2021.

Bradley said in a statement that her election as chief justice is a “tremendous honor.”

“It has been my life’s goal to honor the rule of law, enhance access to justice, and serve the 5.9 million people who call Wisconsin home,” Bradley said. “Serving as Chief Justice enables me to further those goals.” 

Bradley also participated in her final oral arguments Thursday morning, where Ziegler delivered kind words about her and called attention to her thorough resume and accomplishments

Prior to her time in law, Bradley served as a high school teacher before earning her law degree at UW-Madison Law School in 1976. Bradley worked in private practice, as a city attorney and as a public defender, including being appointed to the state public defender board in 1983.

In 1985, Bradley was appointed to serve as a circuit court judge in Marathon County. 

Bradley won her first term on the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 1995, and was reelected for two consecutive terms in 2005 and 2015. She decided to retire this year and will be succeeded by Justice-elect Susan Crawford, who defeated her challenger Brad Schimel Tuesday ensuring a 4-3 liberal majority on the Court until at least 2028. 

Ziegler said Bradley has likely heard over 2,400 cases in oral arguments, give or take some cases, during her many years of service.

“I can assure you it’s quite impressive,” Ziegler said. “I don’t know how many opinions that you’ve written, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, but that number is also certainly impressive, and so, I would like to thank you Justice Ann Walsh Bradley for your service to the public and your service on this court.” 

Bradley thanked Ziegler and said that it’s been an honor to serve. She also thanked her husband and family for their support throughout the years. 

“People ask me, ‘Will you miss this place and miss this job?’ And, of course, I will,” Bradley said. “What makes this job is not only the heavy responsibility and an opportunity to serve, but an opportunity to serve with people who care deeply about the rule of law and care deeply about the people of this state.”

Karofsky said in a statement about her election to serve as chief justice that she appreciates the confidence of her colleagues and she will “continue to work respectfully with every member of this Court to ensure the administration of Court business is conducted in a fair and efficient manner.” 

“The people of Wisconsin have great faith in this Court, and I intend to be a Chief that increases the people’s confidence even further,” Karofsky said. “I hope to be someone that every judge and staff person in the judicial system finds approachable, so we can continue to improve the service we provide in all 72 counties, keeping each of us safe and ensuring access to justice.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The Lyndon Baines Johnson Department of Education Building in Washington, D.C., pictured on Nov. 25, 2024. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)

This story was updated at 6:44 p.m. EDT.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Education demanded in a letter to state education leaders on Thursday that they certify all K-12 schools in their states are complying with an earlier Dear Colleague letter banning diversity, equity and inclusion practices if they want to keep receiving federal financial assistance.

The department’s sweeping order gives K-12 state education agencies 10 days to collect the certifications of compliance from local school governing bodies, and then sign them and return them to the federal department.

The new demand stems from a February letter threatening to rescind federal funds for schools that use DEI, or race-conscious practices, in admissions, programming, training, hiring, scholarships and other aspects of student life.

Craig Trainor, the department’s acting assistant secretary for civil rights, said “federal financial assistance is a privilege, not a right,” in a statement Thursday.

“When state education commissioners accept federal funds, they agree to abide by federal antidiscrimination requirements,” Trainor said. He added that “unfortunately, we have seen too many schools flout or outright violate these obligations, including by using (diversity, equity and inclusion) programs to discriminate against one group of Americans to favor another based on identity characteristics in clear violation of Title VI.”

He did not cite examples in the statement.

Trainor said the department “is taking an important step toward ensuring that states understand — and comply with — their existing obligations under civil rights laws and Students v. Harvard.”

In the February letter, Trainor offered a wide-ranging interpretation of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2023 involving Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. The nation’s highest court struck down the use of affirmative action in college admissions.

Trainor wrote that though the ruling “addressed admissions decisions, the Supreme Court’s holding applies more broadly.”

The four-page letter raised a slew of questions for schools — from pre-K through college — over what exactly falls within the requirements. 

The department later released a Frequently Asked Questions document on the letter in an attempt to provide more guidance.

In the document, the department noted that it’s prohibited from “exercising control over the content of school curricula” and “nothing in Title VI, its implementing regulations, or the Dear Colleague Letter requires or authorizes a school to restrict any rights otherwise protected by the First Amendment.”

The agency also clarified that “programs focused on interests in particular cultures, heritages, and areas of the world” are allowed as long as “they are open to all students regardless of race.”

Teachers unions react

Meanwhile, legal challenges are already underway against the Dear Colleague letter, including one spearheaded by the American Federation of Teachers and another from the National Education Association. 

“In the middle of a school year, the president is trying to bully the very same school districts that he insisted, just a few weeks ago, should be in charge of education,” Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said in a Thursday statement.

Weingarten added that “this is a power grab and a money grab — and it’s also blatantly unlawful.”

“We know the administration wants to divert federal education funds into block grants, vouchers or tax cuts, but it’s simply not legal; only Congress can do that. Further, federal statute explicitly prohibits any president from telling schools and colleges what to teach, and funds cannot be withheld on the basis of Title VI Civil Rights Act claims without due process,” she said. 

In a Thursday statement, Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association, said “educators and parents know that teaching should be guided by what is best for students, not by threat of illegal restrictions and punishment.”

“That is why we sued the Trump administration — and we stand by our lawsuit,” she said.

“This latest action by the Trump administration to shut down free speech and coerce educators to abandon inclusive practices at school remains illegal and unconstitutional as we pointed out in our legal filing,” she added. 

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth speaks during his Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on Jan. 14, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The Defense Department’s Office of the Inspector General announced Thursday it has opened an investigation into Secretary Pete Hegseth’s highly criticized use of the Signal messaging app to communicate about plans to bomb Yemen.

The evaluation stems from a letter the chairman and ranking member of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, Republican Roger Wicker of Mississippi and Democrat Jack Reed of Rhode Island, sent last week, asking the watchdog agency to look into the matter. 

Acting Defense Department Inspector General Steven A. Stebbins wrote in a memo announcing the investigation that the Inspector General Act of 1978 “authorizes us to have access to personnel and materials as we determine necessary to perform our oversight in a timely manner.”

The purpose of the evaluation, he wrote, “is to determine the extent to which the Secretary of Defense and other DoD personnel complied with DoD policies and procedures for the use of a commercial messaging application for official business. Additionally, we will review compliance with classification and records retention requirements.”

The investigation will take place in Washington, D.C., as well as U.S. Central Command Headquarters in Tampa, Florida.

Concerns about the use of Signal, an encrypted messaging app available commercially, began after The Atlantic published an article detailing how its editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, was inadvertently added to a group chat exchanging messages about national security plans. The ensuing controversy has been dubbed “Signalgate.”

Vice President J.D. Vance, Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, National Security Advisor Michael Waltz and others were all in the group.

They were discussing plans for U.S. troops to bomb Houthi rebels in Yemen, which has raised significant concerns about how senior Trump administration officials are communicating and handling classified information. 

A NOAA NO-XP radar antenna prior to operations in VORTEX 2 in Norman, Oklahoma, on Oct. 5, 2010.  (Photo credit NOAA)

Democrats on the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee and a panel of experts on Wednesday blasted the Trump administration’s reduction to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s budget and workforce, citing consequences for everyday weather data, national security and affected industries.

Virtually every American interacts with NOAA’s weather data, which supplies forecasting services across the country.

The agency’s climate and oceanic research supports the U.S. Navy’s operations and even the commercial fishing industry – described during the forum as having “a love-hate relationship” with the agency – depends on NOAA to open and close fisheries, the lawmakers and experts said.

But those missions were imperiled in February by the firings of 7% of NOAA’s staff of scientists and others overseeing federal research and monitoring of weather and oceans, the group of Democrats said.

“These critical functions are being dismantled by the sweeping, indiscriminate layoffs of nonpartisan public servants and facility closures,” U.S. Rep. Seth Magaziner, a Rhode Island Democrat who led the forum, said.

The reductions in force at NOAA, which houses agencies including the National Weather Service, National Ocean Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service and the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, were part of across-the-board cuts to the federal workforce sought by President Donald Trump and billionaire White House adviser Elon Musk.

