Voters walk to a polling place at a school gym in New Orleans. Republicans could gain scores of state legislative seats if the U.S. Supreme Court weakens a federal voting rights law, a new analysis finds. (Photo by Stacy Revere/Getty Images)

Republicans could gain nearly 200 state legislative seats across the South if the U.S. Supreme Court guts a key provision of the federal Voting Rights Act, a new analysis finds.

The bulk of the gains would be concentrated in 10 GOP-controlled state legislatures in Southern states, according to the analysis, produced by Fair Fight Action, a Georgia-based progressive voting rights group, in partnership with Black Voters Matter Fund, which advocates on behalf of Black voters.

The analysis, featured in a report released by the groups on Monday, underscores the alarm among progressives over the potential consequences of the Supreme Court’s looming decision in a case known as Louisiana v. Callais. While the case centers on the constitutionality of Louisiana’s congressional map, the effects of the decision could extend into statehouses across the country.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority appears likely to severely weaken Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a landmark 1965 civil rights law that bans racial discrimination in voting access. Section 2 restricts racial gerrymandering, and until now has limited the power of lawmakers to draw districts that dilute the voting power of racial minority voters.

A sweeping decision by the court could give state lawmakers a freer hand to draw congressional and state legislative districts that dilute the power of minority voters — as well as districts for local governments, such as county commissions, city councils and school boards. The justices held oral arguments in October; a decision could come at any time.

At the state legislative level, a court ruling that strikes down Section 2 could lead to Democrats losing about 191 seats, according to the analysis, which examined how state legislative districts could be redrawn if Section 2 is no longer in place. Most of those seats are currently held by Black lawmakers in districts where minority voters make up a majority of residents.

“What that is doing is providing a fatal blow to Black representation in the South,” Fair Fight Action CEO Lauren Groh-Wargo said in an interview.

The total number of state legislative districts in 10 Southern states where Black or Hispanic voters comprise a majority could fall from 342 to 202. Those states are Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.

Some Republican states argue that courts have interpreted Section 2’s protections too broadly and in the process wrongly restrained the ability of lawmakers to draw favorable maps.

Alabama and 13 other GOP states said in a brief filed with the Supreme Court earlier this year that Section 2 has been turned into “the proverbial golden hammer, wielded by plaintiffs and courts in a never-ending search for a nail.”

If the Supreme Court weakens the Voting Rights Act, it’s unclear whether state legislatures would pursue mid-decade redraws of state legislative districts. Redistricting typically occurs every 10 years following the census.

At the federal level, a previous analysis by Fair Fight Action and Black Voters Matter Fund projected Republicans could draw an additional 19 U.S. House seats if Section 2 protections were removed.

While a few states have passed new congressional maps already this year, those efforts have proven highly controversial. Some states, such as Indiana and Kansas, have abandoned or rejected them for now.

Stateline reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@stateline.org.

Wisconsin Supreme Court chambers. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

The Wisconsin Supreme Court declined Monday to throw out Wisconsin’s religious exemption from the state’s unemployment insurance system and affirmed that Catholic Charities organizations in Wisconsin are exempt.

The state’s highest court acted in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in June reversing the Wisconsin Court’s decision in 2024, which found the organizations didn’t qualify for the state law’s UI religious exemption.

Monday’s unsigned order made no statements for or against any of the numerous briefs that were filed with the Wisconsin Court after the Supreme Court ruling.

In a 4-3 ruling in March 2024, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that Catholic Charities’ work was secular rather than religious, and that the organization therefore was not entitled to an exemption in Wisconsin’s unemployment insurance law.

The religious exemption is reserved for employees of churches, their parent organizations, employees of organizations “operated primarily for religious purposes” and controlled by churches or church associations, church ministers or members of a religious order.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously June 5, 2025, that the Wisconsin Court’s ruling “grants a denominational preference by explicitly differentiating between religions based on theological practices” and therefore violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution’s religious freedom provision.

After that ruling, both Catholic Charities and the Wisconsin Department of Justice filed proposed remedies with the Wisconsin Court. The Wisconsin DOJ called on the court to throw out the state law’s religious exemption to restore “equal treatment.”

Catholic Charities rejected that proposal, declaring it showed “animus” toward the charity, and urged the court instead to affirm the exemption.

In the decision Monday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court sent the case back to Douglas County Circuit Court. The order directs the lower court to vacate earlier Labor and Industry Review Commission decisions denying the religious exemption and to direct LIRC to declare Catholic Charities “eligible for the religious purposes exemption to unemployment taxation.”

Victor Forberger, a Wisconsin unemployment lawyer who has written about the case on his blog, told the Wisconsin Examiner that the state high court’s action Monday was not a surprise in light of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

The federal ruling, however, did not address calls by outside groups seeking a more sweeping religious exemption, Forberger said. “How this is going to play out with other entities and their claim for religious exemptions are all to be determined,” he added.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Holstein milking cows at an Idaho dairy on July 20, 2012. (Photo by Kirsten Strough/U.S. Department of Agriculture.)

WASHINGTON — School cafeterias got a step closer to seeing whole milk again after the U.S. House passed a measure Monday to restore the dairy staple to school lunches. 

The bill unanimously passed the Senate back in November, and now heads to President Donald Trump’s desk. 

The bipartisan effort — which passed the House by voice vote — came after whole milk was barred from school meal programs for more than a decade amid a broader push to curb childhood obesity. 

Under the bill, schools that participate in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National School Lunch Program would be allowed to offer “flavored and unflavored organic or nonorganic whole, reduced-fat, low-fat, and fat-free fluid milk and lactose free fluid milk” as well as “nondairy beverages that are nutritionally equivalent to fluid milk and meet the nutritional standards established by the Secretary.” 

The bill also would exempt milk fat from being considered saturated fat as it applies to schools’ “allowable average saturated fat content of a meal.” 

The measure allows parents and guardians, on top of physicians, to offer a written statement for their student to receive a nondairy milk substitute.  

GOP Sens. Roger Marshall of Kansas and Dave McCormick of Pennsylvania, along with Democratic Sens. Peter Welch of Vermont and John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, introduced the measure in the Senate in January. 

Republican Rep. Glenn “GT” Thompson of Pennsylvania and Democratic Rep. Kim Schrier of Washington state brought corresponding legislation in the House.

‘An essential building block’

During floor debate Monday, Thompson, who chairs the House Agriculture Committee, said the bill’s purpose is to “restore students’ access to a wide variety of milk options, ensuring students have the necessary nutrients to learn and to grow.” 

Thompson said “milk is an essential building block for a well-rounded and balanced diet, offering 13 essential nutrients and numerous health benefits,” but that “unfortunately, out-of-touch and outdated federal regulations have imposed restrictions on the types of milk students have access to in school meals.” 

Thompson pointed out that the bill “does not require any student to drink or any school to serve whole milk” and instead “simply gives schools the flexibility to serve a broader variety of milk in the school lunchroom.” 

But Rep. Bobby Scott, ranking member of the House Committee on Education and Workforce, voiced his opposition, saying that while the bill “does make some improvements to the whole milk debate with its inclusion of better options for students seeking non-dairy alternatives,” he remains “disappointed that the bill overall would make school meals less healthy.”

The Virginia Democrat said the bill “goes against the dairy industry’s stated commitment to ensure that students have access to the healthiest dairy options” consistent with USDA’s and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

Milk industry praise

The top five milk-producing states in 2023 were California, Wisconsin, Idaho, Texas and New York, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service.

Michael Dykes, president and CEO of the International Dairy Foods Association, celebrated House passage of the bill, which he dubbed a “defining victory for children’s health and for the dairy community that has fought for more than a decade to restore whole and 2% milk for our nation’s students.” 

Dykes urged Trump to sign the bill into law so that USDA “can begin working with state governments and school districts across the country to make this law a reality.” 

A small cannabis plant. (Photo by Getty Images)

President Donald Trump’s administration is looking “very strongly” at reclassifying cannabis from the strictest category of controlled substances, Trump said Monday.

In a brief affirmative response to a reporter’s question in the Oval Office, the president confirmed he is considering a reclassification of marijuana to unlock research funding.

“A lot of people want to see it — the reclassification — because it leads to tremendous amounts of research that can’t be done unless you reclassify,” Trump said. “So we are looking at that very strongly.”

Marijuana is considered a Schedule I drug under the Food and Drug Administration’s classification of controlled substances. The FDA defines drugs on the list, such as heroin and cocaine, as lacking any medicinal value and carrying a high likelihood of abuse.

The designation carries a host of consequences, including a virtual ban on funding research for medicinal or other uses of the drug.

While marijuana use, both medicinal and recreational, is legal in many states, it remains illegal to possess or use in any amount for any reason under federal law.

Advocates have sought for decades to legalize or decriminalize the drug, which many see as less harmful than other Schedule I substances.

The growing split in recent years among many states and federal law has ramped up pressure on federal policymakers to alter the drug’s legal status.

Marijuana businesses in states where it is legal lack access to financial institutions, which cannot lend to businesses considered illegal by federal authorities.

States, meanwhile, have had difficulty regulating the environmental and health aspects of their industries.

