Union members and supporters rally in Grand Park calling for the release of union leader David Huerta, who was arrested during an immigration enforcement action on June 9, 2025 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

A federal judge in California late Thursday ordered President Donald Trump to relinquish command of 4,000 National Guard troops the president called to help contain Los Angeles protests over immigration raids.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said Trump’s mobilization of the National Guard was illegal, and ordered the return of control to California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who had opposed the deployment. He said his order would go into effect noon Pacific time Friday, likely setting up an emergency appeal by the administration.

Trump’s “actions were illegal—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” Breyer wrote.

He issued the 36-page order mere hours after an afternoon hearing at which he appeared skeptical that Trump’s order was lawful.

Breyer at the hearing appeared not to accept the Trump administration’s argument that obtaining consent from Newsom, a Democrat, was not a prerequisite to federalize the California National Guard.

Newsom has been backed up by Democratic attorneys general across the nation in the closely watched case.

Breyer noted the law Trump cited when mobilizing the troops requires the order to go through a state’s governor, but Trump’s order bypassed Newsom and went directly to the adjutant general of the California National Guard.

“I’m trying to figure out how something is through somebody if, in fact, you didn’t give it to him, you actually sent it to the adjutant general,” Breyer said. “It would be the first time I’ve ever seen something going through somebody if it never went to them directly.”

‘A constitutional government and King George’

U.S. Justice Department attorney Brett Shumate, who argued for the administration, said Newsom’s approval was not necessary for the commander-in-chief to call National Guard troops into service.

“There’s no consultation requirement, pre-approval requirement,” he said. “The governor is merely a conduit. He’s not a roadblock. The president doesn’t have to call up the governor, invite them to Camp David, ‘Let’s have a summit, negotiate for a week about what are the terms that we’re going to call up the National Guard in your state, what are the terms of the deployment?’”

The president alone can determine whether the conditions allowing for the federalization of the National Guard are met, Shumate said.

But Breyer, who was appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton, said the president faced more limits on his authority than Shumate had argued.

“That’s the difference between a constitutional government and King George,” Breyer said.

Nicholas Green, who argued on behalf of the state, called the federal government’s argument “breathtaking in scope,” in part because the troops appear to be assisting in domestic law enforcement.

“They are saying, Your Honor, that the president, by fiat, can federalize the National Guard and deploy it in the streets of a civilian city whenever he perceives that there is disobedience to an order,” Green told Breyer. “That is an expansive, dangerous conception of federal executive power.”

Breyer seemed less opposed to Trump’s order to deploy 700 U.S. Marines to the area, noting those troops are not yet on the ground in Los Angeles and, as federal troops, were already under Trump’s command without needing to satisfy any other criteria.

Breyer’s order Thursday night did not direct any action regarding the Marines.

Pause requested

The judge, who is the brother of former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, said he would rule quickly, possibly late Thursday, on California’s request for a restraining order to stop the deployment in Los Angeles.

Shuman requested that, if Breyer found in favor of the state, he should pause any restraining order while the federal government appeals.

Green said the state would “strongly oppose” such a pause because of the urgency of the situation in Los Angeles.

The city has seen days of protests starting on Friday over Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids on workplaces. Trump ordered the National Guard to the area on Sunday, saying it was necessary to restore order.

Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass objected to the decision and have said it has caused more chaos and inflamed tensions.

Democrats’ amicus brief

The hearing on California’s request for an injunction came a day after 21 Democratic attorneys general and the Democratic governor of Kansas filed an amicus brief in the case backing up California.

Trump wresting control of a state National Guard sets a dangerous precedent that undermines National Guard missions, they said.

“National Guard troops fight fires, respond to hurricanes, protect their residents from flooding, and provide much-needed security,” they wrote. “By undermining states’ authority, unlawfully deploying the National Guard troops, and leaving the door wide open to deploy the Guards of every state, the President has made us all less safe. This Court should enjoin the federal government from continuing down this unlawful and perilous path.”

In addition to Kansas Gov. Laura Kelley, the attorneys general of Washington, Delaware, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont, Wisconsin and Rhode Island signed the brief.

President Donald Trump signs a Congressional Review Act resolution Thursday, with congressional Republicans looking on. Left to right are Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Sen. Deb Fischer of Nebraska, Rep. John Joyce of Pennsylvania, Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, Rep. John James of Michigan, House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin. (Screeenshot from White House webcast)

President Donald Trump signed a Congressional Review Act resolution Thursday that revokes California’s authority to set tailpipe emissions standards, upending policy in California and 17 other states that tie their standards to that of the Golden State.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Democratic attorneys general in 10 other states immediately sued to block enforcement of the law. Through a process that allows Congress to undo recent executive branch rules, the law repeals a U.S. Environmental Protection Act waiver allowing California to set a schedule for emissions standards for cars and trucks.

Trump signed two other resolutions that repeal the state’s authority to ban sales of new gas-powered vehicles in the state by 2035 and to regulate emissions on heavy trucks.

At a White House signing ceremony, Trump said the law would allow greater consumer choice and lead to less expensive vehicles.

“Your cars are going to cost you $3,000, $4,000 less and you’re going to have what you want,” he said. “Again, you can get any car you want.”

Simple majority vote

The procedure used to pass the law was controversial because of the use of the Congressional Review Act, or CRA, which allows a simple majority vote in the U.S. Senate instead of the chamber’s usual 60-vote threshold.

Both the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office and the Senate parliamentarian ruled that the EPA waiver was not a rule and that the CRA could not be used. But Senate Majority Leader John Thune used the procedure anyway, and the measure passed 51-46.

The states suing over the law argued that process was illegal, saying that the CRA was “deemed inapplicable by every nonpartisan arbiter and expert who analyzed the question.”

“While all fifty States consented—through their Senators—to these expedited procedures for congressional disapproval of federal rules, no State consented to the CRA as a means for Congress to negate state rules,” the Democratic attorneys general wrote. “Nor would any State have done so.”

The states joining California in the lawsuit are Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Vermont and Washington.

Clean Air Act

The federal Clean Air Act of 1970 generally prohibits states from setting their own air quality standards. But a section of the bedrock environmental law allows California, which had stringent environmental standards at the time the federal law was passed, to set its own standards.

While the other 49 states may not set their own standards, any state can adopt California’s standards as its own.

That means the law Trump signed Thursday has effects far beyond California’s borders, which the president noted.

“The federal government gave left-wing radicals in California dictatorial powers to control the future of the entire car industry, all over the country, all over the world, actually,” he said.

The law, which both chambers of Congress passed last month, applies to 17 states that follow California standards. In addition to those suing, those states are Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

From left to right, Chase Christie, development director for Alaska Solar LLC, Josh Craft, managing partner of Wasilla, Alaska-based Crafty Energy LLC, and Josh Shipley, owner of Alternative Power Enterprises in Ridgeway, Colorado, at the Holiday Inn Express on C Street SW in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, June 11, 2025, after meeting with staff of U.S. senators about preserving clean energy tax credits in the Republican budget reconciliation bill. (Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Small business owners and community leaders from rural regions in Western states including Alaska, Colorado, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota and Utah pressed lawmakers on Capitol Hill this week to preserve clean energy tax credits on the chopping block in the Republicans’ “one big beautiful” mega-bill, now in the Senate.

The suite of investment, production and residential tax credits enacted and expanded under the Democrats’ own big budget reconciliation bill in 2022, titled the “Inflation Reduction Act,” incentivized homeowners, car buyers, energy producers and manufacturers to invest in types of energy beyond fossil fuels, with the aim of reducing the effects of climate change.

The credits have spurred hundreds of billions in investment dollars in advanced manufacturing and production since 2022, and contributed to job creation, largely in states that elected President Donald Trump to a second term.

Small business operators and community leaders from rural and mountainous areas of the United States that have benefited from the boom in alternative energy sources say the campaign to end the tax credits will also cause job losses and cut options for consumers.

Solar projects in Alaska

Chase Christie, director of development for Alaska Solar LLC, said his company installs four to five large-scale solar projects per year in remote Alaskan villages and also fits and services smaller residential solar installations.

“They take a lot of planning, a lot of logistics,” Christie told States Newsroom in an interview Wednesday.

“For going into a remote village where there’s tundra, we might need to go there in the dead of winter so we can work on frozen ground,” he added. “Other places we won’t go until summer. So we have these large gaps in between these larger projects, and a company like ours absolutely relies on the residential installations to keep our workforce going.”

Christie, who met Tuesday with staffers for Alaska’s Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, said in January he let a handful of workers go and paused most new hiring.

“Our workforce is roughly half of what it usually is just because we’re not sure which direction things are going to go,” he said.

Christie was among a dozen small energy business owners, municipal government officials and nonprofit employees focused on energy options for low-income households who States Newsroom spoke to Wednesday.

A spokesperson for Sullivan said in a statement: “Senator Sullivan supports energy projects that lower costs for Alaska. The Senator and his team have been meeting with a number of Alaskans about energy tax credits. As we wait for text from the Senate Finance Committee, the Senator is working with his colleagues to ensure that the bill strikes the right balance between promoting stable and predictable tax policy, advancing projects that benefit Alaska, and addressing the need to reduce the federal deficit.”

Murkowski’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Elimination of tax credits

Senators are hashing out language for the massive Republican agenda bill that will extend and expand the 2017 tax law, costing roughly $3.8 trillion, and cut spending in other areas to offset the price tag.

A contingent of House Republicans, who have dubbed the tax credits the “green new scam,” won on accelerating the expiration of the energy tax credits and tightening restrictions on eligibility as a way to pay for individual and corporate tax cuts that Trump campaigned on.

The language in a section of the House bill, passed 215-214 on May 22, titled “Working Families Over Elites,” terminates the Energy Efficient Home Improvement Tax Credit, worth up to $3,200 for homeowners who make energy upgrades to their property.

Among the slate of other affected IRA tax credits, the House bill also speeds up the expiration of the Clean Electricity Investment Tax Credit, a credit dating back decades that was updated in 2022.

The credit is available to taxpayers who invest in “energy property,” including solar installations to provide electricity and heat, fuel cells, small wind turbines, geothermal pumps, and other electricity-producing technologies. 

House Republicans wrote provisions to eliminate the credit for facilities placed into service after 2028 and end eligibility for projects that don’t begin construction within 60 days of the bill’s enactment.

The credit is worth up to 30% of the cost of the project, plus two bonus credits up to 10% each if the project includes mostly domestically produced material and if it’s located in an “energy community,” meaning a place where a coal plant has closed or where unemployment reaches a certain threshold.

The bill also repeals a taxpayer’s ability to transfer the tax credits as a way to finance a project, and introduces restrictions on foreign-made components that industry professionals say essentially makes the credit unworkable.

Critics point to the cost of the tax credits.

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated, as of June 4, the elimination of the clean energy investment and production tax credits will save roughly $249 billion over the next decade.

Alex Muresianu, senior policy analyst at the Tax Foundation, a right-of-center think tank that advocates for lower taxes, said Thursday in a new analysis that “The final House bill makes impressive cuts to the IRA green energy tax credits, but it does so in part by introducing more complexity.”

The group is advocating for senators to reduce the tax credit rates and make clearer complicated language, like the provision around “foreign entities of concern.”

Keeping on the heat during a Montana winter

But Logan Smith, weatherization program manager for the Human Resource Development Council in central Montana, argues the credits have been a lifeline for lower-income rural residents.

“If I can get solar panels on each of the clients’ homes, that means that their power is going to stay on in the middle of winter,” Smith said. “Because every winter we plan for losing power for about a week, that’s just something we grew up with. … But if we have solar panels, the power stays on, the heat stays on.”

Ralph Waters, owner of SBS Solar in Missoula, Montana, became emotional when talking about how an early termination of the tax credits could slow his business and result in having to lay off half his workforce.

He criticized the politicization of the tax incentives.

“Montana is deeply red, but it’s also a very practical place. And so green energy renewables becomes a taboo phrase somehow,” Waters said. “The practical energy needs are undeniable, and so if we can get past our disagreements about the phraseology and realize that it’s electrons, watts, and amps. And it’s cheaper.”

The offices of Montana GOP Sens. Steve Daines and Tim Sheehy did not respond to a request for comment.