The group of Democrats, who met without involvement of the committee’s Republican majority, said the cuts would hurt a wide range of Americans who depend on the agency’s data collection and rulemaking.

Data collection and dissemination

One of NOAA’s core missions is collecting and publishing weather data across the country used in forecasting apps and other common sources of weather information.

“There is no weather forecast that’s produced in this country that isn’t dependent on NOAA, none” Mary Glackin, a former deputy under secretary for operations at the agency under presidents of both parties, said.

The availability of federal data made possible the creation of companies like Accuweather, which started by collecting data in a garage, Glackin said.

U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Jon White told the panel NOAA’s extensive forecasting data was also critical to naval operations, saying reductions in that data would hurt the military’s readiness, both shipping out of domestic stations and in potential conflict zones.

“Hurricane forecasting and typhoon forecasting rely on the data from NOAA, whether it’s satellite data,” White said. “Reductions in that data and that information provide critical threats to our military infrastructure. Ships that (start) out of Norfolk and San Diego rely on that information about upcoming storms, especially hurricanes on the East Coast. … It’s not just billions of dollars of ship damage: It’s lives that are at stake.”

Industry needs NOAA

Magaziner was the one who called the commercial fishing industry’s connection with NOAA “a love-hate relationship,” but he and witnesses noted that the agency oversees the most basic functions the industry needs to operate.

Sarah Schumann, a fisherman with operations in Rhode Island and Alaska, criticized President Joe Biden’s administration for allying too strongly with offshore wind developers, but said the new administration’s actions were also detrimental to the industry.

“These cuts will bog down the agency’s ability to serve the public for fishermen,” Schumann said. “Because of climate change, we desperately need faster, more nimble and more collaborative data collection and decision-making, and there is a very slim chance we’re going to get that with this.”

Trump’s slowdown of regulations – requiring federal agencies to withdraw 10 regulations for every one new regulation put into place – has also hampered commercial fishing operations.

Opening and closing fisheries for a season are done through NOAA rulemaking, environmental attorney Lizzie Lewis told the panel. Bluefin tuna fisheries were not closed on time and were overfished by 125% and fisheries in New England are unlikely to open on time, she said.

Efficiency?

The cuts, part of Musk’s initiative to make government more efficient, are not having their intended effect in streamlining government, Magaziner and others on the panel, including New Mexico’s Melanie Stansbury, said.

“The assertion that mass layoffs will somehow improve efficiency is not only misleading, it is outright dangerous,” Magaziner said. “Real people, real jobs and real lives are on the line. Without NOAA’s real-time data,  emergency responders are left without the critical information they need to respond to impending disasters like wildfires, hurricanes, floods and severe storms putting millions at risk.”

The layoffs also decimated morale at the agency and made attracting qualified young people to its public service mission more difficult, Lewis told the panel.

“We are losing an entire generation of scientists and leaders who can help this country,” Lewis said. “We can keep its people safe and can grow its economy. And that to me is the devastating human cost.”

The U.S. Capitol. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Republicans released an updated budget resolution Wednesday that sets a May 9 deadline for more than a dozen committees to approve their slice of the massive package that will permanently extend the GOP tax cuts and make significant reductions in spending.

The 70-page budget resolution, however, includes different guidelines for the House and Senate committees, allowing GOP leaders to sidestep their differences on policy for the moment, but not the long haul.

The budget resolution also sets the stage for the House to raise the debt limit by $4 trillion and the Senate to lift it by not more than $5 trillion in the reconciliation package.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., wrote in a statement that final approval of the budget resolution would “unlock the ability for the appropriate Senate committees to fully fund our border needs for four years, provide much-needed financial relief to our military at a time of great danger, make the 2017 tax cuts permanent to energize the economy, and do what has been promised for decades: go through every line item of the budget to cut wasteful and unnecessary spending — hopefully by the trillions.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., released a statement of his own, saying the “parliamentarian has reviewed the Budget Committee’s substitute amendment and deemed it appropriate for consideration under the Budget Act.”

“It is now time for the Senate to move forward with this budget resolution in order to further advance our shared Republican agenda in Congress,” Thune wrote.

The Senate parliamentarian is the nonpartisan scorekeeper who ensures everything included in a reconciliation bill meets the chamber’s strict rules.

Here comes the vote-a-rama

The complicated reconciliation process will allow the GOP to approve its core policy goals without needing support from Democrats in the Senate, where 60 votes are usually needed to advance legislation. Reconciliation does, however, come with several hoops to jump through.

One of those hurdles will come later this week when the Senate endures the dreaded vote-a-rama; a marathon amendment voting session that typically lasts overnight. After that, senators will be able to send the budget resolution to the House for final approval.

The tax-and-spending blueprint released Wednesday will send a dozen House committees instructions on how to draft their pieces of the package, while 10 Senate committees will write bills.

Typically, the committee instructions, which just include a budget target, are similar, if not identical, for the House and Senate. But differences of opinion between Republican leaders about how much to cut federal spending, as well as other disagreements, led to differing instructions.

The House has a significantly higher threshold for cutting government spending than the Senate.

The Agriculture Committee needs to slice at least $230 billion; Education and Workforce must reduce spending by a minimum of $330 billion; Energy and Commerce needs to cut no less than $880 billion; Financial Services must find at least $1 billion in savings; Natural Resources has a minimum of $1 billion; Oversight and Government Reform has a floor of $50 billion; and the Transportation Committee needs to reduce deficits by $10 billion or more.

House committees that can increase the federal deficit include the Armed Services Committee with a cap of $100 billion in new spending, Homeland Security with a $90 billion ceiling for new funding for programs it oversees, Judiciary with a maximum of $110 billion and Ways and Means, which can increase deficits up to $4.5 trillion for tax cuts.

Spending cuts in Senate

Senators set a much lower bar for themselves in terms of spending cuts, though the way the reconciliation instructions are written, as a floor and not a ceiling, will give leeway for those committees to cut much more.

Four Senate committees — Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry; Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs; Energy and Natural Resources; and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, or HELP — must each find at least $1 billion in spending cuts over the 10-year budget window.

Senate committees also got instructions for increasing the deficit, which will allow them to spend up to the dollar amount outlined in the budget resolution. Those committees include Armed Services at $150 billion; Commerce, Science and Transportation with $20 billion; Environment and Public Works at $1 billion; Finance with $1.5 trillion in new deficits, likely for tax cuts; Homeland Security at $175 billion and Judiciary with $175 billion.

Once the House and Senate both vote to adopt the same budget resolution, the committees can formally begin drafting and marking up their bills.

Those bills, according to the instructions, must be sent to the Budget committees before May 9. That panel will then bundle all of the various pieces together into one reconciliation package and send it to the floor.

The House and Senate must vote to approve the same reconciliation package before it can go to President Donald Trump for his signature and become law.

Republicans have a paper-thin majority in the House and will need to ensure that lawmakers from across the party support all of the elements going into the reconciliation package. Even a few defectors in that chamber could block the bill from moving forward.

Senate GOP leaders have a bit more wiggle room, but cannot lose more than three of their members and pass a reconciliation bill. 

Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, who said the power issues in Wisconsin mirrors current federal issues, at a press conference in December 2024. (Photo by: Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

The Wisconsin Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a case that could determine whether a law passed in 2018 that requires approval from legislators on civil settlements violates the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. 

The case — Josh Kaul v. Wisconsin State Legislature — is the latest in an ongoing legal struggle focused on the division of power between the Legislature and the executive branch.

A  law passed after Gov. Tony Evers and Attorney General Kaul were elected in 2018, but before they took office, gave the Legislature, through the Joint Finance Committee, the ability to sign off on and decide how to spend court settlement money. That had been a power traditionally held by the attorney general.

It was part of a slate of laws passed and signed by Republicans during the lame duck period just weeks before the new Democratic administration took power in 2019. The Joint Finance Committee has become the vehicle for lawmakers to maintain control over  actions that agencies take outside of the legislative process, and this is not the first lawsuit the state’s top court has heard on the issue.

The case made it to the state Supreme Court after Kaul appealed a 2024 decision by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals District II that overturned a favorable decision made in 2022 by Dane County judge and now Justice-elect Susan Crawford.