And lawmakers, especially Democrats, have increasingly highlighted the frequent injustice of marijuana prosecutions that disproportionately affect communities of color and poor communities, though the drug is widely used across race and economic status.

The suspected shooter is shown taking a right on Waterman Street after leaving the Barus and Holley engineering building Saturday. Police say they cannot tie this man to the man detained at a Coventry hotel. (Screenshot from Providence police video)

Providence police will release the man apprehended at a Coventry hotel early Sunday morning as part of their investigation of the mass shooting at Brown University’s engineering and physics building.

The surprising news came at a twice delayed press conference that began shortly after 11 p.m. at the Providence Public Safety Complex. The press conference was originally slated to begin at 10:30 p.m. and then 10:45 p.m.   

“I’ve been around long enough to know that sometimes you head in one direction and you have to regroup and go in another and that is what has happened over the last 24 hours or so,” Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha said.

The press conference came hours after national news outlets had already named a 24-year-old Wisconsin man, citing law enforcement sources speaking on condition of anonymity. The Associated Press had reported that police had seized two handguns and two loaded 30-round magazines when the man was detained at the Hampton Inn in Coventry.

“What is really unfortunate is that this person’s name was leaked to the public,” Neronha went on. “It’s hard to put that back in the bottle.”

Neronha declined to say what eliminated him as a person of interest.

Meanwhile, officials are still not releasing the names of the victims in the shooting, which killed two students and wounded nine others. Eight students remain hospitalized at Rhode Island Hospital.

Providence Mayor Brett Smiley said that the search will continue for additional video evidence. Residents living near the Brown University campus, particularly along Hope and Waterman streets, who have doorbells that record motion, are asked to upload any videos recorded after the shooting happened Saturday around 4 p.m. to a designated page on the FBI website.

Smiley said residents and business owners in the area who have video from that time can also call police at (401) 272-3121.

When a reporter asked Neronha if the person of interest would be exonerated in writing, after having his name nationally broadcasted in relation to a mass shooting, Neronha opted to sketch “a clear picture” of case law and the duration of forensics.  

“We can detain someone for a reasonable period of time if there is evidence as such that points to that person being involved in criminal activity,” Neronha said. “So you know, evidence doesn’t appear on your doorstep and you have answers to it within the first 15 minutes.”

Evidence, Neronha added, takes time and testing to confirm. Some tests can take an entire day to perform. 

“So over the course of the day, while we’re following up leads elsewhere, those initial leads may come back positive or may come back negative,” Neronha said. “Here they came back negative.”

Neronha got testy once more when a reporter asked about the availability of any additional video evidence. Smiley was at the podium, but Neronha’s voice boomed forward in reply. 

“If we had that video, you’d have it,” Neronha said. “Obviously, if there was, if there was a piece of video [where] we can show you a face and say, ‘This is our person of interest, or suspect,’ you’d have it.”

Asked about the possibility of additional video — whether from cameras at Brown or in the surrounding area, like homes or businesses — the AG offered a more resigned reply. 

“We’re not holding back video,” Neronha said. “We’re not holding back video that we think would be useful, and I don’t think I should even have to say it.”

The Barus and Holley engineering building where the shooting occurred is an older building with few cameras, Neronha said.

Still, Neronha said, officials cannot divulge everything. “We have a murderer out there, frankly,” he said. “And so we’re not going to give away the game plan.”

Smiley said the individual would “shortly be released” from the Providence Police but did not give a specific time.  

Smiley pledged to provide additional updates as the investigation continues.

“The community deserves to know the progress we are making in this investigation,” Smiley said. “I imagine that the Providence community feels a little bit more anxious than they did an hour ago, and I understand that.”

At a press conference Sunday morning, Providence Police Chief Col. Oscar Perez was cautious in choosing his words to describe the status of the person of interest as being detained and not in custody. Perez had stopped short of saying the man apprehended in Coventry was the same man wearing all black shown walking on Hope Street and taking a right on Waterman Street in the video police released Saturday night.

Asked by a reporter if the man detained was the same man in the video, Perez was clear. “We do not have enough evidence to corroborate that,” the chief said. 

WisconsinEye shut down its website on Monday due to a lack of funding. Emilie Amundson, secretary of the Department of Children and Families at the time, testifies during a hearing in the state Capitol in October 2023 as a WisEye microphone and camera record the session.(Screenshot/WisEye)

WisconsinEye, the independent, nonprofit service that provides video coverage of legislative hearings, floor sessions and Wisconsin state government business similar to C-Span, shut down its website on Monday due to a lack of funding. 

The organization, which launched in 2007, first warned in November it was at risk of halting live coverage as well as pulling its video archive of more than 30,000 hours of state government proceedings, candidate interviews and other programming offline. 

“Due to extreme competition and a complete collapse in private funding — marked by donor fatigue, competing nonprofit campaigns, record-breaking political fundraising and economic uncertainty — WisconsinEye’s website is unavailable,” a message on the WisEye website states. “Without consistent annual funding…. citizens, legislators, legislative staff, the governor’s administration, agency leadership and staff, trade associations, attorneys and the courts, local government officials, journalists and all print, cable, television and radio news outlets, businesses, nonprofit organizations — all lose the only reliable and proven source of unfiltered State Capitol news and state government proceedings.”

Jon Henkes, the president of WisconsinEye, told the Examiner last month that, similar to other nonprofits, the organization has faced a tough fundraising environment since the COVID-19 pandemic. He said then that the organization has made “well qualified, well cultivated” donation requests totaling more than $9 million with none of those requests leading to donations.

Henkes said that the organization was still making donor inquiries and that raising at least $250,000 could get the organization through the first quarter of 2026. 

WisconsinEye has also turned its attention to the state Legislature for help, sending a letter to lawmakers in November asking them to make state funds available for its operational costs. 

The Wisconsin Legislature and Gov. Tony Evers set aside $10 million in matching funds in the 2023-25 state budget to help WisconsinEye build a permanent endowment. After the organization failed to raise sufficient funds to access that money, the current state budget changed provisions so that $250,000 of the $10 million was available with no match, which helped cover expenses through Dec. 15. The rest of the funding was made to be available on a dollar-by-dollar match basis, meaning as WisconsinEye raises its own funds it would be able to get an equivalent amount of state funds. The opportunity for the organization to access the funds expires in June 2026.

The organization is asking for the state to modify the match requirement and make funds available.

“We’re simply asking for release of those funds, or part of those funds, in a way different from the endowment,” Henkes told the Examiner in November. “The best case scenario would be if the Legislature would release a minimum of one year, so $1 million, essentially to carry us forward, and we can focus 100% over the next several months through June, to really hammer down and see if we can’t raise some endowment dollars. We think that’s a very viable option, and we’re hopeful.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

People gather to sing and show support for Judge Hannah Dugan ahead of her federal trial. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

A federal jury will begin hearing the case against Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan, 66, on Monday in a lawsuit that has drawn national attention, weighing how far the Trump administration can go in squashing resistance to its nationwide crackdown on immigrants. 

The case revolves around events in  April, when Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a 30-year-old Mexican immigrant who had  been charged with battery, appeared in Dugan’s courtroom. Federal agents also arrived at the courtroom that day, seeking Flores-Ruiz, whom they said entered the country illegally over a decade ago. 

Dugan confronted  the federal agents as they waited outside her courtroom. Later, she led Flores-Ruiz  and his attorney out of her courtroom through a side door which led  into the same hallway where the federal agents were waiting. Flores-Ruiz was followed into the elevator and outside by the agents, who chased and then arrested him. 

Days later, Dugan was arrested and handcuffed by FBI agents and charged with obstruction and concealing an individual. FBI Director Kash Patel posted photographs of Dugan in handcuffs and celebrated her arrest, writing on X, “No one is above the law.” 

In early April, prior to Flores-Ruiz, ICE arrested two other people at the Milwaukee County Courthouse. Officials expressed concerns that the arrests were causing defendants, witnesses and victims to avoid coming to court or cooperating with law enforcement. 

Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley objected to what he characterized as intimidation tactics in enforcing its immigration crackdown and wielding the power of the state against  “anyone who opposes these policies.” In a statement, Crowley said, “we have an obligation to administer our courts in a safe, efficient manner that delivers due process for anyone.” 

Christine Neumann-Ortiz, executive director of the immigrant rights group Voces de la Frontera, said that the Trump officials  “basically want to be unleashed to do whatever they want to commit these raids in courtrooms across the country.” Milwaukee-area Democratic Sens. Chris Larson and Tim Carpenter and Reps. Christine Sinicki, Darrin Madison, Supreme Moore Omokunde, Angelito Tenorio, and Sequanna Taylor issued a joint statement calling the county courthouse “a sanctuary for justice and peace where the accused come forward willingly in a fair an unbiased process”, and warned that “arresting people out of a courtroom will lead to a breakdown of civil society.” 

At the end of April, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended Dugan with pay. Her case catalyzed protests outside the Milwaukee FBI Office, and was repeatedly mentioned at the summer’s No Kings protests. In July, Republican lawmakers introduced a bill to withhold pay for suspended judges. 