Senator Alex Padilla, D-Calif.,  speaks at a Biden-Harris campaign and DNC press conference on July 18, 2024 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. (Photo by Jim Vondruska/Getty Images)

Federal law enforcement officials forcibly removed and handcuffed U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla at a Thursday press conference in Los Angeles by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem amid multi-day protests against the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

The scuffle between law enforcement, including an officer wearing a jacket with an FBI logo, and a United States senator represented a stark escalation of tensions after President Donald Trump ordered 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to LA. His action followed major protests sparked by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials ramping up immigration raids.

Before Padilla was physically removed, Noem said that the Trump administration would continue its immigration enforcement in LA.

“We are not going away,” Noem, the former governor of South Dakota, said. “We are staying here to liberate the city from the socialists and the burdensome leadership that this governor and that this mayor have placed on this country and what they have tried to insert into the city.”

Padilla, 52, a member of the Senate since 2021, when he was appointed to replace former Vice President Kamala Harris, and then elected in 2022, tried to ask Noem a question and was rushed by federal law enforcement.

“I’m Sen. Alex Padilla and I have questions for the secretary,” he said as four federal law enforcement officers grabbed him and shoved him to the ground. “Hands off.”

The DHS wrote on social media that U.S. Secret Service officers thought “he was an attacker and officers acted appropriately.”

DHS said that after the press conference, Noem and Padilla had a 15-minute meeting. His office did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment.

In a statement, Padilla’s office said the California senator was in LA for congressional oversight into the federal government’s operations in LA and across California.

“He was in the federal building to receive a briefing with General Guillot and was listening to Secretary Noem’s press conference,” his office said, referring to General Gregory M. Guillot, commander of United States Northern Command.

“He tried to ask the Secretary a question, and was forcibly removed by federal agents, forced to the ground and handcuffed. He is not currently detained, and we are working to get additional information.”

The incident drew swift condemnation from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York.

“Watching this video sickened my stomach, the manhandling of a United States Senator, Senator Padilla,” Schumer wrote on social media. “We need immediate answers to what the hell went on.”

On the Senate floor, Schumer said the video of Padilla “reeks of totalitarianism.”

He called for a full investigation so that “this doesn’t happen again.”

Padilla gave remarks after the incident, with The Associated Press. He did not take questions. 

“If this is how this administration responds to a senator with a question, if this is how the Department of Homeland Security responds to a senator with a question, you can only imagine what they’re doing to farmworkers, to cooks, to day laborers out in the Los Angeles community,” Padilla said. 

The Eau Claire County Jail | Photo by Frank Zufall/Wisconsin Examiner

Silver O. Jenkins, 29, who was found unresponsive in the Eau Claire County Jail on the morning of March 12, 2023, had by choice eaten very little in the 27 days leading up to  her death. She appeared ”emaciated,” raising concerns among jail and medical staff. Still, no interventions were taken to save her life because the sheriff’s office didn’t believe it had the authority for drastic measures and instead  continued to offer her food and water and monitor her condition.  

The Eau Claire County in-custody death investigation report on Jenkins, prepared by the St. Croix Sheriff’s Office, was released Monday June 9.

St. Croix County Sheriff Scott Knudson had told the Wisconsin Examiner back in July 2024 that the death investigation had been completed in August 2023, but the report was not available through a  records request pending a review by the Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ).

On Monday, Eau Claire County Sheriff Dave Riewstahl issued a press release saying that  the DOJ had “declined to bring charges.”

The investigation included interviews with the sheriff, the jail’s security services captain Travis Holbrook, four shift sergeants, 17 correctional officers, Christ Hill with the Eau Claire County Department of Health Services and five employees of Wellpath, an agency providing medical and mental health services to the jail.

“The Wisconsin Department of Justice concluded criminal charges were not appropriate in this matter,” said Riewestahl.

Jenkins was booked into jail on February 9, 2023, for criminal trespass and held on a $500 cash bond. By Feb. 18, Jenkins had refused 22 meals.

On Feb. 19, 2023, due to difficulty breathing, Jenkins was transferred to the Mayo Clinic, where she received two liters of IV fluids and was returned to jail on Feb. 20, 2023.

On February 28, 2023, Jenkins again requested to go to the hospital due to chest pains, but the request was denied.

On March 3, Jenkins was moved to a special needs cell at the suggestion of a clinical social worker, where there are better facilities for showering.

On March 5, Jenkins asked to see a nurse and go to a hospital, and again her request was denied.

The nurse attending Jenkins on March 5 said it was challenging to obtain heart rate and blood pressure because Jenkins would not sit still.

On March 8, Jenkins made a court appearance via a laptop held by correctional officer Craig Berg, who told the investigators on that date Jenkins looked malnourished. Berg later told Sgt. Phil  Field, the day-shift sergeant, that he didn’t think Jenkins would be physically able to make a court appearance the following week.

On March 8, Field sent out an email that states, “I witnessed her in her cell a few moments ago and observed that she is very emaciated from the last time I personally saw her. It appears that most of her hair is gone and her overall physical appearance does not look well. Her log indicates that she did eat some the past 2 days but mostly refused for many days before.”

The investigation revealed that Holbrook, who was in charge of the jail, took no action because he thought the situation was under control and the medical staff was monitoring her condition.

Riewestahl said he had asked Hill whether his office could use a Chapter 51 mental health detainment to address the feeding issue with Jenkins.

Hill told the investigators that Chapter 51 emergency detentions cannot be used for medical conditions, although it was Riewestahl’s opinion that Jenkins was also experiencing mental health issues.

Correctional officer Ryan Addis had the 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. shift starting March 11. He said he passed by Jenkins’ cell in the early morning hours of March 12, between 1-2 a.m., and Jenkins was lying on the ground naked but moving. He didn’t enter the cell because in a previous situation, he did try to help her, and she lunged at him and he noted she had previously slept on the floor naked.

Addis said he noticed Jenkins was breathing and moving. He could also see her skeletal structure and what he observed concerned him, prompting Addis to send an email to the nursing staff asking what was being done for Jenkins.

Addis said he talked to his morning replacement, Byran Dachel, and they both thought Jenkins was dying.

Addis said he went home and told his wife that Jenkins would be dead within a week or a couple of days, and he determined, when he saw Jenkins again, to intervene and offer her some juice or “something.”

But later that Sunday morning, March 12, Jenkins was found in her cell by medical personnel not breathing, and her body was cold.

The autopsy findings, reported by Kristin E. Howell, M.D. Assistant Medical Examiner, attributed Jenkins’ death to “dehydration due to voluntary restriction of food and liquids.”

Day shift Sgt. Kevin Otto said in his interview that he didn’t believe Jenkins’ death was inevitable.

“I mean, all the players that were involved, something should have happened, and it always seemed to just get dumped back on us as a staff.”

He added, “I just think the staff was, were frustrated, we don’t know what to do with her. We’re not capable of doing it in our roles, and it seemed like the people that could weren’t doing it.”

Several of the jail staff said they felt frustrated in that all they were being asked to do was monitor and document Jenkins’ condition, but nothing was being done to ameliorate it other than offering her food and water.

Sheriff and jail captain

Since 2019, Jenkins had spent 205 days in the Eau Claire County jail for various charges.

Sheriff Riewstahl said that often when Jenkins was released, she would ask to be taken to a local hospital and then refuse to leave the hospital’s premises, resulting in a complaint and Jenkins returning to jail.

Riewstahl, Holbrook and others interviewed also noted that Jenkins from previous stints in the jail would often not eat the food offered to her and even ask for bottled water instead of using water from the jail sink.  

Hill said she believes Jenkins didn’t have a food disorder, but that refusing to eat gave her one thing she could control in her otherwise chaotic life.

“Silver has severe mental health issues, and our jail is the largest mental health facility here in Eau Claire County,” said Riewestahl. “Jails have been turned into the answer for mental health.”

He added, “we are technically a jail but the people that come to us have more mental health crisis needs at a different level than a Chapter 51 [a person who is involuntarily committed for mental health reasons].”

Investigator Dustin Geisness asked Riewestahl if he was aware of any concerns being expressed by the jail or medical staff regarding Jenkins.

“Ultimately, the hunger strike was a concern, and it was a concern every time she’s been here,” he said.

Holbrook also told investigators there was concern every time Jenkins returned to jail

“Obviously we know Silver as often as she’s here,” he said. “We know she‘s a problematic inmate, not cooperative, whatever. We knew that something potentially could happen someday.”

He added, “She was a non-cooperative inmate. She was offered food, medical services. A lot of times or sometimes she would refuse that, sometimes she wouldn’t. You never knew what she was going to  do.”

He said Jenkins was never on a full hunger strike and occasionally would eat small amounts of food offered.

He was asked about March 12 when she was naked on the floor and noted that was normal behavior for Jenkins and that she was often naked.

Holbrook also said the local hospitals didn’t want to see Jenkins unless it was an emergency because she had been disruptive there during previous visits. He said because everyone was aware the hospitals were reluctant to see Jenkins that may have played a part in not sending her to a hospital again before her death.

“Most of the hospitals don’t want nothing to do with her here, so even when we’d bring her there for something, we’d get a lot of heat from the hospital,” he said.   

Holbrook was asked by the investigator after Feb. 19,  when Jenkins returned from the hospital,  if anything  different was done for Jenkins besides  documenting her condition and food intake.

 “They’re just still documenting, documenting, documenting and in my opinion that sounds like the definition of insanity,” said investigator Geisness. Holbrook concurred, saying, “Over and over.”

Holbrook was also asked, “Who is ultimately responsible for this jail?” and he responded, “Ultimately, ultimately, yeah, that’s exactly. That’s the problem.”

Holbrook also said there was a “leadership issue,” but he didn’t specifically place responsibility for the issue on himself or staff or the sheriff.

Investigator Capt. Tim Kufus asked a similar question of the sheriff: “But while she’s here, whose responsibility is she?”

Riewestahl responded, “Ours.”

“When you’re saying ours, you’re saying collectively?” asked Kufus.

“The sheriff, the sheriff’s office,” responded Riewestahl

“Okay, and are you the …”

“I’m the sheriff,” said Riewestahl.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A rally goer rolls out a scroll with the names of every school district that has gone to referendum since the last state budget. Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner.

Education advocates are making a push for more investment in public schools from the state as the Republican-led Joint Finance Committee plans to take up portions of the budget related to K-12 schools during its Thursday meeting.

The issue has been a top concern for Wisconsinites who came out to budget listening sessions and was one of Gov. Tony Evers’ priorities in his budget proposal. Evers proposed that the state spend an additional $3.1 billion on K-12 education. Evers and Republican leaders were negotiating on the spending for education as well as taxes and other parts of the budget until last week when negotiations reached an impasse. 

Evers has said that Republicans were unwilling to compromise on his funding priorities, including making “meaningful investments for K-12 schools, to continue Child Care Counts to help lower the cost of child care for working families and to prevent further campus closures and layoffs at our UW System.” He said he was willing to support their tax proposal, which Republicans have said included income and retiree tax cuts. 

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) said on WISN 12’s UpFront that Evers “lied” about Republicans walking away from the negotiating table.

“We’re willing to do it, just not as much as he wanted… When you read that statement, it makes it sound like we were at zero,” Vos said. “We were not at zero on any of those topics. We tried to find a way to invest in child care that actually went to the parents, and to make sure that we weren’t just having to go to a business. We tried to find a way to look at education so that money would actually go back to school districts across the state. It just wasn’t enough for what he wanted.” 

Public education advocates said school districts are in dire need of a significant investment of state dollars, especially for special education. After lobbying for the last week, many are concerned that when Republicans finally announce their proposal it won’t be enough. 

State Superintendent Jill Underly told the Wisconsin Examiner in an interview Wednesday afternoon that she is anticipating that Republicans will put forth more short-term solutions, but she said schools and students can’t continue functioning in that way. 

Underly compared the situation of education funding in Wisconsin to a road trip.

“The gas tank is nearly empty, and you’re trying to coast… you’re turning the air conditioning off… going at a lower speed limit, just to save a little fuel and the state budget every two years. I kind of look at them as like these exits to gas stations,” Underly said. “We keep passing up these opportunities to refuel. Schools are running on fumes, and we see the stress that is having an our system — the number of referendums, the anxiety around whether or not we’re going to have the referendum or not in our communities. Wisconsin public schools have been underfunded for decades.” 

The one thing lawmakers must do, Underly said, is increase the special education reimbursement rate to a minimum of 60%, back to the levels of the 1990s. 