Kaul said at a press conference after the arguments that the actions Wisconsin Republicans have taken to strip power from the executive branch are similar to those being taken by Republicans at the federal level. 

“What we are seeing in these cases in Wisconsin in a lot of ways mirrors what’s going on with the federal government right now,” Kaul said. “At the federal level what we’re seeing is the executive branch trying to pull legislative power into its own hands and making decisions about how legislation should be applied or whether it should be applied. Here in Wisconsin what we saw instead was an effort to concentrate power in the Legislature.” 

Kaul said that checks and balances and “multiple different sources of authority within the government” are necessary to protect the “our freedom and our liberty.”

“That’s why we have three co-equal branches of government,” Kaul said. “This case is about supporting that principle and ensuring that the separation of powers remains strong here in Wisconsin.” 

During the arguments, Assistant Attorney General Hannah Jurss argued that the “executive branch has the power to execute the law” and the “Legislature’s constitutional power is to write the law.” 

In a 2019 case, the state Supreme Court ruled that the law was constitutional. However, in a brief, Jurrs argues that the decision was not a broad endorsement of the law, but only “located a few instances where the statutes could be applied constitutionally and went no further.” 

Jurrs argued the law is unconstitutional in part because there is no way for the executive to override a decision by the lawmakers, which has infringed on the executive branch’s work. The 2018 law has led to disputes between Kaul’s office and lawmakers over resolving cases involving state taxpayers. 

“Having this sword, the legislative committee sword,  hanging over our head infects our decision making at every stage and every action… whether to prosecute, how to prosecute. How to talk with our clients, when to pursue negotiation, and the terms,” Jurrs said. “We’ve presented 13 cases that [the committee] as a body never even convened to consider.” 

Jurrs called the legislative seizure of executive powers  an “unprecedented and unparalleled intrusion into execution of the law.” She also argued that it limits the ability for the attorney general to act in multi-state lawsuits. 

Jurrs said that if the law had been in place in the 1990s when the state negotiated a tobacco resolution it would have led to a more complicated situation. 

“Hey, 44 other states, we’re entering this gigantic resolution with the major tobacco companies. We know that everybody else has come to this agreement. It has to be really confidential, but excuse us, we’re gonna have to hold everything and we have to take this to a committee of our Legislature so that they can decide whether they want to rewrite this agreement or allow us to enter it or not,” Jurrs said.

Justice Rebecca Bradley expressed skepticism about Jurrs’ argument that the power should lie with the attorney general without the oversight of lawmakers. 

“The Legislature in the provision that you’re attacking has prescribed the powers and duties of the attorney general, which is to basically give… the Legislature a check-and-balance on what the attorney general is doing and what I find frightening is that one person gets to make all of the policy decisions under your argument about what is going to be done with what is the taxpayers money,” Bradley said. “It’s not the attorney general’s money.” 

Misha Tseytlin, the attorney representing the Legislature, argued that the statute serves as a check on the attorney general’s power and lawmakers have an interest in overseeing the money.

“It’s important to remember we’re talking about not the attorney general’s money, not the agency’s money, but the people’s money,” Tseytlin said. He said an example is the $420 million opioid settlement that was reached and approved by lawmakers on the Joint Finance Committee in 2021.  “The settlement was submitted to the Joint Finance committee, and it was approved by The Joint Finance committee. The Legislature in carrying out its constitutional duty to balance the budget of the state had to take into account all sorts of income, including that $420 million.”

Justice Rebecca Dallet questioned Tseytlin on how much power he was arguing lawmakers should have over funds. 

“Any source of income that comes into the Legislature they’ve got control of, so could the Legislature appoint a committee to return tax returns to make sure they are getting the money that they’re supposed to?” Dallet asked. “My point in asking the question… is where does this end? Every single dollar that comes in means the Legislature has total control… There is no role for executive power here.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

When a child's birth is covered by Medicaid, county social service agencies may require the father to pay back Medicaid costs as part of a child support order. (Getty Images)

Gov. Tony Evers is asking Wisconsin counties to give up a practice they’ve relied on for years: clawing back money from the absent fathers of children whose mothers were Medicaid recipients when they gave birth.

The practice is called birth cost recovery. When Medicaid covers the birth of a child and the father doesn’t live with the rest of the family, county social service departments and the courts may add a requirement to repay Medicaid to a father’s child support order.

In his 2025-27 state budget proposal, Evers wants to end the practice, and he’s offering counties a deal to give it up: a nearly $4 million boost for child support agencies.

Although permitted under federal law, only two states now authorize the use of birth cost recovery: Kansas and Wisconsin. Proponents of the practice have argued that it’s only fair to try to recoup state funds spent on the birth of a child if the child’s father can afford it.

But research at the Reproductive Equity Action Lab (REAL) questions the benefits of birth cost recovery when compared to the potential harm it can cause. The lab is affiliated with the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health.

“This is a policy that takes money out of low-income families’ hands in the state of Wisconsin to pay the state back for the social services they receive,” Klaira Lerma, the lab’s associate director, told the Wisconsin Examiner. “This creates financial strain on families, and families view it as government greed.”

This week REAL published a policy brief on birth cost recovery. The brief summarizes research by the lab’s director, Professor Tiffany Green, along with Lerma and other contributors, that contradicts assumptions proponents have made.

There were 14,880 unmarried Wisconsin residents who gave birth in 2023. The brief reported that unmarried parents already tend to have lower incomes than married parents, making a birth cost recovery debt especially challenging.

Wisconsin gives counties the option to use birth cost recovery, but doesn’t require it. If a county takes the option, 15% of the money it recovers goes to the county’s child support program, while 85% goes back to the state Medicaid program.

ABC for Health, a Madison-based nonprofit public interest law firm, has been campaigning against birth cost recovery for more than a decade and succeeded in persuading Wisconsin’s two largest counties to drop the practice. Dane County stopped filing new birth cost recovery claims in 2020 and stopped pursuing old outstanding cases in 2023. Milwaukee County quit the practice in 2024.

As part of their investigation of the practice, REAL researchers interviewed 40 Wisconsin parents who had been subject to birth cost recovery.

Parents who live together aren’t subject to birth cost recovery — only noncustodial fathers. Lerma said parents told them they weren’t even aware they might be on the hook to repay Medicaid until there was a formal court order for child support.

“They described a lack of transparency and feeling bamboozled” when they were told about paying back Medicaid, Lerma said.

“Parents clearly described how Birth Cost Recovery payments reduce fathers’ ability to financially support their child(ren) by taking money out of their budget,” the policy brief states.

“You’re taking away the way somebody can feed their family,” one parent is quoted as saying. “You’re taking away child care, how somebody can provide for their family. You’re taking away [money for] health care.”

Another told researchers that a birth cost recovery payment “going back to the state is money that can be put into the child.”

For fathers in low-wage jobs, having to pay off a birth cost recovery debt “puts them in risk of losing housing, the ability to put food on the table,” a parent told the researchers.

“It also causes many marginalized fathers to throw up their hands and leave the lives of their children. And eventually, they may get caught, held in contempt. And once again, that whole cycle just starts,” the parent said. “They’re not going to get a job. They have this on their record. They’re not going to get housing. They’ll be always underemployed.”

Lerma said that in families covered by Medicaid, children are more likely to be at risk for illness. Birth cost recovery, she said, is effectively “taxing these families who are more likely to be facing significantly worse health outcomes.”

The brief cites research that found the financial strain from having to pay a birth cost recovery debt was associated with lower employment levels and less ability to maintain child support payments.

“In contrast, evidence shows eliminating Birth Cost Recovery appears to increase child support compliance,” the brief states.

“Ending Birth Cost Recovery across the state may reduce harm on Wisconsin families and result in more child support money going to children and their custodial parent,” the brief concludes.

To offset the expected loss counties would experience by giving up birth cost recovery entirely, Evers’ budget proposal sets aside $3.8 million over the two-year budget for county child support programs.

The brief says implementing that proposal could ensure “that county child support agencies remain fiscally solvent to carry out their mission.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Demonstrators protest outside the KI Convention Center before the start of a town hall meeting with Elon Musk on March 30, 2025 in Green Bay, Wisconsin. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

It turns out Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, is not so powerful after all. 