“In these rare circumstances, these judges’ actions and alleged misconduct rose to such a level that suspension was warranted,” the bill’s authors, Sen. Cory Tomczyk (R-Mosinee), Assembly Majority Leader Tyler August (R-Walworth) and Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) wrote in a memo.  “Simply put, Wisconsin taxpayers must be protected from the misconduct and/or commission of a crime by rogue judges.”

If convicted, Dugan, who has pleaded not guilty, faces six years in prison. Her legal team initially attempted to have the case thrown out,  t arguing that Dugan is covered by  judicial immunity. That argument was rejected by U.S. Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph of the Eastern District of Wisconsin, who wrote that judges have civil immunity for official actions, but not criminal immunity, and that the case should go forward.

“As she said after her unnecessary arrest, Judge Dugan asserts her innocence and looks forward to being vindicated in court,” Dugan’s defense attorneys said in a statement.

On Thursday night, a crowd gathered outside the federal courthouse to support Dugan. 

Therese Heeg, 66, told the Wisconsin Examiner that she felt a responsibility to attend the rally to “protect our democracy for my children, my grandchildren, my son-in-law who’s unable to live in the U.S. because he’s from Africa, my best friend’s children who are Hispanic who are afraid for their lives, even though they’re citizens.” Heeg said she’s worried about immigration enforcement coming to the city to take people away. “Every single day there’s more and more atrocities happening right here,” said Heeg. “We are trapping people in camps…I used to wonder what it was like to live under the Nazis, and now I know, I’m living it. It’s shocking, it’s hard to comprehend at the same time that it’s happening every single day. 

Jury selection on Thursday was  closed off from the public and media by U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, who is hearing the case. Adelman was responding to concerns from both the prosecution and defense that public questioning would taint the jury. An audio feed allowing media to listen to the jury selection process was restored following a legal   challenge by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Sister Barbara Pfarr, who is among the leaders of the faith-based social justice group MICAH, said that the national attention on Dugan’s case shows that the judge struck a nerve by standing up to the  Trump administration. Pfarr was disturbed by the effort to restrict press access during jury selection, and wondered whether anything similar would happen during the trial. “That’s the other big reason that I’m here, we’ve lost our democracy.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The Madison Social Security Administration field office. The federal Administration for Children and Families is calling on states, including Wisconsin, to stop diverting Social Security and other federal benefits that are supposed to be made available to foster children. (Wisconsin Examiner photo)

Federal officials are urging 39 states, including Wisconsin, to quit hoarding federal benefits that are supposed to go to children in foster care, but that agencies instead take to help pay for their foster care expenses.

The practice has been going on in various states for two decades or more, according to advocates who have been calling to ban it for nearly as long.

Wisconsin is among the states that received letters last week from the federal Administration for Children and Families, calling on them to stop diverting Social Security survivor’s benefits that are supposed to go to foster children.

“Every earned benefit dollar belongs to these foster youth, not the government agencies or bureaucrats,” said Alex J. Adams, the ACF assistant secretary, in a press release from ACF and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

“ACF has notified all 39 governors who allow this practice and aims to work with states to end it,” the press release stated. “The goal is to ensure these earned benefits are no longer taken from foster youth and are instead preserved to support them as they transition out of state care.”

In Wisconsin, the office of Gov. Tony Evers pointed to a provision Evers included in his proposed 2025-27 state budget to end the practice, but that Republican lawmakers removed without comment at the start of budget deliberations.

“It’s been a long-time issue now, but unfortunately it has been largely under the radar,” said Daniel Hatcher, a University of Baltimore law professor and an early critic of the practice. Hatcher has advocated on behalf of affected foster children for more than two decades and written extensively about the issue, including in the Wisconsin Law Review.

A Marshall Project-National Public Radio project in 2021 found that 49 states at the time were rerouting foster children’s federal benefits to cover some of their costs. Hatcher said that has helped raise more attention to the issue.

“I think most people, when you talk to them about this practice, when they  understand what’s going on, they’re outraged,” Hatcher told the Wisconsin Examiner.

Foster children who would qualify for Social Security survivors’ benefits or veterans’ survivor benefits because their parents have died, as well as foster children who themselves have disabilities and qualify for Social Security disability payments (SSI) have all been affected, Hatcher said.

Hatcher first publicized the practice in a 2006 law review article that documented how state and local child welfare agencies, or the private contractors that they engage to manage their programs, were intercepting federal benefits that are supposed to go to foster children.

“The agencies identify foster children who are disabled or have deceased or disabled parents, apply for Social Security benefits on the children’s behalf, and then take the children’s benefits to reimburse foster care costs for which the children have no legal obligation,” Hatcher wrote.

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2003 upheld the practice, but advocates have been fighting to end it ever since.

In Wisconsin, Hatcher wrote in a 2018 op-ed article for the CapTimes, the administration of then-Gov. Scott Walker signed a contract in 2011 with Maximus Inc. that the management company used to “increase the number of children classified as disabled and to locate children with deceased birth parents — not to provide more services to the children, but so the state can take their resources.”

Drawing on public records, Hatcher estimated that the contract yielded at least $3 million “in survivor and disability benefits from foster children each year” in Milwaukee County alone, “and the state has been taking millions more from foster children in other jurisdictions.”

Earlier this year the Evers administration estimated that about $3.2 million each year was being diverted from foster children’s SSI or Social Security survivors’ benefits, with about 95% going to fund the foster care system. The figures were cited in a Legislative Fiscal Bureau’s March summary of Evers’ proposed 2025-27 budget.

The governor’s budget proposal included a provision to end the diversion and instead deposit the benefits in trust funds for each child in foster care.

The proposal also included language to prohibit the Department of Children and Families or county child welfare agencies from using those funds to pay for foster care. DCF officials said the department would seek additional funding in the state budget to replace what counties lost as a result, according to the fiscal bureau’s summary.

The proposal to stop diverting the benefits was one of more than 600 items in Evers’ draft budget that the Republican majority on the Legislature’s budget-writing Joint Finance Committee deleted on the first day of budget deliberations.

Asked whether the Evers administration had any comment on the federal notice last week, the governor’s communications director, Britt Cudaback, replied in an email message, “Nothing beyond the fact we already tried to address this, but Republican lawmakers rejected the effort.”

Before his confirmation as ACF assistant secretary, Adams was director of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. In May, he directed the department to stop diverting foster children’s survivor benefits, the Idaho Capital Sun reported.

Idaho is one of 11 states that have ended the diversion of survivor benefits, according to the DHS/ACF press release.

The Children’s Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego has identified at least eight states and the District of Columbia that have completely banned the diversion of all benefits designated for foster children. A number of other states have attempted to stop the diversion of selected benefits.

The federal notice marks an important step in the campaign to end the practice, said Amy Harfeld, the institute’s national policy director.

“We’re very excited about what this does,” Harfeld told the Wisconsin Examiner. “It doesn’t fix the whole problem but it sets a really solid marker in the ground that not only keeps states moving forward but leads toward the next changes that need to be made to actually put an end to it.”

The Children’s Advocacy Institute acknowledges Wisconsin’s unsuccessful attempt to curb the practice in the 2025 budget.

With the failure of that effort, however, “Wisconsin isn’t looking so good right now,” Harfeld said. “It’s one of only 11 states that haven’t done anything.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

There were 105 immigration arrests in October at a horse racetrack in Wilder, Idaho. Idaho saw one of the country’s largest increases in immigration arrests this year through mid-October compared with the same period in the Biden administration. (Photo courtesy of ACLU of Idaho)

Immigration arrests under the Trump administration continued to increase through mid-October, reaching rates of more than 30,000 a month. But, rather than the convicted criminals the administration has said it’s focused on, an ever-larger share of those arrests were for solely immigration violations.

In 45 states, immigration arrests more than doubled compared with the same period last year, during the Biden administration. The largest increases: There were 1,190 arrests in the District of Columbia compared with just seven last year under the Biden administration. Arrests were also more than five times higher in New Mexico, Idaho, Oregon and Virginia.

“The result stands in contrast to the administration’s objective of arresting the ‘worst of the worst,’” said Ariel Ruiz Soto, a senior policy analyst at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute. Heightened enforcement is likely increasing “collateral” arrests of people found during searches for convicted criminals, he said.

Comparisons between the Trump and Biden administrations were calculated by Stateline in an analysis of data released by the Deportation Data Project, a research initiative by the universities of California at Berkeley and Los Angeles. About 93% of arrests could be identified by state.

While more people were arrested this year, a lower percentage are convicted criminals.

The share of arrested immigrants who had been convicted of violent crimes has dropped from 9% in January to less than 5% in October. The share under Biden was consistently between 10% and 11% during the same period in 2024.

The same trend applies to people arrested solely on immigration violations: Immigration violations alone were behind 20% in April, then rose to 44% of arrests in October, according to Stateline’s analysis.

In some states and the District of Columbia, a majority of arrests were for immigration violations alone: the District of Columbia (80%), New York (61%), Virginia (57%), Illinois (53%), West Virginia (51%) and Maryland (50%).

States with high immigrant populations also saw the most arrests this year. The largest numeric increases were in Texas (up 29,403, triple last year’s figure), Florida (up 14,693, a fourfold increase) and California (up 13,345, a fourfold increase).