“It used to be 60% but they haven’t been keeping up their promise to public schools,” Underly said. “They need to raise the special education reimbursement rate. Anything less than 60% is once again failing to meet urgent needs.”

The Wisconsin Public Education Network is encouraging advocates to show up at the committee meeting Thursday and continue pushing lawmakers and Evers to invest. Executive Director Heather DuBois Bourenane told the Examiner that she is concerned lawmakers are planning on “low balling” special education funding, even as she said she has never seen the education community so united in its insistence on one need.

“We’re familiar with the way they work in that caucus and in the Joint Finance Committee,” DuBois Bourenane said. “The pattern of the past has been to go around the state and listen to the concerns that are raised or at least get the appearance of listening, and then reject those concerns and demands and put forward a budget that fails in almost every way to prioritize the priority needs for our communities.” 

While it’s unclear what Republicans will ultimately do, budget papers prepared by the Legislative Fiscal Bureau includes three options when it comes to special education reimbursement rate: the first is to raise the rate to 60% sum sufficient — as Evers has proposed; the second is to leave the rate at 31.5% sum certain by investing an additional $35.8 million and the third is to raise the rate to an estimated 35% by providing an additional $68.6 million in 2023-24 and $86.2 million in 2024-25. 

The paper also includes options for investing more in the high cost of special education, which provides additional aid to reimburse 90% of the cost of educating students whose special education costs exceed $30,000 in a single year. 

The School Administrators Alliance (SAA) sent an update to its members on Monday, pointing out what was in the budget papers and saying the committee “appears poised to focus spending on High-Cost Special Education Aid and the School Levy Tax Credit, rather than significantly raising the primary special education categorical aid.”

SAA Executive Director Dee Pettack said in the email that if that’s the route lawmakers take, it would “result in minimal new, spendable resources for classrooms and students.”

Public school funding was one of the top priorities mentioned by Wisconsinites at the four budget hearings held by the budget committee across the state in March. 

“I just think it’s time to say enough is enough,” DuBois Bourenane said. “We’re really urging people to do whatever they can before our lawmakers vote on this budget, to say that we are really going to accept nothing less than a budget that stops this cycle of insufficient state support for priority needs and demand better.” 

Pettack and leaders of the Wisconsin Association of School Boards, Southeast Wisconsin School Alliance and the Wisconsin Rural Schools Alliance also issued a joint letter Tuesday urging the committee to “meet this moment with the urgency it requires,” adding that the budget provides the opportunity to allocate resources that will help students achieve.

The letter detailed the situation that a low special education reimbursement has placed districts in as they struggle to fund the mandated services and must fill in the gaps with funds from their general budgets.

“The lack of an adequate state reimbursement for mandated special education programs and services negatively affects all other academic programs, including career and technical education, reading interventionists, teachers and counselors, STEM, dual enrollment, music, art and more,” the organizations stated. “While small increases in special education reimbursement have been achieved in recent state budgets, costs for special education programming and services have grown much faster than those increases, leaving public schools in a stagnant situation.” 

“Should we fail in this task, we are not only hurting Wisconsin’s youth today but also our chances to compete in tomorrow’s economy,” the leaders wrote. 

If the proposal from Republicans isn’t adequate, Underly said Evers doesn’t have to sign the budget. Republican lawmakers have expressed confidence that they will put a budget on Evers’ desk that he will sign. 

“There’s that, and then we keep negotiating. We keep things as they are right now. We keep moving forward,” Underly said. “But our schools and our kids, they can’t continue to wait for this… These are short term fixes, I think, that they keep talking about, and we can’t continue down this path. We need to fix it so that we’re setting ourselves up for success. Everything else is just really short sighted.”

WPEN and others want Evers to use his veto power should the proposal not be sufficient. DuBois Bourenane said dozens of organizations have signed on to a letter calling on Evers to reject any budget that doesn’t meet the state’s needs and priorities.

“What we want them to do is negotiate in good faith and reject any budget that doesn’t meet the needs of our kids, and just keep going back to the drawing board until you reach a bipartisan agreement that actually does meet those needs,” DuBois Bourenane said. “Gov. Evers has the power to break this cycle. He has the power of his veto pen. He has the power of his negotiating authority, and we expect him to use it right and people have got his back.”

The budget deadline is June 30. If it is not completed by then, the state continues to operate under the 2023-25 budget. 

“Nobody wants [the process] to be drawn out any longer than it is,” DuBois Bourenane said. “Those are valid concerns. But the fact is we are in a really critical tension point right now, and if any people care even a little bit about this, now is the time that they should be speaking out.” 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Why has the Wisconsin State Bar take a pass on condemning unconstitutional intimidation of lawyers? And why can't anyone find out the details of how that decision was made? |Getty Images Creative

The State Bar of Wisconsin was created by the Wisconsin Supreme Court as the trade association that all Wisconsin lawyers must join to obtain their law licenses. Its vision statement declares its cardinal purpose: “Our members are the respected guardians of the dignity and integrity of the rule of law within a fair and accessible justice system.” 

Yet recently, State Bar leaders deliberately violated their own vision statement by refusing in any way to push back against President Donald Trump’s blatantly illegal executive orders attacking lawyers, without whom the rule of law cannot exist “within a fair and accessible justice system.” Why they shirked their express mission remains a mystery because State Bar leaders voted in secrecy on the issue and refused to explain themselves to the 25,000 State Bar members they purportedly serve. Instead, they have stonewalled membership with a bogus cone of silence over their deliberations.

Here is the context:

Earlier this Spring, President Donald Trump issued punitive executive orders targeting 14 prominent law firms because he didn’t like their lawyers, clients, cases, or speech. He acted to cripple their ability to provide legal services to their clients. Trump then offered these firms an extortionate “deal” he thought they couldn’t refuse: agree to provide millions of dollars in pro bono legal work to further Trump’s political agenda, such as free work for the coal industry, or else lose security clearances, access to federal buildings and even government contracts held by their clients.  

Several of the firms capitulated, offering roughly $1 billion in legal services to Trump that otherwise would have funded true “pro bono” work for the underserved. Several others, including Perkins Coie, a distinguished national firm with Wisconsin members, refused. They fought back in court, and won.

Their wins are unsurprising. The U.S. Constitution undeniably bars our government from wielding its power to target lawyers based on their representation of clients, their employment decisions, or their advocating positions the administration doesn’t like.

Federal courts have been unanimous and unsparing in condemning Trump’s orders. One judge characterized such an order as a “personal vendetta” by Trump  that “the framers of our Constitution would see…as a shocking abuse of power.”

Retired conservative federal judge J. Michael Luttig commented that executive orders targeting law firms are “the most sinister and corrupt” of the “ocean of unconstitutional orders” coming out of the White House. He correctly emphasized that the legality of the executive orders is beside the point for Trump, who knows that no court will uphold them. The purpose, rather, is to intimidate lawyers.

Wisconsin lawyers are officers of the court, sworn to support the Constitution of the United States. We are thus duty-bound to guard the Constitution against existential hazards like Trump’s illegitimate orders. The rule of law requires no less.

Because the State Bar, through its governing board, is uniquely positioned to speak on issues of universal concern to all lawyers, we and others have repeatedly urged the Bar to honor its vision statement and publicly condemn Trump’s orders. Various versions of a statement supporting the rule of law have been offered for the board of governors’ consideration and adoption, statements that no reasonable lawyer could find objectionable while remaining true to the lawyer’s oath. 

We are not asking a lot. Already the State Bar—once a national leader in advancing the rule of law—is woefully behind many other respected lawyer organizations. On March 26, 2025, for example, the American Bar Association was joined by more than a hundred other lawyer organizations in a public statement specifically rejecting “the notion that the U.S. government can punish lawyers and law firms who represent certain clients…”

The ABA statement continued: “There are clear choices facing our profession. We can choose to remain silent and allow these acts to continue or we can stand for the rule of law and the values we hold dear. We call upon the entire profession… to speak out against intimidation.”

On May 22, we were informed by a single member of the Wisconsin State Bar board of governors that the board met in closed session May 14, and “following extensive discussion protected by the attorney-client privilege, the Board voted to make no statement concerning recent actions taken by the Executive Branch of the federal government.”

That’s all we know because board members also voted to remain silent on what occurred during the closed meeting, for reasons they will also not disclose. Newly-elected members of the board of governors taking office July 1 will be barred from learning more about the May 14 closed meeting until they first take a vow of silence on what they may learn even though they are instructed by their position description to “[c]ommunicate regularly with constituents,” and to “[b]e well versed in the State Bar’s public policy positions and be prepared to explain them to…members of the bar.”

We have since asked 12 representatives on the board several questions about what happened in secret and why. Only three replied, but they provided little information. We still don’t know: (1) why the question was taken up in closed session, (2) why State Bar leaders needed legal counsel to advise whether the Bar should issue a statement supporting the rule of law, (3) what was discussed, (4) why no statement was issued, and (5) what was the final vote. 

We asked State Bar leadership and staff to forward our questions to all 52 members of the board but, despite an agreement to do so, the questions were not sent. We still have no answers.

More than 400 years ago Shakespeare highlighted the tyrant’s tactic for thwarting the rule of law: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” Federal District Judge Beryl Howell invoked Shakespeare’s warning in her scathing takedown of the executive order targeting Perkins Coie, further observing that when American history is written, “those who stood up in court to vindicate constitutional rights and, by so doing, served to promote the rule of law, will be the models lauded.” 

The success of Trump’s intimidation campaign depends largely on whether lawyers forcefully resist his illegal bullying at every opportunity. Thus, the State Bar’s cowering non-response bodes ill for the rule of law in Wisconsin. As the American Bar Association stated: “If the lawyers do not speak…who will protect the bedrock of justice?”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

U.S. Army soldiers work on an assortment of M1 Alpha a3 Abrams tanks, stryker armored vehicles, and M2 Bradley fighting vehicles at West Potomac Park along the Potomac River on June 11, 2025 in Washington, D.C. Tanks and other heavy military equipment have arrived in the nation's capital for a military parade in honor of the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary, which coincides with President Donald Trump's birthday and Flag Day. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — More than 100 heavy-duty military vehicles and weapons systems will parade down Constitution Avenue in the nation’s capital Saturday, just days after President Donald Trump ordered troops to Los Angeles to quell mostly nonviolent protests against deportations.

The display, on the date of the U.S. Army’s 250th anniversary and Trump’s 79th birthday, will feature roughly 6,700 soldiers from every division, 150 vehicles, 50 aircraft, 34 horses, two mules and one dog, at a price tag in the tens of millions of dollars, according to the Army.

The evening parade of Army vehicles and aircraft flyovers — plans for which came to light in early May — will occur as protests against the administration’s immigration raids spread through major U.S. cities.

Trump ordered 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles Sunday after demonstrations opposing Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrests erupted Friday, some turning violent over the weekend in downtown LA, a suburb and a portion of a freeway.

Trump ordered another 2,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to LA Monday, despite numerous reports that protests remained peaceful.

Saturday’s parade in D.C. has drawn criticism for the cost and optics, as Republicans on Capitol Hill seek ways to cut safety net programs, and as Trump deployed troops to LA, defying the state’s Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Trump told reporters Tuesday in the Oval Office that any protests at the Army parade “will be met with very heavy force.”

When pressed Wednesday by a reporter following up on Trump’s comment, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said, “Of course the president supports peaceful protest. What a stupid question.”

Mass “No Kings” protests organized by a coalition of liberal national groups and labor unions are planned across the United States Saturday, but deliberately not in D.C. Some actions from separate organizations are expected to crop up in the nation’s capital, though details are sparse.

Army equipment stored in Maryland

Tanks and fighting vehicles were transported into the District of Columbia Tuesday night on flatbed trucks, as shown in video circulating online. The equipment rolled in over the weekend by rail from Texas and had been staged at the CSX rail yard in Jessup, Maryland, according to the Army.

A festival to celebrate the Army’s founding in 1775 has been in the works for more than a year and will feature a wreath-laying at Arlington National Cemetery as well as a fitness competition, military equipment exhibits, food trucks and appearances by professional NFL players on the National Mall. 

But details of a parade only emerged in April and were confirmed in early May by The Associated Press.

According to a March 31 application obtained by WTOP News, America250.org applied for a permit for the parade along the National Mall, as well as nighttime fireworks and concert “featuring well known performers, likely from the country music world.” 