Musk’s gambit in Wisconsin — dumping more than $20 million into a nominally nonpartisan Supreme Court race, blanketing the airwaves with negative ads, paying people to sign petitions against “activist judges” and cavorting in Green Bay wearing a cheesehead hat while handing out million-dollar checks to Republican voters — didn’t help, and likely hurt, his chosen candidate in an election Musk described as crucial to “the course of Western civilization” and “the entire destiny of humanity.”

Poor Brad Schimel, whose campaign Musk took over. At his victory party in the Republican stronghold of Waukesha, where he underperformed Trump’s 2024 vote tally, setting up his quick downhill slide, Schimel sat strumming a guitar as the results came in showing that Susan Crawford trounced him by a whopping 10 points. 

After proclaiming that he got into the race because he was disgusted by the Court’s “partisanship,” Schimel ended up promising to be a “support network” for Trump and stood by as Musk became his biggest donor and the public face of his campaign. At some point Tuesday evening he may have begun to regret that approach. Trump himself seems to be rethinking Musk after the debacle in Wisconsin, reportedly telling his inner circle that his billionaire adviser won’t be around much longer.

Other Republicans would be wise to get the message that “Elon Musk is politically toxic, that he is a massive anchor that will drag Republicans to the bottom of the ocean,” Ben Wikler, chair of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, told the Examiner during Crawford’s victory party. 

Wisconsin voters are not alone in recoiling from Musk as he takes a chainsaw to federal health care programs and Social Security, gleefully slashing the safety net to fund giant tax breaks for a handful of super-rich people like himself. In 10 Wisconsin counties where Trump won in 2024, voters rejected Musk’s entreaties to support Schimel, delivering a majority of votes to Crawford. That included Republican-leaning Brown County, where Musk campaigned in his cheesehead hat.

“I think the whole country is going to know unmistakably that Musk and Trump have crossed line after line after line, and the blowback has begun,” said Wikler. “Wisconsin is a bellwether state. Whoever wins Wisconsin probably wins the country, and Trump and Musk just lost decisively. At this point, every Republican who hasn’t yet spoken out against Elon Musk is going to have to think through whether they want to stay in public life or they want this to be their final term in office.”

But don’t count on Wisconsin U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson to do any of that sort of hard thinking. Johnson told Lawrence Andrea of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that Musk was “net beneficial” to Schimel, and that his 10-point loss might have been even bigger without Musk’s help. Likewise Wisconsin Right Now declared that there was no lesson to be learned from Schimel’s loss and chalked it up to the inevitable backlash by angry liberals to Trump and Musk’s bravery. 

That kind of analysis bodes well for Democrats.

After Tuesday, the liberal majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court is secure for another three years, just as it is poised to decide key cases on abortion, labor rights and Wisconsin’s gerrymandered congressional maps. Celebrating on stage with Crawford at the Park Hotel in Madison Tuesday night were the other women who make up that majority, including Justices Jill Karofsky and Janet Protasiewicz, who each won the last two Supreme Court elections by 10 points or more against a right-wing opponent, just as Crawford did. 

In all three races a key issue was Wisconsin women’s right to control their own bodies, with voters decisively rejecting candidates who embraced a dangerous near-total abortion ban. In all three races money also played an outsized role — a growing threat to voters’ ability to make their voices heard over the din of deceptive big-money ads. If we are going to reclaim the Court from the corrupting influence of self-interested donors like Musk — who is currently pursuing a lawsuit to try to overturn a Wisconsin law that prevents him from selling Teslas directly to consumers — we need to put an end to the campaign finance arms race.

But for now the most important lesson of the 2025 Supreme Court race is that voters can stand up to the mind-boggling spree of destruction by MAGA nihilists. 

Musk’s failure to buy a seat on the Court should encourage people across the country to believe in themselves and their ability to resist the authoritarian bullies who are targeting civil society, flouting the law, trampling our rights and trying to rule by intimidation and the sheer force of their money.

It didn’t work in Wisconsin. That’s a good sign.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Frank Bisignano, Social Security commissioner nominee, at his Senate Finance Committee confirmation hearing on March 25, 2025. (Senate webcast)

WASHINGTON — A Senate panel voted Wednesday to send Frank Bisignano’s nomination as Social Security commissioner to the floor, despite allegations from Democrats that he was dishonest in his testimony before the committee about his relationship with Elon Musk’s DOGE cost-cutting operation.

The 14-13 party-line vote took place one day later than originally scheduled in an ornate room just steps from the Senate floor, instead of the committee hearing room.

Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, said Tuesday morning that he supported Bisignano’s commitment to improve customer service and reduce improper payments.

Crapo also committed to looking into an anonymous whistleblower letter that was sent to the committee’s Democrats, though he declined to delay the panel’s vote until after that process concluded.

“Even though the timing of the anonymous letter suggests a political effort to delay the committee vote on this nominee, my staff have told Sen. Wyden’s staff — and we have discussed this just now — we are open to meeting with the author of the letter and keeping the individual anonymous,” Crapo said. “However, any information provided by the individual must be thoroughly vetted, including allowing the nominee the opportunity to respond.”

Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden, ranking member on the panel, urged Crapo to delay the vote until after a committee investigation, alleging Bisignano was untruthful during his testimony.  

“This nominee lied multiple times to every member of this committee, including the bipartisan Finance staff and the nominee’s actions and communications with DOGE remain very much at the heart of my objection here,” Wyden said. “My office received an account from a whistleblower about the ways the nominee was deeply involved in and aware of DOGE’s activities at the agency.”

Wyden said that Bisignano, though not confirmed and with no official role yet at the agency, intervened at the Social Security Administration to ensure that staff from U.S. DOGE Services had “immediate access to Social Security systems.” DOGE, or Department of Government Efficiency, is a temporary Trump administration entity aimed at slashing the federal workforce and spending.

Wyden also argued that Bisignano’s history in corporate America wasn’t a good fit for running the Social Security Administration, saying he “has made a career of swooping in, firing workers, selling off pieces of the company and merging with a competitor.”

“These practices may be good for shareholders, but they hurt American families,” Wyden said. “So we, Senate Democrats, are not going to stand by idly while Trump’s cronies take a sledgehammer to Social Security and deprive seniors of their earned benefits under the false manner of fighting fraud.”

Bisignano hearing

Bisignano, of New Jersey, testified before the committee for nearly three hours in late March, fielding questions on several issues, including overpayments and customer service.

He pledged to reduce the 1% overpayment rate significantly and said he could bring down the average wait time for customer service phone calls from about 20 minutes to less than one minute.

“If you look at the Social Security website, and you look at the statistics, taking 20-plus minutes to answer the phone is not really acceptable,” Bisignano said during his confirmation hearing. “And that’s the reason why only 46% of the phone calls get answered, because people get discouraged and hang up.”

Bisignano promised senators he would ensure Americans’ personal information would be kept secure.

If confirmed by the full Senate, Bisignano testified he would “ensure that every beneficiary receives their payments on time, that disability claims are processed in the manner they should be.”

“So my first actions are going to be to get organized around delivering the services,” Bisignano said. “And I’ve only been given one order, which is to run the agency in the right fashion.”

He also rejected the possibility of privatizing Social Security.

“I’ve never thought about privatizing. It’s not a word that anybody’s ever talked to me about,” Bisignano said. “And I don’t see this institution as anything other than a government agency that gets run to the benefit of the American public.”

Bisignano works as chairman of the board and chief executive officer at Fiserv, Inc., which “enables money movement for thousands of financial institutions and millions of people and businesses,” according to its website. The company is based in Wisconsin.

He previously worked as co-chief operating officer and chief executive officer of Mortgage Banking at JPMorgan Chase & Co.

From left, U.S. Reps. Frederica Wilson of Florida and Gwen Moore of Wisconsin, U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon and U.S. Rep. Mark Takano of California, at a press conference outside the U.S. Department of Education organized by House Democrats. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — A press conference by a dozen U.S. House Democrats outside the U.S. Department of Education took an unusual turn on Wednesday when the subject of their criticism — Education Secretary Linda McMahon —  unexpectedly joined them.

The Democrats had met with the Trump administration appointee a few minutes earlier to press her about the sweeping shifts at the U.S. Department of Education, where she and President Donald Trump are seeking to dismantle the agency. 