The two states with the largest arrest rate increases have responded very differently to President Donald Trump’s deportation mission.

“We’re going to resist like all of the Democratic states,” New Mexico Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said in an interview with The Santa Fe New Mexican after last year’s election, referring to mass deportation plans. She proposed legislation to ban U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facilities in the state. The legislation failed this year, but Lujan Grisham urged the state legislature to reconsider next year. The state has three privately run ICE detention centers with the capacity for 2,000 people.

Idaho’s Republican governor, Brad Little, is helping ICE under a 287(g) agreement by transporting what his office calls “highly dangerous illegal alien criminals” from county jails to federal custody. The 53 men pictured on the governor’s website have charges ranging from drug possession to sexual assault.

In a news release, the office says the program is intended to take people “after the completion of their sentences,” though an October review by the Idaho Capital Sun found some were transported despite dismissed or still-pending charges.

Nationally, arrests have increased this year from around 17,000 in February, the first full month of President Donald Trump’s current term, to more than 30,000 in September and October. The share of convicted criminals has dropped from 46% to 30%, though the number of convicted criminals arrested still has been higher each month than under President Joe Biden.

Some of the policies that have fed increased arrest numbers face new court battles. This month, a federal judge blocked the administration from making immigration arrests in the District of Columbia without warrants or probable cause.

In August, a federal court blocked the administration’s expansion of expedited removal, which itself allows fast deportations without judicial review. The administration has appealed, arguing that immigrants who have been in the country for less than two years without legal authorization are not guaranteed due process.

Such fast deportations could be used on 2.5 million people, according to a Migration Policy Institute estimate published in September, including 1 million people released at the border with Mexico with court dates and 1.5 million people with temporary protections such as humanitarian parole.

This fall, the share of arrested immigrants with criminal convictions continued to decrease just before and during the federal government shutdown, with only 3% of those arrested and detained having convictions between Sept. 21 and Nov. 16, according to national information analyzed by Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), a data research organization at Syracuse University.

“While ICE is detaining more and more individuals, targeting has shifted sharply to individuals without any criminal convictions,” the TRAC report noted.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to clarify a reference to October detention statistics analyzed by Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.

Federal and local law enforcement officers arrest a man in Washington, D.C., in August. The number of arrests nationwide fell sharply in 2020 and have stayed down since then, according to a new report from the nonpartisan think tank Council on Criminal Justice. (Photo by Andrew Leyden/Getty Images)

Arrests in the United States have fallen to levels not seen in decades, according to a new report that reconstructs national arrest trends in the absence of federal data.

The Council on Criminal Justice, a nonpartisan think tank, on Thursday released the first comprehensive national analysis of arrests since federal authorities stopped publishing detailed arrest statistics in 2020.

Arrests plunged during the first year of the pandemic and have remained low, according to the analysis. The national arrest rate in 2024 was 30% below the 2019 level and 71% lower than the peak in 1994. 

Drug arrests have fallen even faster, with adult and juvenile drug-offense arrest rates dropping to about half of what they were in 2019.

In 1980, juveniles made up nearly a fifth of arrests nationwide, but by 2018, their share had fallen to 7%. While adult arrest rates declined 7% between 2020 and 2024, juvenile rates rose 14% over the same period.

Gender patterns have shifted as well. With arrests of men falling more steeply over time, women now account for a larger portion of arrests. Adult women’s share nearly doubled between 1980 and 2020, rising from 14% to about 27%. Girls’ share of juvenile arrests grew from 18% to roughly 31%.

Between 2020 and 2024, arrest rates for Black and Asian juveniles surged 48% and 45%, respectively, compared with an 11% increase among white youth. Rates for American Indian and Alaska Native juveniles fell 4%. 

Among adults, arrest rates increased by 12% for Black people and 18% for Asian people, but declined by 10% for white adults and 17% for American Indian and Alaska Native adults.

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

A billboard advertises an artificial intelligence company in San Francisco in September. California is among the states leading the way on AI regulations, but an executive order signed by President Donald Trump seeks to override state laws on the technology. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

State lawmakers of both parties said they plan to keep passing laws regulating artificial intelligence despite President Donald Trump’s efforts to stop them.

Trump signed an executive order Thursday evening that aims to override state artificial intelligence laws. He said his administration must work with Congress to develop a national AI policy, but that in the meantime, it will crack down on state laws.

The order comes after several other Trump administration efforts to rein in state AI laws and loosen restrictions for developers and technology companies.

But despite those moves, state lawmakers are continuing to prefile legislation related to artificial intelligence in preparation for their 2026 legislative sessions. Opponents are also skeptical about — and likely to sue over — Trump’s proposed national framework and his ability to restrict states from passing legislation.

“I agree on not overregulating, but I don’t believe the federal government has the right to take away my right to protect my constituents if there’s an issue with AI,” said South Carolina Republican state Rep. Brandon Guffey, who penned a letter to Congress opposing legislation that would curtail state AI laws.

The letter, signed by 280 state lawmakers from across the country, shows that state legislators from both parties want to retain their ability to craft their own AI legislation, said South Dakota Democratic state Sen. Liz Larson, who co-wrote the letter.

Earlier this year, South Dakota Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden signed the state’s first artificial intelligence law, authored by Larson, prohibiting the use of a deepfake — a digitally altered photo or video that can make someone appear to be doing just about anything — to influence an election.

South Dakota and other states with more comprehensive AI laws, such as California and Colorado, would see their efforts overruled by Trump’s order, Larson said.

“To take away all of this work in a heartbeat and then prevent states from learning those lessons, without providing any alternative framework at the federal level, is just irresponsible,” she said. “It takes power away from the states.”

Trump’s efforts

Thursday’s executive order will establish an AI Litigation Task Force to bring court challenges against states with AI-related laws, with exceptions for a few issues such as child safety protections and data center infrastructure.

The order also directs the secretary of commerce to notify states that they could lose certain funds under the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program if their laws conflict with national AI policy priorities.

Trump said the order would help the United States beat China in dominating the burgeoning AI industry, adding that Chinese President Xi Jinping did not have similar restraints.

“This will not be successful unless they have one source of approval or disapproval,” he said. “It’s got to be one source. They can’t go to 50 different sources.”

In July, the Trump administration released the AI Action Plan, an initiative aimed at reducing regulatory barriers and accelerating the growth of AI infrastructure, including data centers. Trump also has revoked Biden-era AI safety and anti-discrimination policies.

The tech industry had lobbied for Trump’s order.

“This executive order is an important step towards ensuring that smart, unified federal policy — not bureaucratic red tape — secures America’s AI dominance for generations to come,” said Amy Bos, vice president of government affairs for NetChoice, a technology trade association, in a statement to Stateline.

As the administration looks to address increasing threats to national defense and cybersecurity, a centralized, national approach to AI policy is best, said Paul Lekas, the executive vice president for global public policy and government affairs at the Software & Information Industry Association.

“The White House is very motivated to ensure that there aren’t barriers to innovation and that we can continue to move forward,” he said. “And the White House is concerned that there is state legislation that may be purporting to regulate interstate commerce. We would be creating a patchwork that would be very hard for innovation.”

Congressional Republicans tried twice this year to pass moratoriums on state AI laws, but both efforts failed.

In the absence of a comprehensive federal artificial intelligence policy, state lawmakers have worked to regulate the rapid development of AI systems and protect consumers from potential harms.

Trump’s executive order could cause concern among lawmakers who fear possible blowback from the administration for their efforts, said Travis Hall, the director for state engagement at the Center for Democracy & Technology, a nonprofit that advocates for digital rights and freedom of expression.

“I can’t imagine that state legislators aren’t going to continue to try to engage with these technologies in order to help protect and respond to the concerns of their constituents,” Hall said. “However, there’s no doubt that the intent of this executive order is to chill any actual oversight, accountability or regulation.”

State rules

This year, 38 states adopted or enacted measures related to artificial intelligence, according to a National Conference of State Legislatures database. Numerous state lawmakers have also prefiled legislation for 2026.

But tensions have grown over the past few months as Trump has pushed for deregulation and states have continued to create guardrails.

In 2024, Colorado Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed the nation’s first comprehensive artificial intelligence framework into law. Under the law, developers of AI systems will be required to protect consumers from potential algorithmic discrimination.

But implementation of the law was postponed a few months until June 2026 after negotiations stalled during a special legislative session this summer aiming to ensure the law did not hinder technological innovation. And a spokesperson for Polis told Bloomberg in May that the governor supported a U.S. House GOP proposal that would impose a moratorium on state AI laws.

Trump’s executive order, which mentions the Colorado law as an example of legislation the administration may challenge, has caused uncertainty among some state lawmakers focused on regulating AI. But Colorado state Rep. Brianna Titone and state Sen. Robert Rodriguez, Democratic sponsors of the law, said they will continue their work.

Unless Congress passes legislation to restrict states from passing AI laws, Trump’s executive order can easily be challenged and overturned in court, she said.

“This is just a bunch of hot air,” Titone said. “It doesn’t hold any water and it doesn’t have any teeth because the president doesn’t have the authority to supersede state law. We will continue to do what we need to do for the people in our state, just like we always have, unless there is an actual preemption in federal law.”