A press release for the event from America250, described as the “nonprofit supporting organization to the U.S. Semiquincentennial Commission,” celebrates Trump and his role. “Under President Trump’s leadership, the U.S. Army has been restored to strength and readiness,” it says. “His America First agenda has delivered historic pay raises for service members, rebuilt military stockpiles, invested in cutting-edge technologies, and ensured our soldiers have the tools and support they need to win on any battlefield.” The pay raises were part of last year’s defense policy bill, before Trump’s presidency.

The festival and the parade will cost an estimated $25 million to $45 million, according to Army spokesperson Heather Hagan, though the price tag for the parade alone was not specified. The Army did not respond to a question about where the funds originated.

It is not the first time Trump has wanted a military parade. He had planned one in the nation’s capital in 2018 but it was called off due to the cost, NBC reported at the time.

Big crowds and lots of fencing

Matt McCool, of the U.S. Secret Service Washington field office, said for this parade, officials are expecting an “enormous turnout.” The agency is leading local, state and federal law enforcement during the National Special Security Event, the sixth for D.C. this year. They are nationally or internationally significant events expected to be attended by high-level officials and large numbers of people.

Just over 18 miles of anti-scale fencing and 17 miles of “bike rack”-style fencing has been erected as a security perimeter surrounding the parade route. Members of the public wishing to see the parade will have to pass through one of the 175 metal detectors at three security checkpoints.

McCool, special agent in charge of the Washington office, said the Secret Service has been planning security since April 22, “which is shorter than normal,” and that the agency is prepared for protests.

“We are paying attention obviously to what is happening (in Los Angeles) and we’ll be ready for that if it were to occur here,” McCool said Monday during a press conference.

Troops bunking in federal office buildings

The parade will include troops from the National Guard and Army Reserve, Special Operations Command, United States Military Academy and Reserve Officer Training Corps, and it will feature period uniforms and equipment reflecting the Revolutionary War to the modern forces.

Young enlistees sent to Washington to march in the parade toured the D.C. sites near the U.S. Capitol Wednesday.

Not every state sent Guard members. But the New York National Guard will participate, and will house roughly 460 New York and Massachusetts National Guard soldiers in an empty Department of Agriculture office building and an unused General Services Administration warehouse until June 15, according to a press release.

The troops were bused to Washington on Wednesday, and the trip cost — including meals ready-to-eat for breakfast and lunch, a hot dinner and a $69 per diem — will be covered by the Army.

Golden Knights to give Trump a gift

Flyovers will also occur during the parade featuring AH-64 Apaches, UH-60 Blackhawks and CH-47 Chinooks.

The Army Golden Knights parachute team is expected to land on the White House South Lawn and present Trump with a folded flag, according to media reports. Trump is expected to deliver remarks, according to the America250 organization. The White House did not respond to questions about the day’s timeline.

Among the vehicles and equipment rolling down Constitution Avenue between 15th and 23th streets will be Abrams tanks, first used in 1991 for Operation Desert Storm; High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, or HIMARS, used to launch multiple rockets at precise aim from far distances; and 9,500-pound titanium M777 lightweight Howitzers that fire 105-pound shells up to 24 miles and are currently in use on Ukraine’s battlefields.

The Army Corps of Engineers released footage of 18-by-16-foot metal plates installed on D.C. streets to reinforce the roads prior to the massive vehicles driving over them.

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser said in early June that she “remains concerned” about damage to the city’s streets.

“But I gotta think that the Army is among the most qualified logistics moving agencies in the world. They have moved equipment in more precarious situations, so we’re relying on their expertise. But what I can tell D.C. residents is that we will try to keep our road network usable, and if we have to fix something we will seek reimbursement from the Feds,” Bowser told reporters at a June 3 press conference. 

Rep. Tony Kurtz testifies on his proposed legislation to reauthorize the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant program. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

Organizations representing wildlife, land conservation and local governments testified Wednesday at a public hearing to push for the passage of a Republican bill to reauthorize the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant program while advocating for a number of amendments to the bill’s text. 

The proposal’s authors, Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc) and Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point), say the current version of the bill is a starting point for negotiations. Without a deal, the 35-year-old program will lapse despite its popularity among voters. 

The challenge for legislators is that despite overwhelming public support for land conservation, a subset of the Republican members of the Legislature have grown opposed to the grant program. In their view, the grant program allows land to be taken off the local property tax roll and blocks  commercial development. 

That opposition has grown stronger since the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in a 6-1 decision last year that the Legislature’s Republican-controlled Joint Finance Committee’s authority to place anonymous holds on stewardship grant projects is unconstitutional. 

Kurtz has said that without returning some level of legislative oversight, the Republican opposition to the program won’t get on board with reauthorizing it. But the bill also needs to be palatable to Democratic Gov. Tony Evers so that he will sign it and any Republican opposition to the bill could make the votes of Democratic legislators more important. 

In an effort to recruit  Republican holdouts, the bill includes a provision that requires the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to submit a list to the Legislature each January of any major land acquisitions costing more than $1 million the department plans to purchase with stewardship funds that year. The Legislature would then need to approve each proposed project in a piece of legislation and provide the required appropriation. 

To gain the support of environmental groups, the bill allows stewardship dollars to be used for the first time to fund habitat restoration projects. 

Following a recent trend of Republican-authored legislation, the bill separates the policy changes to the program from the budget appropriation to fund it in an attempt to sidestep Evers’ partial veto pen. 

Charles Carlin, the director of strategic initiatives at non-profit land trust organization Gathering Waters, said in his testimony at the hearing Wednesday that the bill’s authors had to “try and thread a challenging political path towards reauthorization.” 

At the hearing, testifying members of the public mainly highlighted two areas for improvement on the bill — clarifying how the DNR should prioritize habitat restoration, facility upkeep and land acquisition in award grants and more clearly laying out how the legislative approval process for major land acquisitions will work. 

As currently written, the bill would require the DNR to prioritize property development over land acquisition projects. 

Brian Vigue, freshwater policy director for Audubon Great Lakes, said those types of grants are so different that they should be considered separately. 

“Because habitat management projects are so different from land acquisition projects, it really will make it difficult for the DNR to determine which of the two types of grant applications would have priority over the other,” he said. “It’s kind of an apples to oranges comparison to make so I think a practical solution to this challenge is to create a separate appropriation for wildlife habitat grants.” 

A number of organizations testifying called for more direct language outlining how the legislative oversight process will work, such as binding timelines for when the Legislature must consider the projects on the DNR list, clear guidelines for how projects will be evaluated and quickly held votes on project approval. 

Representatives of organizations that work to purchase private land and conserve it through conservation easements or deals with the state said that the opportunities to purchase a piece of land and save it for future enjoyment by the broader public come rarely and that those real estate transactions can often be complicated and take a long time. If a deal is largely in place except for the required legislative approval — which could potentially take years or never even come up for a vote — landowners might be unwilling to participate in the process. 

“Opportunities to provide such access sometimes only come once in a generation,” said Tony Abate, conservation director at Groundswell Conservancy, a non-profit aimed at conserving land in south central Wisconsin. “We are concerned with the funding threshold and the logistics of the proposed major land acquisition program. Real estate near population centers is expensive, and we often compete with non-conservation buyers to secure farmland or recreational lands.”

Abate said that of the conservancy’s 16 current projects, four would surpass the $1 million threshold and require legislative approval. He suggested raising the threshold to $5 million.

Carlin, with Gathering Waters, said the provision as currently written could indefinitely delay projects. 

“We appreciate legislators’ concerns with oversight, and we welcome discussion about how to provide effective and efficient oversight,” he said. “Unfortunately, the current proposal lacks defined timelines, transparent evaluation processes or mechanisms to require timely votes. Without these elements, worthy conservation projects could languish indefinitely. So we would ask that any review process include binding timelines, transparent project evaluation and timely votes to ensure strong oversight while maintaining predictability for applicants.”

At the hearing, members of the committee asked few questions of the testifying groups and members of the public. Democrats on the committee pushed more than once to make sure they see the partner bill providing the money for the program before voting on the policy changes. 

All of the testimony at the hearing Wednesday was either to provide information only to the legislators or in favor of the bill. The committee received one written comment against the bill’s passage, from the Wisconsin Bear Hunters’ Association.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Tesla CEO Elon Musk listens as President Donald Trump speaks to reporters in the Oval Office of the White House on May 30, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign is suing billionaire Elon Musk over allegations that he violated multiple state laws, including the election bribery statute, when he offered voters a potential $1 million award for signing a petition as part of his effort to sway the result of Wisconsin’s April Supreme Court election. 

Represented by Wisconsin’s Law Forward, Democracy Defenders Fund and New York-based law firm Hecker Fink, the lawsuit accuses the world’s richest man of implementing “a brazen scheme to bribe Wisconsin citizens to vote.” 

Musk and his political action committee, America PAC, played a major role in this spring’s election becoming the most expensive judicial campaign in American history. Musk’s involvement in the race, which came as he was leading President Donald Trump’s cost-cutting initiatives and firing thousands of federal employees through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), was widely seen as causing a backlash and helping Dane County Judge Susan Crawford defeat Musk-backed Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel. 

Musk and his PAC spent more than $20 million on the race. 

Prior to the election, America PAC offered voters $100 if they signed a petition “in opposition to activist judges,” and another $100 if they referred another voter to sign the petition. Later, at a pre-election rally in Green Bay, Musk handed out two $1 million checks to voters, which had been advertised as awards “in appreciation for you taking the time to vote.” 

The lawsuit, filed in Dane County court, notes it is against the law to offer anyone more than $1 to induce them to go to the polls, vote or vote for a particular candidate. 

“By offering and paying Wisconsin citizens amounts far greater than $1 to vote, Defendants violated Wisconsin’s election bribery law,” the lawsuit states. “Defendants’ payments and offers of payment to Wisconsin voters, made with the clear intent to aid one candidate and induce Wisconsinites to vote, threatened the integrity of the election and damaged public confidence in the electoral system.”

Jeff Mandell, Law Forward’s general counsel, said the lawsuit was meant to prevent efforts like Musk’s from becoming a regular occurrence. 

“We are fighting for free and fair elections,” Mandell said. “We believe our democracy demands better than schemes like the one detailed in our complaint. So, we are working to hold Musk accountable and stop this from becoming the new normal.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Left to right, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth attend a Cabinet meeting at the White House on April 30, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s emergency tariffs can go forward while the administration fights to overturn a lower court’s trade decision that ruled the global import taxes unlawful, according to a U.S. appeals court order late Tuesday.

The two cases filed by a handful of private businesses and a dozen Democratic state attorneys general will be consolidated and heard by a full panel of active circuit court judges in July, according to the four-page order from the U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit.

Democratic state attorneys general who brought the suit represent Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon.

The court “concludes that these cases present issues of exceptional importance warranting expedited en banc consideration of the merits in the first instance,” according to the order.

A hearing is scheduled for July 31 in Washington, D.C.

Trump rocked global markets when he imposed the wide-reaching levies on nearly every country on April 2 under an unprecedented use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. The president walked them back just seven days later, announcing a 90-day pause on staggering tariffs that reached nearly 50% on some major U.S. trading partners.

The U.S. Court of International Trade struck down Trump’s emergency tariffs May 28. The following day, the appeals court temporarily restored the tariffs. 

Evers talks to reporters in March 2025. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner. )

Wisconsin Republicans considering running for governor in 2026 are criticizing Gov. Tony Evers for supporting California Gov. Gavin Newsom as he pushes back against President Donald Trump for sending armed troops into the state to respond to protests. 

As of Tuesday, President Donald Trump has authorized deployment of 4,000 National Guardsmen and 700 Marines to Los Angeles as protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids continue in the southern California city. This is the first time in six decades that a president has called National Guard troops to respond to civil unrest without a governor’s request for help. The last time, in 1965, President Lyndon Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights protesters.

Democratic governors, including Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, asserted their support for California Gov. Gavin Newsom in a joint statement Monday, saying that Trump’s actions were an “alarming abuse of power.”

“Governors are the Commanders in Chief of their National Guard and the federal government activating them in their own borders without consulting or working with a state’s governor is ineffective and dangerous,” the governors said. “Further, threatening to send the U.S. Marines into American neighborhoods undermines the mission of our service members, erodes public trust and shows the Trump administration does not trust local law enforcement. It’s important we respect the executive authority of our country’s governors to manage their National Guards — and we stand with Gov. Newsom who has made it clear that violence is unacceptable and that local authorities should be able to do their jobs without the chaos of this federal interference and intimidation.”