The lawmakers told reporters that at the scheduled meeting, they questioned McMahon on how the department could carry out its primary responsibilities when the agency continues to see dramatic changes. That includes mass layoffs that hit core units and an executive order from Trump calling on the secretary to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure” of the department to the maximum extent she legally can.

Only Congress, which established the 45-year-old department, has the power to abolish it.

The Democrats said they were grateful that McMahon met with them but dissatisfied with and even alarmed by the secretary’s responses, especially on a timeline for closing the agency.

“It’s very apparent that the secretary is treating this as a corporate restructuring, and we want to be clear that the education of our children is not a corporate enterprise — it is how we move this country forward,” Rep. Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico said.

“It’s very clear that the (reduction in force), the firing of probationary staff, the so-called restructuring that’s happening — when we asked for a plan multiple times in this meeting, we were told there is not a plan yet,” she added.

The secretary arrives, and leaves

As the Democrats spoke, McMahon emerged from the building, accompanied by aides, and joined them at their lectern emblazoned with a U.S. House of Representatives logo.

She reiterated that “funding from the United States government will continue through the programs that have already been established” and said she looked forward to continuing to work with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. 

After her remarks, Rep. Mark Takano pressed McMahon on when she would close the department.

“Well, we’ve had our discussions already, so thank you all very, very much for coming,” McMahon replied, proceeding to walk back into the building.

“You see, she’s not answering the question when she’s going to shut down the department,” Takano, of California, said as the secretary walked away.

Barred from building

Wednesday’s meeting came after Takano and other Democratic lawmakers were blocked from entering the building in February while trying to meet with Denise Carter, acting Education secretary at the time, over Trump’s plans to dismantle the agency.

The California Democrat had led dozens of others in writing a letter to Carter and requesting a meeting over those efforts.

A day after Trump signed the executive order surrounding the department, he announced that special education services would be transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services and that the Small Business Administration would be handling the student loan portfolio.

The department has not taken any steps to move either — both of which would require acts of Congress and raise a slew of logistical questions.

Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland said “the idea of dismembering the department and then parceling it out to other agencies and departments does not give us a lot of confidence or hope in what’s happening.”

The lawmakers said McMahon repeatedly stressed during the meeting that she plans to abide by federal law and would look carefully at what she’s legally allowed to do before moving any functions of the department.

Yet Rep. Greg Casar of Texas said he and the group “became more and more alarmed as the meeting went on,” noting that “current law won by so many Americans in this democracy, is that all kids deserve a decent education, that the money goes to your kid if they’re in need, the money goes to your kid no matter their race or their background or their neighborhood, and they want to change that.”

The lawmakers who met with McMahon included: U.S. Reps. Terri Sewell of Alabama; Takano; Frederica Wilson of Florida; Raskin and Sarah Elfreth of Maryland; Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire; Stansbury; Casar, Julie Johnson and Veronica Escobar of Texas; Don Beyer of Virginia; and Gwen Moore of Wisconsin.

Opponents of President Donald Trump’s executive order indefinitely halting refugee resettlement in the U.S. rally on the steps of the federal courthouse in Seattle on Feb. 25, 2025, after a judge issued a ruling blocking the president’s order. (Photo by Jake Goldstein-Street/Washington State Standard)

WASHINGTON — Amid dozens of injunctions placed against the Trump administration, Republicans on the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary discussed a bill Wednesday to curb the nationwide effects of those orders from federal judges.

The bill, sponsored by GOP Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, who leads the committee, would prohibit district court judges from issuing injunctions that have nationwide effects.

“We all have to agree to give up the universal injunction as a weapon against policies we disagree with,” Grassley said. “The damage it causes to the judicial system and to our democracy is too great.”

As of Friday, 39 judges who were appointed across “five different presidents and sitting in 11 different district courts across seven circuits” have ruled against the Trump administration, said one of the witnesses, Stephen Vladeck of Georgetown University Law Center.

President Donald Trump and Republican allies in Congress have complained that such injunctions give judges in single districts too much power to stymie the administration’s agenda.

Trump has also taken to social media to attack the judges, especially one who temporarily barred use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to quickly deport Venezuelan nationals.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota said Tuesday that Republicans are considering Grassley’s bill, but did not commit to bringing it to the floor for a vote.

House Republicans have introduced a similar bill.

Senate Democrats criticized the hearing and argued that the reason there are so many injunctions against the president’s executive orders is because they are unconstitutional.

The top Democrat on the committee, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, pointed to the several nationwide injunctions against Trump’s executive order to end the constitutional right to birthright citizenship, which the administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court in an emergency request to reverse.

Republicans see abuse

Republicans characterized the flurry of injunctions against administration actions as judicial activism.

Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri said the injunctions were unprecedented.

Hawley called the rulings from district courts a “pattern of abuse.” He added that it’s not only being done with nationwide injunctions, but with temporary restraining orders.

Florida Sen. Ashley Moody also took issue with temporary restraining orders, which generally are not appealable.

“There is keen interest in making sure our judiciary system remains impartial and that it is making rulings only in terms of relief to the parties before it and that we are encouraging expeditious resolution of these extraordinary important matters,” Moody said.

Criticism sparks threats, Dems say

Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island raised concerns about the increased threats of violence aimed at judges.

Whitehouse said the reaction from Republicans about preliminary injunctions against the Trump administration puts those judges and their families at risk.

“The discomfort to fury…about decisions against the Trump administration may actually have a lot to do with the unprecedented lawlessness and lawbreaking of the Trump administration rather than a weird cabal of judges trying to intrude,” Whitehouse said.

Klobuchar said that Trump has attacked judges on social media and has posted images of himself wearing a crown.

“We do not live in a kingdom,” she said. “It is important that we not lose sight of the underlying cause of these injunctions. It is not that these judges are ‘crooked’ or ‘lunatics’ or ‘evil.’ Those are words used by the president, it is because the administration is violating the constitution.   

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on March 18 issued a rare statement, pushing back against Trump’s suggestion that a judge who issued an injunction against an administration order face impeachment.

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this story. 

U.S. President Donald Trump holds up a chart while speaking during a “Make America Wealthy Again” trade announcement event in the Rose Garden at the White House on April 2, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

This story was updated at 6:55 p.m. EDT.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump rolled out sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs Wednesday on trading partners and allies across the globe.

Declaring that foreign trade practices have created a “national emergency,” the president unveiled a baseline 10% levy on all international imports, plus what he described as additional “kind” and “discounted” tariff rates that will increase but not match the rates other countries apply to American imports.

The levies will hit U.S. industries from agriculture to manufacturing to fashion.

The 10% universal tariffs become effective April 5, with higher levies set for April 9, according to Trump’s executive order. Trump’s remarks Wednesday about the start dates varied from the order’s language.

Trump is the first president to enact tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — something he already did in March when slapping levies on China, Canada and Mexico over the production and smuggling of illicit fentanyl.

According to a table distributed at Trump’s speech, U.S. tariffs will reach 34% on imports from China, 46% on products from Vietnam and 20% on European Union imports, among other increases.

Canada and Mexico will not see additional tariffs on top of the already imposed 25% on goods (10% on energy and potash) not compliant with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA. All compliant goods can continue to enter the U.S. levy-free.

The new 34% duties on China are set to stack on top of older 20% tariffs, according to some media reports, though Trump did not specify in his remarks or order.

Countries that levy a 10% tax on American goods — including Brazil and the United Kingdom — will only see a 10% match.

The increased levies come as 25% tariffs on foreign cars kick in at midnight.

Business owners who purchase goods from outside the U.S. will have to pay the increased duty rates to bring the products over the border, unless Trump carves out exceptions for certain industries.

The president did not mention carve-outs in his remarks, but language in his subsequent executive order details exceptions for steel, aluminum, cars and auto parts already subject to tariffs under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. Any products designated in the future under Section 232 will also be exempt from the new levies announced Wednesday.

Other goods not subject to the “reciprocal” tariffs include copper, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, lumber, and “energy and other certain minerals that are not available in the United States,” according to the order.

Trump introduced the taxes on imports with fanfare Wednesday in the White House Rose Garden, where he said, “This is Liberation Day.”