California and Illinois also have been at the forefront of artificial intelligence legislation over the past few years. In September, California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the nation’s first law establishing a comprehensive legal framework for developers of the most advanced, large-scale artificial intelligence models, known as frontier artificial intelligence models. Those efforts are aimed at preventing AI models from causing catastrophic harm involving dozens of casualties or billion-dollar damages.

California officials have said they are considering a legal challenge over Trump’s order, and other states and groups are likely to sue as well.

Republican officials and GOP-led states, including some Trump allies, also are pushing forward with AI regulations. Efforts to protect consumers from AI harms are being proposed in Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Utah.

Earlier this month, Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis also unveiled a proposal for an AI Bill of Rights. The proposal aims to strengthen consumer protections related to AI and to address the growing impact data centers are having on local communities.

In South Carolina, Guffey said he plans to introduce a bill in January that would place rules on AI chatbots. Chatbots that use artificial intelligence are able to simulate conversations with users, but raise privacy and safety concerns.

Artificial intelligence is developing fast, Guffey noted. State lawmakers have been working on making sure the technology is safe to use — and they’ll keep doing that to protect their constituents, he said.

“The problem is that it’s not treated like a product — it’s treated like a service,” Guffey said. “If it was treated like a product, we have consumer protection laws where things could be recalled and adjusted and then put back out there once they’re safe. But that is not the case with any of this technology.”

Stateline reporter Madyson Fitzgerald can be reached at mfitzgerald@stateline.org.

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., talks with reporters during a press conference on Wednesday, Dec. 10, 2025. Also pictured are, from left, Republican Conference Chairwoman Lisa McClain of Michigan, Majority Whip Tom Emmer of Minnesota and Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republicans released a health care bill Friday evening they hope will help curb rising costs, though the measure doesn’t have the level of Democratic support needed to get through the Senate. 

The 111-page bill will likely move to the House floor next week, where Speaker Mike Johnson will need nearly every one of his members to vote to pass the legislation, an uphill battle given the vastly different views among centrists and far-right members of the party on health care issues. 

The Louisiana Republican said in a statement the bill offers “clear, responsible alternatives that will lower premium costs and increase access and health care options for all Americans.”

Democrats have been pressing for a three-year extension of the enhanced tax credits for people who purchase their insurance through the Affordable Care Act marketplace. 

So far, House and Senate Republican leadership hasn’t gotten on board with any extension of those subsidies, arguing they have led to a sharp rise in the cost of health insurance. 

GOP lawmakers have instead pursued their own legislation, but without at least some backing from Democrats, no bill will make it through the Senate’s 60-vote procedural hurdles. 

Senate Republicans tried to advance a bill earlier this week from Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy and Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo but fell short of the votes needed. 

Democrats were also unsuccessful trying to move their bill to extend the ACA marketplace tax credits for three years. 

The House Republican bill, sponsored by Iowa Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks, is unlikely to break the logjam in Congress over the rising cost of health insurance and health care, potentially leaving the issue as one the parties can debate leading up to next year’s midterm elections. 

Targeting ‘real drivers’ of cost increases

Johnson rebuked Democrats in his statement for enacting the Affordable Care Act during President Barack Obama’s first term, saying the law hasn’t made health care cost less. 

House Republicans’ new legislation, Johnson said, will address “the real drivers of health care costs to provide affordable care, increase access and choice, and restore integrity to our nation’s health care system for all Americans.”

The bill would require Pharmacy Benefit Managers “to provide employers with detailed data on prescription drug spending, rebates, spread pricing, and formulary decisions—empowering plans and workers with the transparency they deserve,” according to a summary in Johnson’s release. 

Starting in 2027, the legislation would appropriate funding for cost sharing reduction payments that the summary said would reduce health insurance premiums and stabilize the individual market. 

The House Rules Committee is scheduled to prepare the bill for floor debate on Tuesday by considering whether to allow any amendments to be considered on the floor. 

The full House will then debate the legislation later in the week before departing for the two-week holiday break. 

Trump wants direct payments

President Donald Trump, speaking from the Oval Office shortly after the bill was released, reiterated his preference that the federal government send payments directly to Americans.

“We want to give the money to the people and let the people buy their own great health care, and they’ll save a lot of money, and it’ll be great,” he said.

But Trump also appeared to signal he is going to stay out of negotiations in Congress, saying, “I leave it to them and hopefully they’re going to put great legislation on this desk right here.”

Kilmar Abrego Garcia speaks before dozens of supporters Friday outside the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in Baltimore. (Photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters)

Kilmar Abrego Garcia is a free man, at least temporarily.

Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran immigrant and Maryland resident, appeared early Friday for a check-in at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office in Baltimore, less than day after a federal district judge ordered him released from ICE detention in Pennsylvania.

At his last ICE check-in, in August, Abrego Garcia walked in but didn’t walk out: Authorities detained him and held him until Thursday. But Friday, Abrego Garcia walked out of the building to cheers and chants, led by members of the immigrant rights group CASA to a black car that took him to rejoin his family in Prince George’s County.

Before Abrego-Garcia walked inside the building Friday, he thanked his supporters who rallied there, talked about spending the holidays with his family and offered advice for others suffering similar legal battles against the Trump administration.

“I stand before you as a free man, and I want you to remember me this way with my head held up high,” Abrego Garica said in Spanish, through a CASA translator.

“I stand here today with my head held up high, and I will continue to fight and stand firm against all of the injustices this government has done upon me,” Abrego Garcia said. “Regardless of this administration, I believe this is a country of laws, and I believe that this injustice will come to its end. Keep fighting. Do not give up. I wish all of you love and justice. Keep going.”

One of his attorneys, Simon Y. Sandoval-Moshenberg, told reporters and a few dozen protesters outside the field office that the federal judge who ordered Abrego Garcia freed Thursday said Friday that he could not be detained by ICE at his latest check-in.

Based on a temporary restraining order filed by his attorneys, Sandoval-Moshenberg said the judge will schedule a hearing at U.S. District Court in Greenbelt that Abrego Garcia will be able to attend.

“The legal fight is far from over,” Sandoval-Moshenberg said. “I wish I could say that with this, the government is going to leave well enough alone. This man has suffered enough.”

Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin called the judge’s decision to let Abrego Garcia free “naked judicial activism.”

“This order lacks any valid legal basis and we will continue to fight this tooth and nail in the courts,” McLaughlin said in an email Friday morning that repeated her statement from the day before.

Abrego Garcia’s return to the Baltimore ICE office came one day after U.S. District Court of Maryland Judge Paul Xinis ordered the Trump administration to release him from the Moshannon Valley Processing Center in Pennsylvania, where he had been held since September. He was released Thursday evening and spent the night at his home in Beltsville.

Since he was first detained by immigration officials in March and wrongly deported to his home county of El Salvador, Abrego Garcia’s case has shone a spotlight on the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration crackdown.

Abrego Garcia was originally deported to a brutal prison in El Salvador, despite a previous court ruling that prohibited his transfer there because of fear of violence by Salvadoran gangs.

Months later — and months after the U.S. Supreme Court’s April order that the Trump administration “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return –he was brought back to the U.S. on June 6, only to face charges of human smuggling in Tennessee. The judge in that case eventually ordered Abrego Garcia released to home detention while his claim of vindictive prosecution in the Tennessee case proceeded.

Xinis, who got involved in the case when Abrego Garcia was first deported, issued a ruling Thurday that was highly critical of the administration’s actions in the case. She found that Abrego Garcia’s latest detention, since his August ICE check-in, was “again without lawful authority,” because the Trump administration has been holding him for deportation but has not made an effort to remove him to a third country.

The government’s “conduct over the past months belie that his detention has been for the basic purpose of effectuating removal, lending further support that Abrego Garcia should be held no longer,” Xinis wrote in her opinion.

Costa Rica has agreed to accept Abrego Garcia as a refugee, but Justice Department lawyers could not give Xinis a clear explanation of why the Trump administration would not send him there. Instead, the administration has proposed deporting Abrego Garcia to several countries in Africa.

Back in Baltimore on Friday morning, dozens of supporters braved the cold to hold up signs, chant and then clap and cheer when Abrego Garcia walked back outside the ICE building a free man, chanting “todos somos Kilmar,” or “we are all Kilmar.”

“It’s definitely a good day, but it is a good day to know that he’ll be able to spend the holidays with his family, “said Baltimore City Councilmember Odette Ramos, who attended the rally.

“He and his family have been so brave to go through all of this and to have their story really symbolize, frankly, what so many others are going through,” she said. “The fight’s not over.”

Maryland Matters is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Maryland Matters maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Steve Crane for questions: editor@marylandmatters.org.

Wisconsin's health department is sticking with a recommendation that children receive the hepatitis B vaccine at birth. (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)

Wisconsin’s health department is reaffirming longstanding recommendations that all newborns get a vaccination for hepatitis B.

The Department of Health Services announced Thursday it has sent a memo to Wisconsin vaccination providers about the vaccine.

“DHS continues to recommend that all newborns receive the hepatitis B vaccine within 24 hours of birth, and then go on to complete the standard three-dose series within the first 18 months of life,” said Dr. Ryan Westergaard, chief medical officer in the DHS bureau of communicable diseases, at a media briefing Thursday.