The Los Angeles police have said they could handle the protests, which had been mostly peaceful, though some violence had occurred.

Newsom has said he is suing Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Department of Defense for taking over the California’s National Guard unit, saying it has “needlessly escalated chaos and violence in the Los Angeles region.” 

White House border czar Tom Homan has suggested that he would arrest Newsom, but he hadn’t “crossed the line” yet. Trump, asked about the idea of arresting Newsom, said that he would “do it.” After Trump appeared open to the idea, Homan said there is “no intention to arrest the governor right now.”  

Wisconsin Republicans are standing behind Trump’s actions in LA and connecting Newsom to Evers’ actions regarding ICE. 

In reaction to the governors’ statement, Wisconsin businessman and Navy veteran Bill Berrien, who is considering running for governor in 2026, issued a press release through his Never Out of the Fight PAC saying that Newsom and Evers are enabling the “invasion of illegal immigrants” and “violent protests.” Berrien formed the PAC in April to advance conservative causes and to help Republicans win federal, state and local elections.

“We should be condemning this violence but our governor is once again putting violent criminals above law-abiding citizens,” Berrien said. “I served as a Navy SEAL to protect our country. President Trump is right to step up and end this chaos.”

Josh Schoemann, the first GOP candidate to officially launch a 2026 campaign, responded to a social media post that said the Democratic governors were endorsing “lawlessness and chaos on American streets,” noting a memo on ICE that Evers sent to state employees with guidance on handling ICE, and declaring “Tony’s Gotta Go!!”

COVID Lockdowns
Kenosha Riots
ICE Obstruction Memo
Dem Guv Anti-Law & Order Pact

Tony’s Gotta Go!!! https://t.co/94E58PzpP7

— Josh Schoemann (@JoshSchoemann) June 9, 2025

Republicans have been critical of Evers for his handling of increased ICE activity in Wisconsin, including calling for him to be arrested when he stood by guidance that he gave to state employees to call a lawyer if ICE showed up at their office. Those calls came after Homan previously made comments that were interpreted as a threat to arrest Evers. 

Evers released a three-minute video following Homan’s vague threat, saying that it represents a “concerning trajectory in this country.” 

“We now have a federal government that will threaten or arrest an elected official — or even everyday American citizens — who have broken no laws, committed no crimes, and done nothing wrong,” Evers said in early May. “As disgusted as I am about the continued actions of the Trump Administration, I am not afraid. I have never once been discouraged from doing the right thing, and I will not start today.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Republicans on the Legislature's Joint Finance Committee rejected a funding request from the City of Ashland to build a new boat launch at Kreher Park. (City of Ashland)

A pair of Republican lawmakers has introduced legislation that would re-authorize the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant program, a popular program that allows the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to fund the purchase of public land and the upkeep of recreational areas. 

The decades-old program is set to expire next year and despite its bipartisan support among the state’s voters, a subset of Republicans in the Legislature — largely from the northern part of the state — have become increasingly opposed to the program due to concerns that it stops land from being developed for commercial activities. 

Until a 6-1 decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court last summer, members of the Legislature’s powerful Joint Finance Committee had the ability to place anonymous holds on proposed grants through the program, which resulted in many projects being delayed or prevented altogether. Without that ability, Republicans who were already wary of the program became more opposed because of what they characterize as a lack of legislative oversight. Proponents of the program say the Legislature exercises oversight through the budget writing process when it allocates funding for the program. 

In recent years, the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship program has received $33 million annually in the state budget. In his budget request this year, Democratic Gov. Tony Evers proposed re-authorizing the program with a $100 million annual budget. Republicans stripped that provision out of the budget along with most of Evers’ other proposals. 

Last week, Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc) and Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point) introduced a bill that would keep the program alive with $28 million in annual funding. The bill would also create a major land acquisitions program for stewardship grant awards which would require the DNR to annually submit a list of all its proposed land acquisitions costing more than $1 million for that year. 

Those acquisitions would need to be approved by votes of the full Legislature. 

Additionally, the bill would create a sub-program to use stewardship grant funds for habitat restoration projects, require the DNR to prioritize projects that develop already existing public lands over new land acquisition, require local governments to match 20% of the state funding, get rid of the current 10-acre minimum size requirement and limit the state’s contribution to 40% of the total cost if the sale of a piece of land is already closed when stewardship funds are applied for. 

In a co-sponsorship memo, Kurtz and Testin, who did not respond to requests for an interview about the bill, said the initial proposal is meant to be the start of negotiations, not the final version of the bill. 

“It’s important to note what we’re proposing is not an agreed upon deal,” the memo states. “It’s a first offer to provide a starting place for negotiations on this important program. It’s very likely the bill will continue to change during the legislative process, but it’s important to put something forward to allow feedback, have open-minded conversations and ultimately find a good place to ensure the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program’s legacy continues.” 

At a meeting with the Wisconsin chapter of the Audubon Society in April, Kurtz said the program was on “life support” and he was trying to save it from dying but any bill would need to put some oversight on the DNR in order to receive enough Republican support. 

The opposition to the stewardship program from a subset of the Republican caucus in both chambers means the bill might require Democratic votes to pass the Legislature and reach Evers’ desk. 

Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay) has spent months pushing for the program’s reauthorization – often pointing to a stewardship grant project in her district that was subjected to an anonymous hold, the Cedar Gorge Clay Bluffs on Lake Michigan. She said the hold on that project angered a lot of her constituents of both parties. 

“That really got people upset,” she told the Wisconsin Examiner. “People would not at all want to see a reenactment in any fashion of that anonymous objection process.” 

Habush Sinykin said that she’s closely watching the bill to make sure it protects a program that enjoys wide support outside of the Capitol building and will stir up significant opposition if it’s allowed to die. 

“Once people understand that this program is at risk, they are coming forward to express their opposition to any permanent damage to the program,” she said. “And so what we are engaged in right now is this process to keep it going forward, and there is going to be ongoing negotiation, because the devil is in the details. We need to make sure that what is one step forward will not ultimately be two steps backward.” 

Charles Carlin, director of strategic initiatives for Gathering Waters, a non-profit aimed at land conservation across Wisconsin, said that Kurtz and Testin should be credited for working to get the conversation started and provisions in the bill like the habitat restoration program. But he added that there are still a lot of questions about how provisions such as the requirement for legislative approval will work. 

“I think part of what they are trying to balance here is a recognition that this is an incredibly popular program with voters, while trying to balance that against the fact that there are a handful of legislators who are deeply skeptical of the DNR and deeply skeptical of additional investments in conservation,” he said. “So I see that major land acquisitions component as a way for them to try and balance those competing interests. The way that that major land acquisitions program is currently described in the bill just leaves a lot of question marks.”  

The bill is set to receive a public hearing in the Assembly Committee on Forestry, Parks and Outdoor Recreation Wednesday at 11 a.m.

“The focus here is going to be on basically keeping our food safe and preventing disease from spreading,” Sen. Howard Marklein said at a press conference. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Republicans and Democrats on the Wisconsin Joint Finance Committee were divided Tuesday about the amount of money the state should invest in several state agencies including the Department of Workforce Development, the Wisconsin Supreme Court and the Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer Protection.

Republicans on the committee said they were making strategic and realistic investments in priority areas, while Democrats said Republicans’ investments wouldn’t make enough of an impact.

GOP rejects new protection for state Supreme Court 

The first divisive issue came up when the committee considered the budgets for Wisconsin’s courts. 

Democrats proposed that the state provide an additional $2 million and 8 new positions for the creation of an Office of the Marshals of the Supreme Court that would provide security for the Court. 

Rep. Tip McGuire (D-Kenosha) and Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) said the need for the office has increased recently due to the number of threats the judges and justices are facing. 

“Given the role that they play in our judiciary in order to be impartial, we shouldn’t want them to be in danger or to fear for their safety or to have any outward pressures on them that would influence the case,” McGuire said. “I believe it’s important for the cause of justice. I believe it’s important for the cause of safety.”

Roys noted the inflammatory language that members of the Trump administration have used when talking about judges and justices, noting that Republicans have passed legislation before to help protect judges. She also noted that former Juneau County Circuit Court Judge John Roemer was targeted and murdered at his home in 2022. 

“It is really frightening… and the Supreme Court has made this request over numerous years because they understand better than any of us do what it’s like to try to serve the public in this critically important but increasingly dangerous role,” Roys said. “I am much less interested in putting people in prison after they have murdered a judge than I am in preventing our judges from being attacked or killed, so, this seems to me a tiny amount of money to do a really important task to protect the third branch of government and particularly our Supreme Court.” 

Republicans rejected Democrats’ motion. Committee co-chair Rep. Mark Born (R-Beaver Dam) said at a press conference ahead of the meeting that the Wisconsin Capitol Police are tasked with protecting visitors, employees, legislators, the Court and anyone else in the building.

“They do a good job and continue to provide top-notch work here at the Capitol as part of security for everyone who works here,” Born said. 

The committee also voted 13-3 with Andraca joining Republicans to allocate an additional $10 million each year to counties for circuit court costs.

Meat inspection gets additional funding

The committee took action on portions of the budget for the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP), giving a boost to he agency’s Meat Inspection Program and Division of Animal Health. 

“The focus here is going to be on basically keeping our food safe and preventing the disease from spreading,” committee co-chair Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green) said. 

The Meat Inspection Program got an additional $2.7 million and two additional positions under the proposal approved by the committee. The program works to ensure the safety and purity of meat products sold in Wisconsin, including by inspecting the livestock and poultry slaughtering and processing facilities that are not already inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 

The Division of Animal Health would get three additional employees that would be funded with about $500,000. 

According to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, Wisconsin has 233 official meat establishments and 70 custom meat establishments that require state inspection. 

Roys said the proposal “falls far short of what is needed,” noting that agriculture is a major economic driver in Wisconsin and the industry is under pressure due to actions being taken by the Trump administration. The USDA recently terminated its National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection, which had been in place since 1971, and the administration has considered ending most of its routine food safety inspections work. 

“That kind of uncertainty is exactly why we need to step up our work at the state level,” Roys said, adding that she hopes that Republicans “consider funding at the appropriate level what our farmers…deserve.”  

Marklein noted that the committee’s work on DATCP’s part of the budget is not completed yet. 

“This is a program that’s had a shortfall year over year,” Andraca said, adding that she hopes “members of this committee are vegetarians.” 

“If there’s one place that I wouldn’t cut, it would probably be in meat inspection. If we’re looking at places to take a little off the edge, food safety is not one of them, particularly in a time where we have avian flu and other diseases breaking out,” Andraca said.

Youth apprenticeship program gets boost

The committee also voted along party lines to invest additional funds in programs administered by the Department of Workforce Development, including $6 million in youth apprenticeship grants, $570,000 in early college credit program grants, $250,000 for the agency’s commercial driver training grant program and $250,000 for the workforce training grants. 

Democrats had suggested that the committee dedicate $11 million for the youth apprenticeship program, which provides an opportunity for juniors and seniors in high school to get hands-on experience in a field alongside classroom instruction, but Republicans rejected it opting to put a little more than half of that towards the program. 

Andraca said the program is important for allowing youth to “try out new skills and new jobs” and train to fill positions in  Wisconsin  and that the $6 million investment makes it seem like the program is “pretty much getting gutted.” The program has steadily grown annually over the last several years at an estimated rate of 16%, although, according to the LFB, the number of additional students each year has declined going from a high of 1,923 additional students in 2022-23, to 1,703 more in 2023-24, and 1,430 in 2024-25. 

Andraca noted that the program currently operates on a sum certain model, meaning that there is a specific amount of money available and the size of a grant could vary depending on participation and available funds. If there is continued growth of 16% then the grant sizes could shrink. A sum sufficient model (which Democrats wanted) would mean that the agency’s spending on the program isn’t capped by a specific dollar amount.

Sen. Romaine Quinn (R-Birchwood) noted that the grants for students would likely grow from an average of about $900 currently to about $1,000 under the Republican proposal. 

“This motion [is] at $6 million and $100 per award over the last budget, but we’re supposed to believe it’s gutting the program,” Quinn said. 