“April 2, 2025, will forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn,” Trump said.

“For decades, our country has been looted, pillaged, raped and plundered by nations near and far, both friend and foe alike,” Trump said.

Republican lawmakers, including House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana and Georgia U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, attended the event alongside several of Trump’s Cabinet members and representatives from the United Auto Workers.

Not all Republicans have signaled support for tariffs. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said at an event in his home state of South Dakota in August 2024 that Trump’s trade policy is a “recipe for increased inflation.”

The White House has circulated figures claiming the U.S. will raise up to $600 billion in revenue per year as a result of the tariffs. The figure was met with skepticism by economists because the amount of imports will likely change under higher levies.

The U.S. is the largest importer of goods in the world, according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. The country’s top suppliers in 2022 included China, Mexico, Canada, Japan and Germany.

Economists: Americans will pay

Since Trump began campaigning on tariffs, economists have warned that increased costs for businesses will be passed onto consumers.

Rising prices under Trump’s “reciprocal” tariff scenario are likely to cost an extra $2,400 to $3,400 per family, according to the Yale Budget Lab, with most of the financial burden falling on the lowest-income households.

An analysis from the Peterson Institute on International Economics estimated the typical American household would lose over $1,200, just from the 25% tariffs already imposed on China, Canada and Mexico.

Several small business owners told States Newsroom Tuesday they’re worried about increasing production costs and whether higher prices will chase away customer demand.

Erica York, of the center-right Tax Foundation that advocates for lower taxes, said in an interview with States Newsroom Tuesday that the levies will be “the largest peacetime tax increase we’ve seen in history.”

State officials worry over impact

Democratic state officials sounded the alarm Wednesday over losses for key industries that drive their local economies.

New Mexico State Treasurer Laura Montoya said her state’s energy and agriculture sectors would be victims in a trade war.

“New Mexico is a key player in this conversation, because the non-negotiable reality is that New Mexico is, like the United States as a whole, dependent on trade with our international partners particularly Mexico,” Montoya said on a virtual press briefing hosted by the state economic advocacy group Americans for Responsible Growth.

Montoya said oil and gas production accounts for 35% of the state’s budget and that the industry relies on machinery imported from Mexico.

Additionally, New Mexico, a largely rural state, relies heavily on agricultural trade. It processes a third of the cattle coming across the southwest border, and Montoya said farmers and ranchers will “face blows as tariffs on cattle and produce will result in slow food production.”

Washington state, a top U.S. agricultural exporter, sources 90% of its fertilizer from Canada.

Treasurer Mike Pellicciotti said the state would be “completely squeezed” by “reckless economic decisions.”

“He is crushing the free exchange of goods, and making it much more difficult and much more burdensome on working families. So of course, he needs to call it ‘Liberation Day,’ because he knows he’s doing the complete opposite, and he is trying to frame it in a way that is completely the opposite of what is being accomplished today,” Pellicciotti said.

Dems predict consumer stress

Democrats on Capitol Hill seized on Trump’s new trade policy as a way to push their message that the president is abandoning middle and working class households.

Sen. Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland said the White House is “tone-deaf” in dubbing the tariff announcement as “Liberation Day.”

Trump has said in media interviews, “‘You know, there’s going to be a little pain, some minor pain and disruption.’ But the people that I represent don’t regard increasing costs of groceries, increasing costs of owning a home, increasing costs of owning an automobile, as a minor disruption,” Alsobrooks said.

In back-to-back Democratic press conferences Wednesday, Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia slammed Trump’s use of emergency powers in March to justify a 10% duty on Canadian energy and 25% on all other imports.

Kaine warned about the effect on his state’s sizable shipbuilding industry. Approximately 35% of steel and aluminum used to build U.S. ships and submarines comes from Canada, he said.

Senators approved, 51-48, a joint resolution Wednesday evening on a bill, sponsored by Kaine, that would undo Trump’s tariffs on Canadian imports triggered by an emergency declaration targeting illicit fentanyl coming over the northern border.

Four Republicans joined the Democrats in passing the largely symbolic legislation, which will now head to the House. The GOP senators included: Susan Collins of Maine, Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

Earlier Wednesday, Kaine pointed to a report in Canadian news outlet The Globe and Mail that found the White House grossly overstated the amount of fentanyl smuggled through the northern border.

“Canada stood with us on 9/11, Canada has stood side-by-side with U.S. troops in every war we have been in. They have fought with our troops. They’ve bled with our troops. They’ve died with our troops in every war since the war of 1812, and yet we’re going to treat them like an enemy,” Kaine said.

Kaine’s bill, co-signed by eight Democratic and independent senators, drew one Republican co-sponsor, Paul of Kentucky.

The bill gained statements of support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and former Vice President Mike Pence’s advocacy group Advancing American Freedom, among numerous organizations across the political spectrum.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries criticized Trump’s anticipated tariff announcement Wednesday morning at his weekly press conference.

“We were told that grocery costs were going to go down on day one of the Trump presidency. Costs aren’t going down in America. They’re going up, and the Trump tariffs are going to make things more costly,” Jeffries, of New York, said.

Demonstrators protest outside the KI Convention Center before the start of a town hall meeting with Elon Musk on March 30, 2025 in Green Bay, Wisconsin. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Democrats and Republicans both claimed victory and the support of voters nationwide following closely watched elections on Tuesday in Wisconsin and two Florida congressional districts.

Dane County Judge Susan Crawford securing a seat on Wisconsin’s highest court over a challenger backed by billionaire Elon Musk was broadly cheered by Democrats as a clear sign voters have rejected GOP policies just months after that party secured control of Congress and the White House.

Republicans, meanwhile, pointed to their candidates’ wins in special elections in two Florida U.S. House seats as proof Americans back the party’s policy goals and leaders.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said during a floor speech Wednesday the Wisconsin Supreme Court results were a signal from the American people that they are not happy with how President Donald Trump and other Republicans are running the country.

“Yesterday was a sign Democrats’ message is resonating,” Schumer said. “When Democrats shine a light on the fact that Republicans are taking vital programs away from the middle class simply to cut taxes for the ultrarich, the public doesn’t like it. When we shine a light on Republican attacks on Medicaid, on Social Security, on veterans’ health care, simply to cut taxes for the rich, Americans listen and they’re aghast of what they see.

“That is one of the main reasons that the results in Wisconsin came in as resoundingly as they did.”

Schumer didn’t mention Republicans winning two U.S. House special elections in Florida.

Ticket splitting in Wisconsin

Wisconsin voters have a history of ticket splitting, including during November’s presidential election, when the state favored Trump, but also voted to send Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin back to Washington.

Trump won the state by less than 30,000 votes out of more than 3.3 million cast. Baldwin secured another six-year term by roughly the same margin.

Crawford received 55% of the vote in this election, winning by about 238,000 votes out of nearly 2.4 million votes cast, according to data from The Associated Press.

GOP Sen. Rick Scott of Florida told reporters Tuesday evening shortly after the results came in that he’s not reading too much into the narrower margin of victory for the two newly elected Republicans in his home state and he doesn’t believe it tells lawmakers anything about what might happen in the 2026 midterm elections.

“Remember, they’re special elections. It’s hard, you know … when there’s a presidential race, everybody knows to vote, even a governor’s race,” Scott said inside the U.S. Capitol. “But when there’s a special election, it’s hard for people to go out and vote.”

Former Florida Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis defeated the Democratic candidate in the state’s 1st Congressional District after receiving 56.9% of the vote, according to the Division of Elections’ unofficial results. The GOP lawmaker who won that district in November did so with 66% of the vote.

In the 6th Congressional District, former state Sen. Randy Fine secured election with 56.6% of the vote, a smaller margin of victory than the 66.5% the former Republican congressman who occupied the seat received in November.

Trump focuses on Florida

Trump hailed the GOP wins in Florida in a social media post, but didn’t mention Wisconsin, where special government employee and close political ally Musk campaigned late last month.

“BOTH FLORIDA HOUSE SEATS HAVE BEEN WON, BIG, BY THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE,” Trump wrote. “THE TRUMP ENDORSEMENT, AS ALWAYS, PROVED FAR GREATER THAN THE DEMOCRATS FORCES OF EVIL. CONGRATULATIONS TO AMERICA!!!”