Hepatitis B, a viral infection, can lead to lifelong liver disease, Westergaard said, including cirrhosis and liver cancer.

“Infants and young children are particularly at high risk,” he said. A baby infected with the virus has up to a 90% chance of developing chronic liver disease, he said.

Infants can be exposed during birth or through close contact with adults and caregivers “who may not even know that they carry the virus,” Westergaard added. “That’s why vaccination early in life is so important.”

DHS issued the announcement following a federal shift in vaccine policy, eliminating a recommendation in place since 1991 for newborns to receive the hepatitis B shot. The recommendation was eliminated Dec. 5 in a vote by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In June, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. replaced all 17 members of the advisory committee with a new group of appointees, many of whom are seen as vaccine skeptics.

CDC vaccine committee overturns decades-old hepatitis B recommendation for newborns

The decision to end the recommendation for all newborns to get the hepatitis B shot dismayed the leaders of  medical organizations, including the American Medical Association and the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials.

“For more than 30 years, the hepatitis B vaccine has been used safely and effectively in newborns,” Westergaard said Thursday. Since the 1991 recommendation was put in place, hepatitis B infections in children have declined by 99%, he said.

“This recommendation is grounded in decades of research showing that the vaccine is safe and effective, and it aligns with guidance of the American Academy of Pediatrics and other leading medical groups,” Westergaard said. “So, our message today is straightforward, hepatitis B and its long-term health consequences are preventable. And routine childhood vaccination remains one of our most effective tools we have to protect children’s health and prevent lifelong disease.”

Westergaard said there has been no change in insurance coverage for the vaccine and that the hepatitis B shot remains among the vaccines available through the Vaccine for Children’s program for patients without health insurance.

ACIP also recommended blood testing for antibodies before giving the rest of the hepatitis B series shots for infants and young children, but Westergaard said that recommendation is not supported by scientific evidence.

The presence of hepatitis B antibodies in adults is a good indicator that they are protected against an infection, he said. “There’s no science suggesting that that same strategy works for newborns and children,” he added.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Voters at the Wilmar Neighborhood Center on Madison's East Side cast their ballots. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

The Wisconsin Elections Commission on Thursday denied a demand from the U.S. Department of Justice for the state’s full voter registration list, including personally identifiable information such as dates of birth, driver’s licenses and Social Security numbers. 

At a special meeting Thursday afternoon and in a letter sent in response to the DOJ demand, WEC stated that Wisconsin law explicitly prevents the commission from sharing the personal information of voters. 

“The U.S. DOJ is simply asking the commission to do something the commission is explicitly forbidden by Wisconsin law to do,” commissioner Don Millis said. 

This is the second time this year the DOJ has requested Wisconsin’s voter database. Both times, the department has been informed that Wisconsin state law requires that the commission charge a fee to obtain the list. 

Since the summer, the DOJ has requested the voter databases of several states — raising concerns over why the department is seeking massive amounts of voter data, especially as President Donald Trump has remained fixated on conspiracy theories that his 2020 election loss was rigged. 

In its demand for the data, sent Dec. 2 as a “confidential memorandum of understanding” the department said it was seeking the data to check if Wisconsin is properly complying with the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act.

VRLData Sharing Agreement DOJ-WI

“The Justice Department is requesting your state’s [Voter Registration List] to test, analyze, and assess states’ VRLs for proper list maintenance and compliance with federal law,” the memo states. 

However the WEC response questions the authority with which DOJ is asserting its right to the records. For one, Wisconsin is exempt from the NVRA because it offers same-day voter registration at polling places. Also, WEC wrote in its response letter that HAVA does not grant the DOJ access to confidential voter data. 

Compliance with HAVA and the thoroughness of states’ compliance with voter list maintenance requirements have become regular talking points among Republicans who say they’re concerned that there are thousands of people who have active voter registrations when they should be ineligible to vote because they’ve moved, died or otherwise are unable to cast a ballot. 

The sources of those complaints include the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, a right-wing law firm that in October sent a letter to the DOJ asking for the department to assess Wisconsin’s compliance with HAVA. 

WEC has said repeatedly that the commission and Wisconsin’s municipal election clerks are properly maintaining the voter rolls. They’ve also noted that the concerns are often overstated because even if a voter is ineligible and their file is deactivated in the database, their name will still appear in the system.

WEC Letter – Resp to 12.2.25 DOJ Correspondence

“The joint effort between state and local election officials enhances the integrity of the system by ensuring responsibilities are distributed across thousands of officials in every city, village, and town, rather than concentrated among a small handful of state employees in the Capitol,” the WEC response letter states. “The vast majority of list maintenance work consists of routine updates, and the processes also serve to identify attempts at wrongdoing. Each year, Wisconsin election officials at all levels of government identify and refer to criminal prosecution: felons attempting to vote, double voters, non-citizens, and others trying to circumvent election law.” 

In the WEC decision to deny DOJ’s request as well as to release the DOJ memo and the response letter, Republican commissioner Bob Spindell was the lone vote against. Spindell pointed to a provision of state law that allows WEC to share restricted information in the voter database with law enforcement agencies. Spindell has often used his role on the commission to indulge conspiracy theories and cast doubt on the security of the election system. 

“This is a highly, highly controversial issue throughout the country at this point in time, and my point of view is that this information can be released,” Spindell said. “I believe that through the HAVA Act, the federal government has the appropriate ability to see if we’re doing everything that’s correct and OK. I’ve talked forever about we need to have, in the state of Wisconsin, an independent audit, or whatever, of the registration list to satisfy the many individuals and groups and so forth that question it. And all HAVA is doing here, the federal government is asking for a chance to take a look at us.” 

But commissioner Mark Thomsen said there is no way that a provision meant to help law enforcement find information about suspects in criminal investigations could be interpreted to mean WEC can give the personal information of every Wisconsin voter to the federal government. 

“Our rights as commissioners are limited by the Fourth Amendment, by state law itself,” Thomsen said. “Mr. Spindel is just flat out wrong that this one provision that he relies on would allow us to legally give Wisconsin citizens’ private information off to someone for some unknown reason. It’s not just a person that’s suspected of a crime, it’s everybody, and Wisconsin has never stood for the proposition that any government is entitled to all this data anytime someone asked. So I think Bob, you’re just making up the law there.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Child care provider Heather Murray, right, gives Mandela Barnes, left, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for Wisconsin governor, a tour of her facility, Art House Preschool in Waunakee. Joining them were, second from left, Paula Drew and Kayla Gardner, both from the Wisconsin Early Childhood Association. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

Wisconsin should make child care universally available, just as public education is, former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes said Thursday during a child care center visit that was part of the rollout for his campaign for governor.

“I support having full, comprehensive, universal childcare,” Barnes told the Wisconsin Examiner in an interview that followed a round table session with providers, parents and child care policy analysts. “I, for sure, hope others understand the urgency of this issue, understand the complexity of it as well, and we’ll be ready to fight tooth and nail to do everything we can to improve the system for our providers, for our parents and most importantly, for the young people, for the students, for our children.”

The round table took place at the Art House Preschool, a Waunakee child care center.

Barnes is not the first Democratic hopeful in the 2026 race for governor to visit the Art House. Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley held a round table on child care issues in November at the same location. And virtually every other active Democratic primary candidate in the governor’s race mentions affordable child care on their website as a priority of their campaigns.

During his event Thursday, Barnes coupled state funding for child care with his support for better public education funding.

“If we aren’t invested in children, what are we doing as a state? What are we doing as a country?” he asked at the start of the nearly hour-long discussion. “We need to ensure, one, that our schools, K-12, are fully funded, but also that our children are ready to enter K-12. And that means that early childhood education has support.”

During most of the session, Barnes refrained from lengthy policy prescriptions and focused instead on questions for the round table participants — asking for both their biggest challenges and their “biggest ideas” for addressing Wisconsin’s child care needs.

“Direct investment to providers, I believe, would be the best to keep people from closing their doors,” said Heather Murray, the owner of Art House, who has been a child care provider for nearly two decades. “I like to call it a public good, because I don’t believe it can exist without government funding.”

Stephanie Frontz is an IT specialist and the mother of four, one of them at Art House. She recently gave birth to infant twins who are slated to be enrolled there.

“We need the help there so the state can help pay fair wages,” Frontz said. That will  ensure child care workers stay, which in turn makes it possible for more parents to work, she added. “It impacts my family and the economy if I can’t work.”

Child care providers who have a shortage of teachers reduce the hours that they’re open, said Carly Eaton, a parent whose day job is with an organized labor environmental group.

She understands why, but jobs in construction, manufacturing and especially health care often “don’t fit in the 7 a.m. to 6 a.m. hours that you may be able to find child care,” Eaton said. “To hear legislators on a certain side of the aisle talk about the worker shortage and then not do anything about child care just breaks my brain.”

During the COVID-19 pandemic, federal relief funds included money designated for child care. In Wisconsin that money went to the Child Care Counts program, which originally distributed $20 million a month to the state’s child care providers.