“Welcome to the People’s Republic of Madison where stuff like that happens a lot; $6 million in new money is a lot of money to most people but obviously the other side, it’s gutting the program,” Born said, responding to Quinn. “At some point when you’re building a budget, you have to figure out a way to afford it, be reasonable in your investments, so maybe that’s why we don’t view a $6 million investment as gutting because we’re trying to live within our means.” 

Funding to support new Wisconsin History Center

The committee approved $2.3 million to support the new Wisconsin History Center in downtown Madison for 2025-26 and $540,800 and six positions annually starting in 2026-27.

Construction on the museum, which will be operated by the Wisconsin Historical Society, started in April and  its opening is set for 2027. 

The  Historical Society had requested the one-time funding of $2.3 million in 2025-26 as well as ongoing funding of $1.7 million annually — more than double the amount the committee approved — starting in 2026-27 to help with operational costs, including security, janitorial and maintenance services. It said without ongoing funding from the state it wouldn’t be able to open and maintain the museum. It also said that it was not anticipating needing to request additional funding for the museum operations in future budget cycles if the request is funded. 

The committee also approved an additional $562,000 in one-time funding across the biennium for security and facilities improvements for the Historical Society’s facilities and collections and $157,000 to cover estimated future increases in services costs. But the committee decreased funding for the Historical Society by $214,000 for estimated fuel and utilities costs.

DOR budget moves resources to Alcohol Beverages Division 

A law, 2023 Wisconsin Act 73, overhauled alcohol regulation in Wisconsin and created a new Division of Alcohol Beverages under the Department of Regulation tasked with preventing violations of the new laws. Republicans on the committee approved a motion to recategorize nine general DOR positions and over $900,000 to the Division of Alcohol Beverages to help with enforcement. It also transferred an attorney to the division and added $456,000 in funding for two more positions in the Division of Alcohol Beverages.

Democrats said that Republicans on the committee were “nickel and diming” the Department of Revenue with its proposal given that it recategorizes already existing positions rather than creating new ones. 

“I do appreciate some of the efforts involved in this motion,” McGuire said, adding that he noticed there were 10 positions that were moved around.

“That seemed odd to me,” McGuire said. “Were their feet up on their desk? They weren’t collecting taxes… or what were they doing? We want to be able to give the Department of Revenue tools they need to succeed, and frankly, the tools they need to provide resources to the state to make sure that everyone’s on an even playing field so we can fund the priorities” of the state. 

The GOP proposal passed on a party-line vote.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Anti-Line 5 graffiti at Enbridge’s pumping station in Mackinaw City, Mich. (Laina G. Stebbins | Michigan Advance)

Canadian energy company Enbridge’s Line 5 traverses an extremely sensitive ecological area across northern Wisconsin, 400 rivers and streams as well as a myriad of wetlands, in addition to a path under the Mackinac Straights between Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, all the while skirting the southern shore of Lake Superior. Such close proximity to the Great Lakes, lakes that hold over 20% of the world’s fresh surface water, lakes that supply drinking water to nearly 40 million people, yes, that does indeed make Line 5 a ticking time bomb.

Northern Wisconsin is also a very culturally sensitive area, home to the Bad River Reservation. The Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Chippewa were guaranteed rights to their lands by an 1854 treaty with the U.S. government. The easements for Line 5 across the reservation, granted to Enbridge by the Chippewa, expired in 2013 and the Bad River Band chose not to renew them. Enbridge continues to operate the line, illegally and in direct violation of the Bad River Band’s right to sovereignty over their land.

The Bad River Band has a guaranteed legal right to their land. They also have a right to Food Sovereignty, the internationally recognized right of food providers to have control over their land, seeds and water while rejecting the privatization of natural resources. Line 5 clearly impinges on the Band’s right to hunt, fish, harvest wild rice, to farm and have access to safe drinking water.

A federal court ruled that Enbridge has been trespassing on lands of the Bad River Band since 2013 and ordered the company to cease operations of Line 5 by June of 2026 (seems that immediate cessation would make more sense), but rather than shut down the aging line, Enbridge plans to build a diversion around the Bad River Reservation. They plan to move the pipeline out of the Bad River Band’s front yard into their back yard, leaving 100% of the threats to people and the environment in place.

Liquid petroleum (crude oil, natural gas and petroleum product) pipelines are big business in the U.S. With 2.6 million miles of oil and gas pipelines, the U.S. network is the largest in the world. If we continue our heavy and growing dependence on liquid fossil fuels, we must realize that we will continue to negatively impact the climate and the lives of everyone on the planet. 

Instead of moving to a just transition away from fossil fuels, liquid or otherwise, the government continues to subsidize the industry through direct payments and tax breaks, refusing to acknowledge the cost of pollution-related health problems and environmental damage, a cost which is of course, incalculable. 

There are nearly 20,000 miles of pipelines planned or currently under construction in the U.S., thus it would appear that government and private industry are in no hurry to break that addiction, much less make a just transition. While no previous administration was in any hurry to break with the fossil fuel industry, they at least gave the illusion of championing a transition to cleaner energy. 

The current administration is abundantly clear. Their strategy is having no strategy. They don’t like wind and solar and they plan to end any support for renewable energy. They don’t care if they upend global markets, banking, energy companies or certainly any efforts to help developing countries transition away from fossil fuels.

Pipelines are everywhere across the U.S., a spiderweb connecting wells, refineries, transportation and distribution centers. The vast majority of pipelines are buried and many, if not all, at some point cross streams, rivers, lakes and run over aquifers. Pipeline ruptures and other assorted failures will continue and spillage will find its way into the bodies of water they skirt around or pass under. It’s not a question if they will leak, but when.

Enbridge controls the largest network of petroleum pipelines in the Great Lakes states, and they are hardly immune to spills. Between 1999 and 2013 it was reported that Enbridge had over 1,000 spills dumping a reported 7.4 million gallons of oil.

In 2010  Enbridge’s Line 6B ruptured and contaminated the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, the largest inland oil spill in U.S. history. Over 1.2 million gallons of oil were recovered from the river between 2010 and 2014. How much went downstream or was buried in sediment, we’ll never know.

In 2024 a fault in Enbridge Line 6 caused a spill of 70 thousand gallons near Cambridge Wisconsin. And Enbridge’s most infamous pipeline, the 71-year-old Line 5 from Superior Wisconsin to Sarnia Ontario, has had 29 spills in the last 50 years, loosing over 1 million gallons of oil.

Some consider Line 5 to be a “public good” because, as Enbridge argues, shutting the line down will shut down the U.S. economy and people will not be able to afford to heat their homes — claims they have never supported with any evidence. A public good is one that everyone can use, that everyone can benefit from. A public good is not, as Enbridge apparently believes, a mechanism for corporate profit.

Line 5 is a privately owned property, existing only to generate profits for Enbridge. If it were a public good, Enbridge would certainly be giving more attention to the rights of the Bad River Band, the well-being of all the people who depend on the clean waters of the Great Lakes and to protecting the sensitive environment of northern Wisconsin and Michigan. They are not. Their trespassing, their disregard for the environment, their continuing legal efforts to protect their bottom line above all else, only points to their self-serving avarice.

The Bad River Band wants Enbridge out, and in their eyes it is not a case of “not in my back yard” they do not want Line 5 in anyone’s back yard. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., center, accompanied by Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., left, and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., right,  speaks to reporters following a weekly Republican policy luncheon at the U.S. Capitol on Feb. 19, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Republicans in the U.S. Senate will spend the next couple weeks defending the party’s “big beautiful bill” against Democratic criticisms and attempting to pass a final version that can win 51 votes.

Reconciliation, the name for the process under which the massive bill is being considered, comes with a lot of rules in the Senate, including that every proposal in the bill addresses federal revenue, spending, or the debt limit. And language addressing the first two cannot be deemed “merely incidental,” or it gets kicked to the curb.

Reconciliation is also favorable for the party in power, in this case Republicans, since the bill is not subject to the legislative filibuster. That means the GOP will need no more than a simple majority for passage.

As you watch and read about Senate action during the coming weeks, here are the answers to five questions about reconciliation and other ways in which Congress sets a budget and allocates taxpayer money:

Q: Where does reconciliation fit in with everything else that’s happening, like the president’s budget request, the budget resolution Congress approved earlier this year, the appropriations bills and rescissions?

A: Yeah, they really don’t make this easy.

The president’s budget request is a proposal that serves as the starting point for lawmakers’ work on a variety of fronts, including the annual appropriations bills. Nothing in the president’s budget request becomes real unless Congress takes action.

Congress’ budget resolution is separate from that request. It is a tax and spending blueprint that lawmakers are supposed to use to plan the country’s financial future for the next decade.

It is not a bill and cannot become law, but when the House and Senate adopt a budget resolution with reconciliation instructions it unlocks the process Republicans are now using to pass their “big beautiful bill” — reconciliation.

Reconciliation bills move through Congress similar to how a regular bill becomes a law. However, in the Senate, the political party using the process must defend its work to the parliamentarian, who ensures the legislation complies with the Byrd rule, which is actually a law.

In a process separate from this are the dozen annual appropriations bills, which is how Congress, with its power of the purse, funds the departments, agencies and programs that most people picture when they think about the federal government.

Those bills account for about one-third of federal spending. The other two-thirds comes from mandatory programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security that lawmakers designed to run outside of the annual appropriations process.

Congress is supposed to approve the appropriations bills by the start of the fiscal year on Oct. 1, but lawmakers rarely complete the work before their deadline and typically have to use a stopgap spending bill to give themselves more time to negotiate full-year government funding bills.

This is why there could still be a partial government shutdown later this year, even though Congress has already adopted a budget resolution and will likely pass a budget reconciliation package in the months ahead.

Yet another process related to government spending is a rescissions request, which Trump sent to Capitol Hill earlier this month. It asks lawmakers to claw back funding approved in an earlier appropriations bill.

Just making the request allows the White House budget office to freeze funding for 45 days while the House and Senate debate the proposal. Senate approval of a rescissions bill is not subject to the chamber’s 60-vote legislative filibuster, so Democratic opposition won’t stop it from becoming a reality if the vast majority of GOP senators vote to cut the previously approved spending.

Q: What are the rules for budget reconciliation bills?

A: Again, remember that in general, this type of legislation must address revenue, spending, or the debt limit. Neither political party can use the process to change policies unless they have a significant impact on federal coffers.

For example, Democrats had to remove a provision that would have raised the federal minimum wage from a reconciliation bill they passed during the Biden administration because the parliamentarian ruled it was “merely incidental.”

Q: Why didn’t the bill have to go through all these extra steps in the House?

A: Congress established the reconciliation process in a 1974 budget act and passed its first reconciliation bill in 1980. But it wasn’t until 1985 and 1986 that the Senate put extra guardrails in place.

The Byrd rule got its name from West Virginia Democratic Sen. Robert C. Byrd, who argued that the reconciliation process needed to be more focused on budgetary issues. The Byrd rule evolved a bit over the years before being made a statute in 1990.

The Byrd rule requires each provision to change revenue or spending in a way not deemed “merely incidental.” Also, committees that receive reconciliation instructions in the budget resolution can only write bills within their jurisdiction and those committees must work within their reconciliation instructions’ fiscal targets.

In addition, proposals cannot increase the deficit outside the 10-year budget window and the package cannot change Social Security.

Q: What is a vote-a-rama?

A: Senate floor debate on a reconciliation package is much different than in the House, where GOP leaders were able to block any amendment debate.

The Senate is required to hold floor votes on reconciliation amendments and this usually leads to a vote-a-rama, where lawmakers debate dozens of amendments overnight and sometimes well after sunrise.

Democrats are likely to focus their amendments on proposals in the reconciliation bill that at least four GOP senators do not support, since that’s the minimum number Democrats would need for any of their amendments to be adopted. Republicans control the chamber with 53 votes and a tie-breaking vote from Vice President J.D. Vance.

GOP senators are likely to call for votes on their own amendments, though typically leaders try to work out many of the final details before the bill comes to the floor, to avoid potentially divisive votes.

Q: How often does Congress use this process to approve legislation?

A: Congress has approved 27 reconciliation bills since 1980, with 23 of those becoming law. Former President Bill Clinton vetoed three and former President Barack Obama vetoed one, according to a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

During the last decade, Congress approved three reconciliation bills — Republicans’ 2017 tax law; a $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package Democrats passed in 2021; and Democrats’ signature climate change, health care and tax package, known as the Inflation Reduction Act, in 2022.