DNC Chair Ken Martin wrote in a statement the Wisconsin Supreme Court election results show voters in the state “squarely rejected the influence of Elon Musk, Donald Trump, and billionaire special interests.”

“Democrats are overperforming, winning races, and building momentum,” Martin wrote. “We’re working hard to continue the trend in the Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey elections this year and then — with the people on our side — to take back the House in 2026.”

Martin, similar to Schumer, didn’t mention the Florida congressional district races won by GOP politicians.

National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Mike Marinella released a statement pointing to Florida as solid evidence the party is on the right track.

“Florida’s resounding Republican victories send a clear message: Americans are fired up to elect leaders who will fight for President Trump’s agenda and reject the Democrats’ failed policies,” Marinella wrote. “While Democrats set their cash ablaze, House Republicans will keep hammering them for being out of touch — and we’ll crush them again in 2026.”

Jeffries targets 60 districts

U.S. House Democrats’ campaign arm, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, didn’t release any statements on the Florida election results. But House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said during a press conference Wednesday that the Democratic candidates in the Sunshine State “dramatically overperformed” how Trump did in those areas in November.

“There are 60 House Republicans who hold districts right now that Donald Trump won by 15 points or less in November. Every single one of those Republicans should be concerned,” Jeffries said. “The American people have rejected their extreme brand and their do-nothing agenda and they’re going to be held accountable next November.”

Democratic U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland speaks at a rally in support of federal workers outside the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 19, 2025. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Maryland late Tuesday ordered federal agencies across 19 states and the District of Columbia to reinstate thousands of probationary workers who were fired as part of White House adviser Elon Musk’s government-slashing agenda.

U.S. Judge James Bredar for the District of Maryland issued the preliminary injunction mandating 20 federal departments and agencies rehire the new or recently promoted employees whose duty stations or residences prior to termination were in the following states:

• Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin.

The lawsuit is among dozens brought against President Donald Trump’s second administration over deep cuts to the federal workforce and funding, sweeping arrests and deportations of immigrants, Musk’s access to Americans’ sensitive data, and press access in the White House.

Trump and Musk have repeatedly criticized federal judges who have ruled unfavorably, even calling for their impeachment.

Republicans have assumed the mantle on the issue, criticizing wide-reaching injunctions from U.S. district courts.

“Although our Founders saw an important role for the judiciary, they didn’t design a system that made judges national policymakers,” Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, chair of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, said in his opening statement at a hearing Wednesday.

The Democratic attorneys general who brought the lawsuit against the federal agencies had requested a nationwide injunction, arguing the mass firings were illegal and harmed states financially, but Bredar only applied the order to the plaintiffs’ jurisdictions.

Bredar has previously issued a temporary emergency order mandating agencies reinstate employment for all 24,418 fired probationary workers, according to government figures, but expressed reluctance at a March 26 hearing to extend his order nationwide. The breakdown of fired probationary employees by state is unclear and the total number could be from the states involved in the lawsuit or other states or both.

Departments and agencies named as defendants in the lawsuit must now return the probationary workers’ jobs to status quo by 2 p.m. Eastern on April 8, Bredar ordered. The agencies also “shall not conduct any future reductions in force (“RIFs”) — whether formally labeled as such or not” involving the affected probationary employees unless the process follows the law, Bredar wrote.

The enjoined defendants include:

• The departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense (civilian employees only), Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, Transportation, Treasury and Veterans Affairs, as well as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, General Services Administration, Office of Personnel Management, Small Business Administration and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

The order will remain in place while the case is pending.

The states allege the mass firings led by Trump and Musk harmed them because the federal government did not provide the legally required advance notice that gives states time to prepare “rapid response activities” — including unemployment and social services — ahead of an influx of unemployed residents.

Bredar highlighted in a memorandum opinion accompanying his order Tuesday that 31 states did not join the lawsuit, writing that nationwide injunctions are required in “rare” instances, and that “this case is not one of them.”

“The Court’s injunction is not national in scope because it is possible to substantially stop the harms inflicted on the states that did sue without extending judicial authority over those that didn’t,” Bredar wrote. 

UW President Jay Rothman tells lawmakers that this will be a “make it or break it” budget for the UW system. Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner.

Leaders of the Universities of Wisconsin and the state Department of Corrections (DOC) defended Gov. Tony Evers’ budget requests to lawmakers on the Joint Finance Committee during a meeting Tuesday. 

The hearing marks the start of lawmakers’ official work on the state budget, which will continue this week with public hearings in Kaukauna on Wednesday and West Allis on Friday. 

Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green) and Rep. Mark Born (Beaver Dam), co-chairs of the Joint Finance Committee, said during a press conference ahead of the meeting that they were looking for “justification” on the “massive” requests from the UW and wanted an explanation of the plan for DOC. 

“[The DOC request is] lacking in a lot of details and seems to be a little short of being able to accomplish its mission, but I’m interested to hear more about how they arrived at that and why they made some of the decisions they made and hopefully provide some information that will allow us to improve that plan and make sure that it’s a good plan for the future of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections and for public safety here in Wisconsin,” Born said.

In the past, lawmakers have heard from a greater number of agencies about their requests. During the last budget cycle, lawmakers heard from four agencies, including DOC, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Safety and Professional Services and the Department of Administration. That year, state Superintendent Jill Underly traveled to Eau Claire to talk to lawmakers about the Department of Public Instruction budget after not getting an invitation to speak. 

The lawmakers said it would have been a “waste of their time and our time” to hold briefings with other agencies.

“[The agency leaders] just have not been straight with us on things. They just don’t want to really talk about what they’re doing and why they’re doing it,” Born said. He said lawmakers were hopeful that the UW and DOC would work with them to answer some questions. 

Universities of Wisconsin President Jay Rothman told lawmakers during the briefing that he agrees with Gov Tony Evers’ assessment that this will be a “make it or break it” budget for the UW system. Evers’ request for the UW includes an additional $856 million, which would be one of the largest investments in the university campuses in state history. 

Rothman acknowledged that the request is “significant” but he emphasized that Wisconsin currently sits at 43rd out of 50 when it comes to state investment in public universities. The investments in the request would bring the system up to the median nationwide. 

Rothman explained to lawmakers that inflation and a lack of state investment over the last three decades to meet increasing costs has hindered the UW system. 

UW schools have worked to make changes, he said. When he started as president in June 2022, Rothman said 10 of the system’s 13 campuses were running fiscal deficits. That number is now six and should hit zero over the next year or so. He also noted there have been six two-year colleges that have closed or will close this year.

Rothman called the reforms necessary and said that the changes position the system for sound investments from the state. 

“We have to be asking ourselves a question: who will teach our children and grandchildren? Where will the nurses come from that will help care for our families and perhaps ourselves? Where will the engineers come from?” Rothman told lawmakers.

Rothman explained that the proposals seek to address five goals including increasing affordability, accessibility, developing talent, ensuring quality and investing in innovation.

“You cannot cut your way to success,” Rothman said. “You need to invest.” 

Rep. Tip McGuire (D-Kenosha) asked Rothman what would happen if the state did not fund the requests. 

“If we get the budget funded, we will not have to raise tuition. If we don’t get funded at an adequate level, that’s one of the levers… that I don’t want to have to use,” Rothman said. “I want to be able to maintain the accessibility that our students get, but we will do what we need to do, and it won’t be just one piece. That will be multiple levers, and we get more efficient in some places. We have to stop offerings, programs at certain universities.”

Republican lawmakers grilled Rothman on “administrative bloat” across the system and requests for additional positions and funding from the UW schools. 

The budget request would add 214 positions funded by state general purpose revenue to UW campuses. Rothman noted that UW campuses, excluding flagship UW-Madison, have lost 6,000 positions funded by the state since 2019. 

Born asked why there was a request for 13 additional staff members to support students who have aged out of the foster care system. He noted that a 2023-24 report found there were 420 of those students across the system. 

“I’m trying to wrap my head around — you talked about strategic investments, sound investments, and you’re asking for 13 positions, one on every campus to serve 420 kids?” Born asked. 