The monthly support was later cut in half and extended through mid-2025 after the GOP majority in the Wisconsin Legislature rejected the proposal Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, made in the 2023-25 state budget to continue the subsidy with state funds.

Evers again proposed ongoing state funding in the 2025-27 budget. “I heard a lot of people say during the last budget cycle, ‘We can’t just keep writing checks …. It didn’t work,’” said Kayla Gardner, engagement specialist at the Wisconsin Early Childhood Association. “It actually did — it very much did work.”

“When the payments were the highest, we had very few closures,” said Paula Drew, director of early childhood education policy and research at WECA. “It stabilized the field.”

When the current budget finally passed in late June, it for the first time included some direct state funding for centers, but just for one year and at a smaller amount than Evers or child care advocates originally sought.

That money helped, said Jenn Bilderback, administrative director of Big Oak Child Care in Madison. But it also came with restrictions that made it less accessible for some providers and it will go away in June 2026.

“We have to do something that’s much more universal and that allows the flexibility for a provider,” Bilderback told Barnes.

She said her center’s board of directors, most of whom are parents, have supported providing benefits — a rarity for many child care providers — and paying a living wage. “We need to do this, but the cost of living in Madison and outside Madison is increasing too high to be able to keep up with that.”

Barnes — who along with most Democrats running for elected office in the 2026 cycle has seized on affordability as a campaign theme — responded that “the cost of living is top of mind for everybody.” But then he turned back to her earlier comments.

“You mentioned ‘something more universal,’ Barnes said. “I want you to say the thing out loud. Somebody can say it — universal child care, right?”

“We do dream big, and we do think of all these things,” said Gardner. “But what we see in return is almost nothing.”

Drew said that with turnover among child care teachers, programs are often operating at less than capacity, even as parents have trouble finding care.

“We don’t necessarily, right now, need new buildings, because we’ve got 33,000 open spots . . . across the state. We need teachers that can be working in programs to open up those 33,000 spots,” Drew said. “We’ve got the demand, but we also need the supply available in early education.”

Katie Licitis, an Art House Preschool teacher, said she first took the job four years ago after she and her husband moved to Wisconsin from Georgia. For the first time, she said, she needed child care after having been a stay-at-home mom until then. But with the turnover that providers are seeing, she asked Barnes, “Do you have a plan to retain teachers?”

“You shouldn’t have to choose between a job you love and Kwik Trip, as an example, because they’re paying more money, right?” Barnes replied. “Like, that’s an indictment on the way that things have been going. And I think that’s a big part of the broader universal child care package. And I don’t think people should be shy about wanting universal child care in this state. I think that this is exactly one of those areas that Wisconsin should be a leader in the nation.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Wisconsin politicians denounce the "billionaire loophole" that makes state elections so expensive, but they're still raising tons of cash. | Getty Images

Two high-profile candidates for governor of Wisconsin, Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany and Democratic former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, have denounced the unlimited flow of cash into state political campaigns. Then, practically in the same breath, both men announced their plans to raise tens of millions of dollars, signalling to their less well funded primary opponents that they might as well get out of the way.

In an interview with PBS Wisconsin on Dec. 5, Tiffany criticized “that pass-through loophole, I call it the ‘billionaire loophole,’” in Wisconsin law, adding, “there’s just so much money that comes into Wisconsin.” 

“You can cry about it or you can compete,” Tiffany continued. “We choose to compete … We’re hoping to raise $40 million.”

As Baylor Spears reports, Tiffany actually voted for the “billionaire loophole” he now criticizes back when he was serving in the state Senate in 2015. 

Mandela Barnes, in a recent campaign stop in Madison, told Spears and other reporters that he has raised a “strong haul,” in the first week of his campaign, and that he intends to raise a staggering $50 million by the end of the race. He added that he doesn’t like the role of money in politics. “It’s not a good sign,” he said, and his future goal is “to get big money out of politics” and enact “campaign and ethics reform.”

Back in 2015, when Republicans were ramming through the “billionaire loophole,” Barnes opposed it, saying at the time that it would allow “shady special interest money and allow for more corruption to go undetected and unprosecuted.”

Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause Wisconsin, remembers that moment well. Under former Republican Gov. Scott Walker, Republican legislative majorities passed the law eviscerating campaign finance limits along with other measures getting rid of the nonpartisan Government Accountability Board and eliminating the John Doe procedure that was used to criminally prosecute leaders of both political parties for campaign finance crimes in the infamous caucus scandal of the early 2000’s.

The 2015 law doubled the amount individuals could give to candidates. More importantly, it eliminated all limits on state party contributions to candidates and allowed coordination between candidates and outside groups that make issue ads supporting the campaigns. Donors were able to give as much as they wanted to political parties, which then funneled that money to candidates, creating the billionaire loophole to which Tiffany belatedly objects. The 2015 law cleared the way for outsiders like Elon Musk to pour limitless cash into state races to try to affect the outcome.

“The Republicans did that in 2015 because they were convinced that they would have a great financial advantage since they generally raised more money from donors and special interests,” says Heck. “Of course, what they didn’t anticipate was [former Wisconsin Democratic Party chair] Ben Wikler and the Democratic Party’s ability to take that big hole in the law and use it to raise massive amounts of money.”

Recently, Democrats in Wisconsin have been beating Republicans in the fundraising arms race. In 2025, in the most expensive judicial election in U.S. history, Susan Crawford, the candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court supported by the Democratic Party, raised $28.3 million compared with Republican-supported Brad Schimel, who raised $15.1 million. Outside special interests accounted for most of the spending on the race, with Musk alone putting in nearly $20 million through his political action committees and millions more laundered through the state Republican Party for Schimel, while the Democratic Party of Wisconsin funneled $10 million to Crawford.

The lesson of the 2015 law, says Heck, is, “be careful what you wish for.”

That certainly applies to Republicans, who lost the two most expensive state Supreme Court races in history as well as the last two record-breaking gubernatorial races won by Gov. Tony Evers with $93 million in total spending in 2018 and $164 million in 2022. 

But it also applies to Democrats, who cannot count on continually bringing in more money than Republicans.

More importantly, when it costs tens of millions of dollars to win state elections, regular voters’ voices are drowned out by billionaires, who are not investing in candidates just out of the goodness of their hearts.

Heck believes that change will only come when voters demand reform, most likely because a big scandal clearly illustrates that politicians are doing favors for their donors in exchange for campaign cash.

“It’s going to require a bipartisan coming-together to establish some limits,” Heck says. 

Even as the U.S. Supreme Court has opened the floodgate for campaign spending with the Citizens United decision, which in 2010 struck down a federal ban on political donations from corporations, and McCutcheon v. FEC, which in 2014 found that annual caps on total political donations from one person are unconstitutional, states have the ability to impose limits. 

A report by the National Conference of State Legislatures shows Wisconsin is one of only 11 states that allow unlimited candidate contributions by state parties and among the top 10 for the highest limits on PAC contributions to candidates. Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois and most other states limit how much political parties can accept, which reduces the Elon Musk effect. Plus, “We are one of few states that allows so-called coordination between political candidates and outside groups,” Heck says.

The problem is that candidates, while acknowledging that massive amounts of money fueling their campaigns is a bad look, don’t want to unilaterally disarm. 

But now, as the Trump administration drags the country to new levels of overt corruption, it could be a good time for a campaign that ties together billionaires’ destructive influence on society and the fact that they are buying our democracy. 

“There has to be public disgust with the amount of money being spent,” says Heck. “If a candidate put corruption front and center, it might get a lot of traction.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

President Donald Trump displays a signed executive order as, left to right, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and White House artificial intelligence and crypto czar David Sacks look on in the Oval Office of the White House on Dec. 11, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday night that aims to preempt states from enacting rules governing artificial intelligence, a major departure from the typical federalist structure of American government that Trump said was necessary because of the issue’s high stakes.

In an early evening signing ceremony in the Oval Office, Trump said the order would position the United States to win a competition with China to dominate the burgeoning AI industry. Coordinating policy among 50 different states would put the U.S. at a disadvantage, Trump said, adding that Chinese President Xi Jinping did not have similar restraints.

“This will not be successful unless they have one source of approval or disapproval,” he said. “It’s got to be one source. They can’t go to 50 different sources.”

The order creates a task force to monitor state laws on AI and to challenge them in court, and directs the Commerce secretary to complete a review of state laws within three months.

David Sacks, the chair of a White House board on technology, said there were more than 1,000 pending AI bills in state legislatures.

White House staff secretary Will Scharf said during the Oval Office event that the order would “ensure that AI can operate within a single national framework in this country, as opposed to being subject to state level regulation that could potentially cripple the industry.”

“The big picture is that we’re taking steps to ensure that AI operates under a single national standard so that we can reap the benefits that will come from it.”

The order, a major assertion of presidential power over state governments and Congress, is likely to see court challenges, including from environmental groups that oppose AI expansion because of the energy resources the technology requires.

“Congress has repeatedly rejected attempts to undermine states’ and local communities’ efforts to protect themselves from the unchecked spread of AI, which is driving a wave of dangerous data center development,” Mitch Jones, the chief of policy and litigation at the advocacy group Food and Water Watch, said in a statement. 