If you’re interested in reading more about budget reconciliation, here is another explainer from earlier this year. 

National Institutes of Health Director Jayanta Bhattacharya speaks at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions on Capitol Hill on March 5, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya testified Tuesday that he will work with Congress to potentially reverse a steep cut to the agency’s funding the White House proposed earlier this year in its budget request.

Bhattacharya told highly critical Republicans and Democrats on the Senate panel that writes the NIH’s annual spending bill that he’s “happy” to work with lawmakers to find a funding level that everyone can support in the months ahead.

“This is my first time through this budget fight and so I’m still learning. But I’ll tell you, what I understand is that the budget is a collaborative effort between Congress and the administration,” Bhattacharya said. “I look forward to working with you all to advance the real health needs — not just the folks here in the room who represent Alzheimer’s patients, but also the health needs of all Americans.”

Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, R-Maine, said it was “disturbing” that the president’s budget request suggested lawmakers cut NIH funding by about $18 billion, or 40%, in the upcoming spending bill.

“It would undo years of congressional investment in NIH,” Collins said. “And it would delay or stop effective treatments and cures from being developed for diseases like Alzheimer’s, cancer, type one diabetes. I could go on and on.

“We also risk falling behind China and other countries that are increasing their investment in biomedical research.”

Collins said the committee planned to work with Bhattacharya “to remedy these problems and the deficiencies” in the budget request in the months ahead as the committee writes the annual government funding bills.

Collins also rebuked Bhattacharya for seeking to reduce how much the NIH pays grantees for facilities and administrative costs, which go toward paying bills that aren’t directly associated with just one research project.

NIH efforts to cap those indirect costs at 15% are on hold as lawsuits from Democratic attorneys general, the Association of American Medical Colleges and the Association of American Universities work through the federal court system.

“This proposed cap is so poorly conceived,” Collins said. “And I have seen firsthand how harmful it is. It is leading to scientists leaving the United States for opportunities in other countries. It’s causing clinical trials to be halted and promising medical research to be abandoned. It’s also against federal law. Since 2018, we in Congress have specifically included language to prevent NIH from arbitrarily imposing such a cap.”

Collins told Bhattacharya to talk with Kelvin K. Droegemeier, who worked as President Donald Trump’s science adviser during his first term. Droegemeier is chairman of a group put together by the Association of Public and Land Grant Universities to propose changes to the indirect costs model.

‘Frankly, catastrophic’

Washington state Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, pressed Bhattacharya to defend the actions he’s taken so far and those proposed in the budget request.

“What the Trump administration is doing to NIH right now is, frankly, catastrophic,” Murray said. “Over the past few months, this administration has fired and pushed out nearly 5,000 critical employees across NIH, prevented nearly $3 billion in grant funding from being awarded and terminated nearly 2,500 grants totaling almost $5 billion for life-saving research that is ongoing that includes clinical trials for HIV and Alzheimer’s disease.”

Murray added that no one in America wants less research into treatments and cures for cancer, or Alzheimer’s disease.

West Virginia Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, chairwoman of the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations subcommittee that held the hearing, expressed concern about NIH’s proposed budget cuts, saying they have raised alarms at numerous research universities.

“These institutions are the reason America has kept the edge in biomedical research and innovation,” Capito said. “As with many changes in leadership, there seems to be a heightened set of concern and confusion that diverting resources from research will result in a less healthy America.”

Capito emphasized she expects NIH to continue to focus research efforts on Alzheimer’s, a disease that affects more than 7 million Americans.

“For almost a decade, this committee has supported research towards the goals of finding treatments and a cure for Alzheimer’s disease,” Capito said. “This goal is very personal to me, as you know, since both of my parents lived with and eventually succumbed to this disease. And I could look out behind you and see in the audience that many folks here are extremely interested in that area of research.”

Delayed funding in the states

Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin, ranking member on the subcommittee, also reprimanded Bhattacharya for cutting off funding for projects looking into Alzheimer’s and several other illnesses.

“NIH has delayed $65 million in funding for 14 Alzheimer’s disease research centers in nine states, including at the University of Wisconsin-Madison,” Baldwin said. “It has delayed $47 million in cancer center support grants at nine cancer centers in eight states, it has delayed $55 million for 11 rare disease clinical research network grants in eight states.

“Let that sink in: This administration is making a conscious choice not to fund research into Alzheimer’s disease, cancer and rare diseases. And NIH has terminated grants for maternal morbidity and mortality centers, a grant developing new digital imaging techniques for cervical cancer screening and a clinical trial studying a potential cure for infants born with HIV, just to name a few.”

Alabama Republican Sen. Katie Britt called on Bhattacharya to ensure NIH refocuses on maternal health research and ways to decrease the country’s high maternal mortality rate.

“Look, far too many women in this country are dying from pregnancy-related causes,” Britt said. “You look at Alabama, we have one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the nation. It disproportionately affects Black women, Native American women, those women in rural areas.”

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies before the House Appropriations Committee's Defense Subcommittee at the U.S. Capitol on June 10, 2025 in Washington, D.C. Tuesday was the first time Hegseth testified before Congress since his confirmation hearings in January.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The Trump administration’s deployment of National Guard troops and U.S. Marines to protests over immigration raids in Los Angeles will cost the federal government about $134 million, a Pentagon budget official said Tuesday, as the response to the protests further divided officials in California and Washington, D.C.

The situation in the country’s second-largest city captured the attention of lawmakers in the nation’s capital, even as the Republican-led Congress charted a path forward for the Trump-backed tax and spending cut bill.

Democrats in Congress on Tuesday warned the administration’s actions bordered on authoritarianism, while President Donald Trump said his intervention saved the city from destruction.

“If we didn’t send in the National Guard quickly, right now, Los Angeles would be burning to the ground,” Trump said in the Oval Office Tuesday.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, meanwhile, sought a restraining order blocking the 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 U.S. Marines deployed to Los Angeles from assisting with domestic law enforcement. Trump ordered the troops to the city over Newsom’s and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass’ objections.

Budget question

Democrats on Capitol Hill criticized the administration over several aspects of the deployment, saying Trump was instigating violence, overstepping his authority and wasting taxpayer money.

At a previously scheduled Appropriations Defense Subcommittee hearing, Democratic Reps. Betty McCollum of Minnesota and Pete Aguillar of California asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth the financial cost of placing 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines in Los Angeles.

Hegseth, who is originally from Minnesota, declined to answer McCollum’s question directly, instead invoking the riots in Minneapolis following the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer in 2020 and saying Trump sought to avoid similar chaos in Los Angeles.

“President Trump recognizes a situation like that, improperly handled by a governor, like it was by Gov. (Tim) Walz, if it gets out of control, it’s a bad situation for the citizens of any location,” he said.

When Aguillar asked a similar question about cost, Hegseth deferred to acting Pentagon comptroller Bryn MacDonnell, who estimated the current cost at $134 million, mainly for housing, travel and food. That money came out of existing operations and maintenance accounts, she said.

Hegseth told the panel the deployment was authorized for 60 days.

Just 2 miles away at the White House, though, Trump implied the decision could be more open-ended, saying during the Oval Office event that troops would stay in Los Angeles “until there’s no danger.”

“When there’s no danger, they’ll leave,” he said.

Restraining order

California’s federal lawsuit challenging the deployment, which state leaders filed Monday, includes a request for the court to issue a restraining order by 1 p.m. Pacific time Tuesday. U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer did not issue such an order by that deadline.

The administration intended to use the military personnel “to accompany federal immigration enforcement officers on raids throughout Los Angeles,” the request for a restraining order said.

“These unlawful deployments have already proven to be a deeply inflammatory and unnecessary provocation, anathema to our laws limiting the use (of) federal forces for law enforcement, rather than a means of restoring calm,” the state said.

“Federal antagonization, through the presence of soldiers in the streets, has already caused real and irreparable damage to the City of Los Angeles, the people who live there, and the State of California. They must be stopped, immediately.”

Democrats in California’s congressional delegation and members of the congressional caucuses for Black, Hispanic and Asian and Pacific Islander Democrats also blasted the administration’s role in inflaming the standoff between protesters and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who’d conducted recent raids on workplaces in the area.

“President Trump’s unlawful decision to deploy the National Guard onto the streets of Los Angeles is a reckless and inflammatory escalation, one designed not to restore calm, but to provoke chaos,” Congressional Black Caucus Chair Yvette D. Clarke said at a press conference.

“Let’s be clear about how this began: with peaceful protests sparked by the unlawful and inhumane targeting, detention and deportation of our immigrant neighbors.”

Clarke, a New York Democrat, said in response to a reporter’s question that she believed the sending in of troops constituted an impeachable act by Trump.

“I definitely believe it is, but we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it,” she said.

‘Met with force’

Other Democrats on Capitol Hill have said Monday and Tuesday that Trump engineered the conflict to distract from unpopular provisions of Republicans’ “big, beautiful bill” and other issues.

“Donald Trump, cornered by his own failures – from pushing a heartless bill that would rip health care away from 16 million Americans, to raising costs from his reckless tariffs, to waging war with Elon Musk – Trump is desperately seeking a distraction,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said on the floor Tuesday.

“His order to deploy the National Guard and Marines – our own troops – on Americans is not just outrageous and provocative, it’s a dangerous authoritarian overreach that threatens the very fabric of our democracy.”

Rep. Jimmy Gomez led a press conference of California’s U.S. House Democrats Tuesday where he warned that the militarization in Los Angeles could happen elsewhere.

“If it can happen in Los Angeles, it can happen in any state in the union,” he said.

Later, at the Oval Office, Trump said protesters at his military parade on Saturday would be “met with very strong force.”

‘Tarred and feathered’

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters Trump acted responsibly to protect Southern Californians and blamed Newsom for “failed leadership” that he said led to the clash this weekend.

Asked if, as Trump and White House border czar Tom Homan have suggested, Newsom should be arrested for interfering with immigration enforcement, Johnson initially demurred before suggesting an 18th-century punishment.

“I’m not going to give you legal analysis on whether Gavin Newsom should be arrested,” the Louisiana Republican said.

“But he ought to be tarred and feathered… He’s standing in the way of the administration and the carrying out of federal law. Right? He is applauding the bad guys and standing in the way of the good guys. He is trying to — he’s a participant, an accomplice — in our federal law enforcement agents being not just disrespected but assaulted.”

Johnson said House Republicans were fully behind Trump’s actions and deflected a question about if there was a point at which he would oppose the administration’s efforts.

“He is fully within his authority right now to do what he is doing,” Johnson said. “We have to maintain order.”

A decision is imminent in three of the four cases that will determine whether individual health information for legal reproductive care remains protected by a 2024 federal rule.

Dr. Eve Espey has many stories she can tell about patients who travel to her clinic in New Mexico from their homes in Texas, where abortion laws are some of the most restrictive in the country.

In one recent case, Espey said a patient flew from Texas to Albuquerque for an abortion after her doctor advised that an autoimmune disease she has made being pregnant incredibly dangerous. At the same time, she had an IUD placed as future contraception.

Shortly after returning home, the patient had some cramping and discomfort that prompted her to have the placement of the IUD checked and make sure it hadn’t moved. But her doctor turned her away because she’d had an abortion.

“She flew back to New Mexico to get her IUD examined,” Espey told States Newsroom.

In this case, Espey’s patient voluntarily told her doctor that she’d had an abortion. But if a rule exempting reproductive health information from law enforcement investigations is struck down or altered by one of three federal cases brought by Republican attorneys general from more than a dozen states, that information could become mandatory to disclose.

A decision is imminent in three of the four cases that will determine whether individual health information for legal reproductive care remains protected by a 2024 federal rule under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), including a case in Texas before the same judge who tried to revoke government approval of an abortion drug.

The plaintiffs in the cases, which include 17 states that heavily restrict or outright ban abortion, say the rule undermines their state rights to investigate waste, fraud and abuse. Chad Kubis, spokesperson for Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, told States Newsroom via email that the office could not comment because of the ongoing litigation. But the complaint in the case led by Tennessee said, “The final rule will hamper states’ ability to gather information critical to policing serious misconduct like Medicaid billing fraud, child and elder abuse, and insurance-related malfeasance.”