Rothman said the intention would be to expand the number of students who could be supported. 

“They’ve had a tough lot in life to start with,”  Rothman said, adding that the additional staffing  could give those students a leg up. “I would hope that we could expand that number.” 

Rothman also said that the specific request is part of the general goal of investing in students to ensure they make it to graduation. 

“If you look at the positions that we have asked for, they are all student-facing. We are trying to help our students be successful,” Rothman said. 

“This is a shining example of the governor’s desire to grow government and your desire to grow your system, and it’s not focused on the reality of how you invest in this stuff,” Born said. 

Born also focused on the idea of funding new programs on UW campuses. 

“Why would we need to fund a curriculum of the future? Isn’t there things that are fading away, things that are no longer of interest to students, things are no longer of interest to the workforce? Shouldn’t there be funds available to offer new things?” Born asked. 

Rothman said that the UW system has cut about 100 programs already. 

“So you’ve eliminated about 100 programs, but you can’t fund a new program and curriculum and AI without more funding?” Born continued. 

“I think the fact of the matter is if we had kept up with inflation in terms of our state support, we’d be in a different position,” Rothman answered. 

Corrections budget 

DOC Sec-designee Jared Hoy also defended Evers’ proposals during the hearing, saying that policy changes, increased investments and capital projects are needed to improve safety in facilities across the state. The proposal, Hoy said, is “not simply a list of funding requests” but is a “blueprint for the future” of state corrections. 

Under the proposal, the state would invest about $634 million in the DOC. The majority of the money would be used to fund major reforms throughout the state’s prisons including infrastructure upgrades and capital improvements to Waupun Correctional Institution, Lincoln Hills School, Stanley Correctional Institution, Sanger B. Powers Correctional Center and John C. Burke Correctional Center. The improvements would culminate in the closure of the Green Bay Correctional Institution. 

Hoy told lawmakers that the budget proposal was developed through conversations with DOC staff, legislators and outside experts with a focus on “safety for those in our communities and the people that work in our facilities every day.” 

The proposal also includes some policy changes meant to help limit recidivism, including by expanding access to workforce training and substance use treatment for people who have 48 months or less left in their sentences for nonviolent offenses.

“A system that prioritizes re-entry and release, but fails to reduce recidivism is not truly safe. A facility that contains individuals but is dangerous and unstable inside its walls is not safe,” Hoy said. “Safety must be both measured by what happens inside the walls of our facilities, and by what happens when a person releases into the community.”

Hoy said that he hoped lawmakers would see some of their thoughts and ideas for the agency reflected in the plan.

“The governor’s budget request is an opportunity for our state to come together and use our taxpayers’ money responsibly to help keep our children and our communities safe,” Hoy said.

The idea that some lawmakers have floated of building a new facility would take significantly more time and money, he added. 

“Our agency does not have time to wait 10 to 12 years for a new facility to be built,” Hoy said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

State Superintendent Jill Underly won a second term in office Tuesday evening. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Incumbent Jill Underly, who had the backing of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, won a second term as state superintendent on Tuesday, defeating education consultant and Republican-backed candidate Brittany Kinser. 

“I’m just deeply honored and humbled for the trust you have placed in me to continue as state superintendent for public instruction,” Underly told supporters at her Election Night party. “This victory belongs to all of us who believe in the power of public education, but for every educator, family, and most importantly, kids across our state.”

The Associated Press called the race at 10:05 p.m. with Underly leading by more than 5 points and with more than 80% of the votes counted.

Kinser’s campaign released a statement shortly before 10:30 p.m. in which she acknowledged the result was “not the outcome I had hoped for.”

“Our kids’ future shouldn’t rest on the politicization of our education system, but on the belief that our kids deserve so much better than they currently receive,” she said.

The state superintendent, a technically nonpartisan position, is responsible for providing guidance for the state’s 421 public school districts, leading the Department of Public Instruction (DPI)  — an agency responsible for administering state and federal funds, licensing teachers and developing educational curriculum and state assessments — and also holds a position on the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents. 

Underly received the endorsement from Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC), the state’s largest teachers’ union, and AFT-Wisconsin. The Democratic Party of Wisconsin contributed over $850,000 to her campaign. While Underly had the backing of the state Democratic party, Democrat Gov. Tony Evers refused to endorse in the race. 

WEAC said in a statement that the “victory inspires the public school educators who work with students every day to be even more visible and more involved in education policy deliberations to solve staffing shortages and the state funding crisis that forces communities to referendum every year to keep the schoolhouse doors open” and that the result is a rejection of “the school voucher lobby in favor of educators, so all students – no exceptions – have the opportunity to learn without limits and unlock their dreams.”

Kinser had never worked in a traditional Wisconsin public school and received criticism during the campaign for never holding a Wisconsin teachers’ license and allowing her administrator’s license to lapse, though she eventually updated it. She had also worked mostly in charter school circles in recent years, including as principal and executive director of Rocketship schools in Milwaukee and as a leader of the City Forward Collective, a Milwaukee-based advocacy group that has lobbied in favor of increasing funding for the state’s voucher program.

With her background, Kinser, who describes herself as a moderate, found support from Republicans and school choice advocates, receiving over $1.6 million in contributions from the Republican Party of Wisconsin.

While decisive, Underly’s victory was by a narrower margin than her first election in 2021, while Kinser did better than past DPI candidates who have run with the backing of the state’s powerful school choice lobby.

Underly said her takeaway from the closeness of the race is that “we need to just communicate better.” 

Throughout the campaign, Underly faced criticism from her opponent, Republicans and others for her recent approval of changes to state testing standards and poor communication with school districts. 

“There’s a lot that goes on at the agency that I think in years past, maybe state superintendents took for granted, but I think it’s important that we are communicating more,” Underly told the Wisconsin Examiner.

Underly said that the agency is working on rebuilding its relationship with legislators. 

“The Legislature and the relationship with the state superintendent hasn’t always been that great…,” Underly said. “We meet with them frequently. We meet with the governor’s office quite frequently also. I’m just going to go back to the fact that I hope that we all want the same things, regardless of where we are on the political spectrum.” 

Underly said that she also respected Evers’ decision not to endorse in the race and that her working relationship with his office is “fine.”

Throughout her campaign, Underly defended her decisions during her first term and said that she has served as “the No. 1 advocate for public education” and will continue to do so. Prior to being elected to the top DPI position, Underly worked as assistant director in DPI. She also previously served as a principal and superintendent of the Pecatonica Area School District and taught in public schools in Indiana.

Underly leaned on her advocacy for public schools while making the argument for her reelection. She introduced a budget request for the state that would have invested over $4 billion in public education, saying that it’s what schools deserved. Republicans and Evers both said it was too large. 

Democratic lawmakers said Underly’s victory is a sign of Wisconsinites’ support of public schools and will hopefully bode well for the future of securing improved funding for public education. 

Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) told the Wisconsin Examiner that Underly’s victory was a vindication of her first term in office.

“She’s had to make do with some really tough choices, and she’s done a great job for kids and for teachers,” Hesselbein said.

“We know public schools unite communities, and when we have strong public schools, we have strong communities,” Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison) said. “We’ve got a state superintendent who’s going to be looking out for every learner in our state, and so I’m also looking forward to the transparency and accountability that will come with ensuring that public dollars are for public schools.” 

Hong said that the lack of communication between Republican lawmakers and Underly is the fault of  lawmakers who are not interested in meeting the needs of students. She said that Underly’s win and “Republicans needing to answer to their communities who care about their public schools again” could encourage them to work across the aisle. She noted that Wisconsinites have repeatedly raised their property taxes to ensure schools have funding in lieu of reliable state investments. 

Hong also said that she thought Underly’s victory showcased that “public dollars going to private schools was a deep concern for a lot of Wisconsinites.” During her campaign, Underly criticized  her opponent for her lobbying for and support for Wisconsin’s school choice programs. She also expressed her opposition to the growth of those programs, saying it is not sustainable for the state to fund two school systems and that she would oppose dedicating more money to private school vouchers.

Underly said it’s clear that her opponent “cares about kids and she cares about kids learning,” and that something she would take away from the race is that “we all want the same things. Ultimately, we want kids to be successful.”