“We’ll be following the administration’s attempts to implement this farcical order, and we’ll fight it in Congress, in the states, in the courts, and with communities across this country.”

Protesters rally outside of the Theodore Roosevelt Federal Building headquarters of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management on Feb. 5, 2025, in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House passed a bill Thursday that would overturn an executive order from President Donald Trump that strips collective bargaining rights for roughly 1 million federal employees. 

The 231-195 vote was a rare bipartisan pushback against the president. The bill was sponsored by Maine’s Jared Golden, a Democrat, and Pennsylvania’s Brian Fitzpatrick, a Republican. Twenty Republicans joined all Democrats in supporting the bill.

It’s now referred to the Senate, but it’s unclear if it will garner enough support to reach the chamber’s 60-vote threshold — or even be brought to the floor for a vote.

The move also bucked House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, who did not bring the bill to the floor for Wednesday’s vote. Instead, lawmakers were able to vote on it through a legislative maneuver known as a discharge petition. 

The procedure allows rank-and-file members to compel the lower chamber to vote on measures that are not brought up by the leadership of the majority party, which is how bills typically reach the floor.

On Wednesday’s vote to advance the discharge petition, 13 Republicans joined all Democrats.

Following Wednesday’s procedural vote, Golden said in a statement that the bill would restore the rights of federal employees.

“President Trump said ending collective bargaining was about protecting our national defense,” he said. “But in my District, many affected workers build our warships and care for our veterans. If the majority we built over the past few months sticks together, we can overturn this union-busting executive order, and we can show America that this body will protect workers’ rights.”  

House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman James Comer, a Kentucky Republican, argued against the bill on the floor Thursday, saying lax accountability among the federal workforce harmed taxpayers.

“Accountability problems in the federal workforce are legendary,” he said. “It takes a Herculean effort to fire a poorly performing federal worker or one who is engaged in misconduct.”

Trump signed an executive order in March that banned collective bargaining agreements for federal agencies dealing with national security.

Those agencies include the departments of Defense, Veteran Affairs, Homeland Security, State and Energy, along with the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Coast Guard, most entities within the Department of Justice and several pandemic response and refugee resettlement agencies within the Health and Human Services Department, among others. 

Federal police and firefighters are exempt from the order.

Federal employees have limited bargaining agreements, compared to the private sector. Workers cannot strike or bargain for higher wages or benefits, but they can push for better working conditions, such as protection from retaliation, discrimination, and illegal firings. 

Sen. Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island speaks during a U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Dec. 11, 2025, as Chairman Roger Wicker looks on . The hearing examined the Trump Administration's deployment of the National Guard across the United States. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. lawmakers who oversee armed services policy split along party lines Thursday when examining the deployments of the National Guard to cities across the country under what President Donald Trump describes as a crime-fighting strategy.

Members of the Senate Committee on the Armed Services questioned for nearly two-and-a-half hours high-level Department of Defense officials, including the Pentagon’s No. 2 lawyer and the head of U.S. Northern Command who oversees National Guard troops under federal deployment.

The hearing on Capitol Hill came less than one month after a gunman shot two West Virginia National Guard members in broad daylight outside a Washington, D.C., Metro station just blocks from the White House.

U.S. Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, died of her injuries the following day, Thanksgiving, and U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24, is recovering from critical injuries. A 29-year-old Afghan national who worked with American troops in Afghanistan has been charged with first-degree murder. 

Senators on the panel expressed bipartisan messages of support and gratitude for Beckstrom, Wolfe and their families, but divisions were apparent over why and on what grounds Trump deployed the guard to five U.S. cities since June: Los Angeles; Washington, D.C.; Portland, Ore.; Chicago and Memphis, Tenn.

Trump also threatened to send the guard to other places, including New York City, Baltimore, St. Louis and New Orleans.

Trump first federalized the California National Guard in early June, deploying them to Los Angeles against the wishes of Mayor Karen Bass and Gov. Gavin Newsom, both Democrats. 

A California federal district judge ruled Wednesday the Trump administration must return the troops to Newsom.

A federal judge in the District of Columbia ruled Nov. 20 — six days before Beckstrom and Wolfe were attacked — that Trump’s deployment of the guard in the district was illegal. A federal appeals court has allowed the service members to remain in the district while the appeal plays out. 

Other cases, including challenges to Trump’s deployment of the guard to Oregon and Illinois, have also been tied up in court.

Countering crime

Sen. Roger Wicker, Armed Services Committee chair, opened the hearing by saying, “In recent years violent crime, rioting, drug trafficking and heinous gang activity have steadily escalated,” citing the Department of Justice.

For that reason, he said, Trump “ordered an immediate and coordinated response by deploying the National Guard to some of our nation’s most dangerous cities.”

“Not surprisingly, Democratic governors and left-wing pundits have decried these deployments,” the Mississippi Republican said, dismissing any concerns as “manufactured and misguided.”

While capturing accurate crime statistics is challenging — as many crimes go unreported — murder, rape, aggravated assault and robbery all decreased nationwide in 2024, according to the FBI’s latest crime statistics.

Data also show U.S. property and violent crime plunged between 1993 and 2022, according to the Pew Research Center. 

However, the analysis showed attitudes about crime split according to party affiliation.

Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., argued Thursday that guard deployments to cities across the U.S. are not out of the ordinary.

He asked Charles Young III, principal deputy general counsel at the Department of Defense, to explain how the process works.

Young, pointing to a stack of books on the table, said the examples are “voluminous.”  

“Rather than bringing in troops from the regular Army or the active component … the Founding Fathers wanted to resort to utilizing the National Guard because they were citizens and from the communities that were involved. And these books that I have here are just books on the role of federal military forces in domestic disorders,” he said.

‘Is that a legal order?’

Sen. Tammy Duckworth, an Illinois Army National Guard veteran who said she pushed for the hearing, slammed Trump’s guard deployments when she delivered the Democrats’ opening remarks.

Duckworth said Beckstrom’s death and Wolfe’s injuries “should never have happened in the first place.”

“Military service involves risks, and our service members accept those risks knowingly, selflessly. So we better be damn sure that the mission is the right one,” said Duckworth, who lost her legs and partial use of her right arm in Iraq when her Black Hawk helicopter was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade

Duckworth and other Democratic senators on the panel questioned the legality of Trump’s guard deployments and alleged the president was using the show of force to curtail public demonstrations and free speech.

Duckworth recalled Trump’s Sept. 30 speech to military generals in Quantico, Virginia, when he said the administration should use American cities as “training grounds for our military, National Guard, but military because we’re going into Chicago very soon.” 

In that same speech, Trump said Democratic-run cities are “in bad shape,” and “it’s a war from within.” 

Harking back to reports that Trump asked former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper about shooting protesters in 2020, Duckworth asked, “Let’s say the president issued such an order. He said so. Is that a legal order?”

“Senator, orders to that effect would depend on the circumstances,” Young replied.

“We have a president who doesn’t think that the rule of law applies to him, and he wants to show force,” Duckworth responded.

Sen. Jack Reed, the committee’s ranking member, delivered a similar line of questioning, asking Air Force Gen. Gregory Guillot, commander of U.S. Northern Command, “If the president declared an organization, a terrorist organization … and you were ordered to attack them on U.S. soil, would you carry out that order?”

“Sen. Reed, as with any order I get, I would assess the order, consult the legal authorities to ensure that it was a lawful order, and I would, if I had questions, I would elevate that to the chairman and the secretary, as they welcome at all times,” Guillot said. 

“And if I had no concerns and I was confident in (the) lawful order, I would definitely execute that order.”

Reed noted that Guillot was present for Trump’s speech in Quantico.

“The president essentially indicated that you should be prepared to conduct military operations in the United States against this enemy within. Are you doing that?” he said.

“Sir, I have not been tasked to do anything that reflects what you just said,” Guillot replied.

Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, said he didn’t believe testimony delivered Thursday by Mark Ditlevson, principal deputy assistant secretary of Defense for homeland defense, that Trump is “clearly doing the right thing” and the guard is working in conjunction with local authorities.

King, of Maine, said the testimony “was borderline humorous.”

“That didn’t happen in Illinois or in California,” King said. “We’re talking about a broader issue here that I think is extremely dangerous, and the reason it’s particularly dangerous in the present moment is we have a president who has a very low bar as to what constitutes an emergency.”

Cities targeted

Trump deployed thousands of guard troops to Los Angeles after local immigration raids sparked protests that city officials said local law enforcement were able to handle without assistance.

In D.C., he based his deployment on a “crime emergency” and the deployment of troops on the district’s streets happened as Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents carried out weeks of raids, traffic stops and other actions as part of Trump’s mass deportation campaign. 

District residents protested the deployment, and opposition posters, stickers, flags and graffiti sprang up across the city.

Trump justified sending the guard to Portland after falsely claiming the city was “burning down.”

District of Columbia and Tennessee officials have worked with the administration to bring the guard to their cities, which grants the troops power to assist local law enforcement. 

Illinois, Oregon and California officials have not agreed to work with the guard, which results in an order restricting members to only duties of protecting federal property.

Trump previously activated the National Guard to the nation’s capital in response to protests during the summer of 2020 following the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.