HIPAA is a federal law passed nearly 30 years ago to protect the privacy and security of patient health information, especially as that information travels between clinics in an increasingly all-digital world. It includes some exceptions under limited conditions, such as law enforcement investigations. After the 2022 Dobbs decision returned abortion regulation to the states, prompting more than a dozen to pass abortion bans, advocates worried that such records could be used by state officials and law enforcement to investigate and prosecute patients seeking an abortion and those who help them.

Former Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration sought to remedy those concerns by adding a rule to the HIPAA law in 2024 restricting disclosure of the information. Meanwhile, states with legal abortion passed their own shield laws to protect providers and patients from out-of-state investigations.

In New Mexico, doctors like Espey are protected by a shield law that covers patients, providers and those who help someone obtain an abortion. Even with that, Espey worries and makes sure she’s careful with the notes she puts into writing. Lawmakers in New Mexico have considered going further with the shield law to require patient consent for any release of reproductive health records, but that could become an issue in emergencies.

“That is a colossal barrier to a provider,” Espey said. “Somebody could come into the ER and you can’t access the fact that they had an abortion two days ago.”

Lauren Paulk, senior research counsel for If/When/How, a nonprofit that offers legal support to those seeking reproductive health care, said the rule is important to keep intact because it helps patients and providers feel safe. Without it, more people will be turned away from clinics and hospitals, she said.

“Since Dobbs, there have been documented cases of at least seven people who have died in part because they were afraid to seek care or were denied care. We know that patients see these stories too,” Paulk said. “We also run a help line, so we hear people calling in every day who are scared to seek health care.”

For many years, people have considered health privacy to be a basic right, Paulk said, and have taken it for granted that when they see a doctor, the information shared will be confidential. But she said it’s vital that it stays that way.

“Having the state involved in health care poisons the well of the patient-provider relationship,” Paulk said. “When I go to my health care provider and I can’t be frank with them, it means I’m not going to get care to the extent that I need.”

Since Republican President Donald Trump’s administration took office in January and Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is now at the helm of U.S. Health and Human Services, the agency that administers the rule, the suits have become more complicated, including how the government is responding to each case.

They are:

State of Missouri v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Republican Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey filed this lawsuit in January, claiming that the rule infringes on state powers to investigate fraud, abuse and public health violations. U.S. District Judge John A. Ross, who was appointed by former Democratic President Barack Obama, is weighing the Trump administration’s request to dismiss the case for lack of standing. 

State of Tennessee v. HHS: Republican Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti filed this lawsuit in January, also claiming that the rule infringes on state powers of investigation. Republican attorneys general in 14 other states joined as plaintiffs. U.S. District Judge Katherine A. Crytzer, an appointee of Republican President Donald Trump, has been asked by the Trump administration to dismiss the case for lack of standing or grant the states’ request to block the rule. 

Purl, M.D. v. HHS: Dr. Carmen Purl, the sole owner of Dr. Purl’s Fast Care Walk In Clinic in Dumas, Texas, sued in October because she said the rule creates a conflict with the laws requiring her to report child abuse. The case is before U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, an appointee of Republican President Donald Trump. Kacsmaryk granted a preliminary injunction, but is expected to rule soon on a permanent injunction. 

State of Texas v. HHS: Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued in September, claiming the 2024 rule violates state investigative authority. Paxton argued the underlying 2000 HIPAA rule should be struck down as well — a move that could open many more avenues for state investigations if it is granted. U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix, a Trump appointee, has given the federal health agency two extensions of time to decide whether they want to rescind and rewrite the rule.

The judges presiding over the cases in Missouri and Tennessee, as well as the Purl case in Texas, could issue decisions at any time Missouri filed its lawsuit alone, while 14 other states with Republican attorneys general joined Tennessee’s lawsuit as plaintiffs: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota and West Virginia. All but three of those states either heavily restrict or outright ban abortion, and if the lawsuits are successful, records kept by doctors and pharmacists in other states could be subpoenaed.

If the underlying 2000 HIPAA privacy rule is somehow altered by court rulings in Texas, it could have even more effects, Paulk said. If/When/How receives phone calls from therapists living in states with abortion bans who are afraid of facing criminal charges just for talking about abortion with a patient, or for not reporting a person considering an abortion to the police, she said. That’s not true under existing laws, but if privacy rules change, records like therapy notes could also be subject to investigation.

“It’s clear to me that the folks who are pursuing the overturn of these laws and the folks who are in states where they’re trying to get access to health information are seeking to criminalize people and further stigmatize health care like abortion and gender-affirming care,” Paulk said. “They want people to be afraid to access care and providers to be afraid to provide it, and they’re using this specter of punishment to do that.”

DOJ asked two courts to dismiss Republican-led lawsuits

Democracy Forward, a nonprofit legal organization, is representing the cities of Columbus, Ohio, and Madison, Wisconsin, and Doctors for America, and has attempted to intervene in all four cases — Kacsmaryk denied the request, but the other three are still pending. If any of the motions are granted, attorneys for Democracy Forward could defend the rule, because they do not think the DOJ attorneys will adequately defend it, said Carrie Flaxman, the nonprofit’s senior legal adviser.

The cities and Doctors for America filed a friend-of-the-court brief after Kacsmaryk’s denial, arguing that HIPAA is vital to protecting patient confidentiality, including the 2024 rule.

At the end of March, Trump’s Department of Justice attorneys asked the federal courts in Missouri and Tennessee to dismiss the cases for lack of standing, saying the states have not demonstrated any harm.

“Missouri’s complaint vaguely alleges that the rule impedes state investigations and requires the state to expend resources to comply with the rule’s requirements,” the motion to dismiss says. “But absent from the complaint are any concrete facts supporting these conclusory assertions of harm, which one would expect to see if the rule truly posed the risks that the state alleges.”

In Texas, Kacsmaryk ordered the Department of Justice to provide an update about the health services agency’s review of the Biden-era rule in May, and asked if they wished to pause the court proceedings while they conduct that review. Acting Assistant Attorney General Yaakov Roth told the court in a brief that the rule remains “under consideration” but no imminent action on the rule is expected. He added that they were not requesting any pause in the case.

That response differed in Paxton’s suit, which was already on hold. DOJ attorneys asked for more time to “evaluate the agency’s position in this case and determine how best to proceed.” The judge granted the extension, and another update is expected in July.

“Blocking either or both of these rules could pave the way for government investigations by Attorney General Paxton or others and threaten the foundations of medical privacy that we all rely on,” Flaxman said. “Patients nationwide should be concerned about investigations … into the most personal of their medical records.” 

Christine Neumann-Ortiz (left) stands with Anna Morales, daughter of Ramon Morales Reyes'. (Photo courtesy of Voces de la Frontera)

Ramón Morales Reyes, a 54-year-old Mexican-born man living in Milwaukee who was framed for writing a letter threatening President Donald Trump, has been granted a $7,500 bond by an immigration judge. The news came early Tuesday morning, as immigrant rights advocates from Voces de la Frontera held a press conference to call on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to clear Morales Reyes’ name, and issue a retraction of a press release denouncing him for threatening the president’s life. 

Morales Reyes’ daughter Anna joined Voces executive director Christine Neumann-Ortiz on the press call and became emotional at the news of her father’s release. “I’m so very grateful, thank you so much,” said Anna, who spoke during the virtual press conference but did not appear on camera. Since DHS Secretary Kristi Noem issued a press statement describing Morales Reyes as an “illegal alien who threatened to assassinate President Trump,” his family has received online harassment and death threats. 

“I’ve always been my dad’s little girl who grew up with a hardworking dad that always was making sure his family has food on the table, having a roof over our heads,” said Anna Morales. “He loved to take us to the park every weekend and go for walks as a family.” She recalled cookouts with her dad, who worked as a dishwasher in Milwaukee for the last nine years. Morales lamented that her father is now facing the threat of deportation based on false accusations.  “He is not a criminal. He is a hardworking man, a provider, and most importantly a father who holds family together,” she said.  “Without my dad, me and my siblings wouldn’t be where we are today — his sacrifice and his drive to give us a better life.”  

“If he were taken from us, it wouldn’t just be a financial loss, it would be an emotional one that we honestly don’t know how to recover from,” she added. “My siblings and I rely on him not just for the roof over our heads or food on the table, but for his presence, his advice, and the way he keeps our family united.” 

“My dad is not a threat to anyone. He is a good man who got caught up in a terrible situation.” 

Despite the decision to release Morales Reyes, after the real author of the letter threatening Trump confessed that he had tried to frame Morales Reyes to prevent him from testifying against him in a criminal trial, the Department of Homeland Security has not removed a press release from its website accusing Morales Reyes of being the author of the letter.

In a statement, DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin responded to Morales Reyes’ release on bond, saying,  “while this criminal illegal alien is no longer under investigation for threats against the President, he is in the country illegally with previous arrests for felony hit and run, criminal damage to property, and disorderly conduct with domestic abuse. The Trump administration is committed to restoring the rule of law and fulfilling the President’s mandate to deport illegal aliens. DHS will continue to fight for the arrest, detention, and removal of illegal aliens who have no right to be in this country.” In 1996, Morales Reyes was arrested for a hit and run and property damage, but was not charged. In another 1996 incident he was ticketed for disorderly conduct and criminal damage after a dispute with his wife in which no one was injured, NPR reported. 

“It’s a disgrace that we have a government that is promoting false information of a very serious nature against a man who is a victim of a crime, and has been falsely accused,” Neumann-Ortiz told Wisconsin Examiner.

Morales Reyes’ family does not feel safe, Neumann-Ortiz said. “This just shows that this administration is not interested in safety. They’re interested in this propaganda campaign to demonize immigrants, and to do with them whatever they will, to accuse them of anything and put them in jail and throw away the key.”

Just before the bond hearing, attorney Cane Oulahan, who represented Morales Reyes during immigration proceedings, said that he was hoping for a “just result, which would be for Ramón to get out on a fair bond and rejoin his family, so they can start to heal from all the trauma they’ve been through.” Oulahan thanked Anna Morales for her bravery in coming forward with a statement Tuesday morning. The attorney said that factors which the judge would consider, including danger to the community and flight risk, were low for Morales Reyes. “I think it’s clear that Ramón is not a dangerous person at all,” said Oulahan. “It’s been over 30 years since he’s had any minor incidents, he’s a responsible husband and father, hard worker, someone who contributes to our community.” 

Oulahan said that Morales Reyes had no reason to be considered a flight risk. “He’s got every interest in staying here,” said Oulahan. “I mean, he’s been here almost 40 years. He has family here, this is his home, and he’s actively cooperating in a U-Visa investigation still, and so he has every reason to show up for his hearings.” A U-Visa is a form of immigration relief intended to encourage crime victims to cooperate with law enforcement investigations and court proceedings, while also providing a path to permanent residency. 

Neumann-Ortiz said in a statement that the bond decision was “a meaningful victory not only for Ramón and his family but for our entire community.” The decision she added, “reflects the courage and strength of community organizing, solidarity, and collective action. We thank all who stood with Ramón, and we urge continued support as the process ahead remains long and challenging. We also continue to demand that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) fully clear Ramón’s name and correct the false allegations against him.”

Morales Reyes was the victim of an attempted armed robbery in September 2023. The man accused of the attempted robbery, Demetric Scott, told investigators that he penned a letter claiming to be Morales Reyes and threatening to use a large caliber rifle to assassinate Trump. Scott believed that the letter would result in Morales Reyes’ deportation, and prevent him from testifying against Scott in court. 

Morales Reyes was born in a rural part of Mexico where he received very little formal education. He cannot speak English, and cannot read or write proficiently. The letter penned by Scott and later elevated by Noem’s press release was neatly written in fluent English. CNN reported that after he was arrested by immigration agents, Morales Reyes was questioned by detectives from the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD), who had already suspected that someone was setting him up to be deported. 

Scott claimed that he carried out the plan to get Morales Reyes deported on his own, without any assistance. He has now  been charged with identity theft and felony witness intimidation. Because Scott admitted to forging the letter, Oulahan said that he didn’t expect the letter to be relevant to the judge during Morales Reyes’ bond hearing. 

A staff member for U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Milwaukee) read a letter from Moore during the virtual press conference. Morales Reyes lives in  Moore’s district  and Moore  visited him in the Dodge County Jail. Moore has issued a letter requesting DHS to retract the accusations against Morales Reyes and remove Noem’s statement claiming that he threatened to assassinate Trump from the DHS website. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE