No Kings Day protest march viewed from the Wisconsin State Capitol | Photo by Gregory Conniff for Wisconsin Examiner

Early campaign reports this week goosed speculation that Gov. Tony Evers might not run for a third term. Evers, who hasn’t declared his intentions, has only raised $757,214 this year and has $2 million in the bank, compared with the $5 million he raised during the same period in 2021, before his successful bid for a second term.

Some progressives, most vocally Dan Shafer, creator of The Recombubulation Area blog, have been calling on Evers to step aside. Traumatized by former President Joe Biden’s fumbling 2024 campaign, Shafer says Evers, who is 73 (a decade younger than Biden) should not make the mistake of hanging around too long and instead should “pass the torch.”

“This is not ultimately an argument about ideological differences or policy disagreements,” Shafer writes. For him, it’s about age. It’s about the Biden trauma. And it’s about the problem Democrats at both the state and national level seem to have nurturing the next generation of leaders.

For some progressives, it’s also about ideology and policy disagreements. Advocates for child care, public schools, criminal justice reform and protecting health care access were furious that Evers didn’t drive a harder bargain with Republicans in the recently completed state budget deal. 

Still, if Evers announces his retirement, a large, non-MAGA portion of Wisconsin will experience a moment of fear. In our closely divided purple state, there is a real possibility a Republican could win the governor’s office, just as new, fairer maps are finally giving Democrats a chance to compete for power in the state Legislature. The Republicans who have declared so far are wrapping themselves in the MAGA flag. Evers is popular across the state and has shown he can win.

Devin Remiker, the state Democratic party chair, has said he is “praying” Evers will run again. U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan, former chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told reporters recently that he couldn’t think of a better governor for Wisconsin than Evers.

If Evers doesn’t run, Attorney General Josh Kaul, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez, state Sen. Kelda Roys and Secretary of State Sarah Godlewski are all likely Democratic candidates.

“There’s plenty of people on the bench who would love to be governor,” Pocan said. “… that’s not a concern. It’s really, I want the best person to be governor, and I think the best person who could be governor on the Democratic side is Tony Evers.”

Pocan calls Evers a “responsible adult” in contrast to Republicans who are following President Donald Trump off a cliff, slashing health care and food aid and driving up prices and deficits, making life a lot worse for a lot of people, including a projected 276,000 in Wisconsin who will lose health insurance and 49,000 who will lose food assistance under the federal mega bill.

There is an argument that Evers — “the most quintessentially Wisconsin politician I’ve ever seen,” as Pocan put it — accomplished what most Wisconsin voters wanted him to do in the budget process, put politics aside and get the best deal he could for state residents. Working across the aisle to achieve shared goals with the other party — including a last-minute maneuver that mitigates the disastrous Medicaid cuts Trump and congressional Republicans pushed through, drawing down $1 billion per year in federal funds for Wisconsin, was, as Evers himself pointed out, “significantly different” from the dynamic in Washington. 

“How about that, compromise?” Evers said Wisconsin voters told him, happily, when they heard about the deal. 

If the definition of compromise is a bargain that makes everyone unhappy, Democrats and progressives are clearly the more unhappy parties to this bargain.

Despite the glow of productive bipartisanship when the deal was struck, the details — and how the deal was done — are beginning to grate on some of Evers’ biggest former backers.

Big majorities of Republican legislators voted for the deal in both chambers. Five out of 15 Senate Democrats joined them, and there were only seven yes votes out of 45 Democrats in the state Assembly, where Speaker Robin Vos, who helped craft the budget, made it clear he didn’t need or want Democratic votes.

Arguably, the Democrats who gave impassioned floor speeches denouncing the budget have been in the minority in the Legislature for so long they never have to think about making the kinds of compromises involved in governing a divided state. If you look at it that way, it seems unfair of them to react angrily to Evers, a decent man who shares their goals and has worked diligently to accomplish what he can in the face of nasty opposition. Apart from Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein, who joined the budget negotiations behind closed doors after it became clear Republicans were going to need some Democratic votes in the Senate, Democrats were largely shut out of the whole process.

And that’s the real problem with the way Evers governs, according to Robert Kraig of Citizen Action. By not involving legislative Democrats from the beginning, he disempowered not just those individual legislators but their constituents, giving up the pressure he could have brought to bear on Republicans if he leveraged citizen outrage and demands for action on broadly popular priorities — funding public schools, expanding Medicaid, keeping child care centers open, and the whole list of progressive policies in Evers’ original budget proposal.

Instead, Evers was the kind of adult in the room who sends everyone else out when it’s time to make a decision. 

This governing style, Kraig argues, is badly out of step with the political moment. As an increasingly dangerous, destructive administration sends masked agents to grab people off the street and throw them in detention centers or deport them without due process, liquidates safety net programs and deliberately destroys civil society, it’s going to take a massive, popular movement to fight back.

Maybe Shafer is right that a younger, dynamic Democratic candidate could emerge as a leader of that movement. Maybe the Democratic Party needs to stop praying for likeable, bipartisan father figures to deliver victory and instead open the doors to the somewhat chaotic, populist backlash that is brewing against the oligarchic, authoritarian kleptocracy led by Trump.

It’s a big risk. But we are in very risky times. Democrats, and the public at large, have not yet figured out how to defend against the unprecedented maliciousness of our current federal government and the MAGAfied Republican party. The whole idea of bipartisanship seems outdated in a world where one side is seeking to tear up the social contract, the Constitution, due process, the justice system, fair elections, and the most basic, longstanding protections against poverty, hunger and disease.

These are the same conditions that gave rise to the Progressive Era. Fighting Bob LaFollette fought the leaders of his own party and founded a nationwide movement to wrest control of government from the wealthy timber barons and railroad monopolies who, through corrupt, captive politicians, fought to control all the resources of our state and nation.

Now those same powerful interests are fighting to claw back everything, to destroy the reforms of the early 20th century protecting workers, the environment, and the public sphere. They are smashing public institutions and flouting legal constraints.

Democrats need to make the case to the public that they will fight back. And they need the public to rise up behind them to help them do it. 

Michael Haas, Madison city attorney and acting city clerk, addresses the Wisconsin Elections Commission on Thursday. (Screenshot/WisEye)

The city of Madison has three weeks to review an order on how to prevent election officials from repeating a mistake they made in the November 2024 election, when they failed to count nearly 200 ballots.

The Wisconsin Elections Commission voted Thursday to hold off on the order after the Madison city attorney and acting city clerk, Michael Haas, urged the commissioners to first give the city a chance to negotiate its details.

“We have concerns about the approach that would require Madison and Madison alone to implement specific new procedures without the opportunity for our staff to consider their impact and practicality and to provide feedback” to the elections commission, Haas told the commissioners during the public comment period at the start of the meeting.

The city alerted the commission on Dec. 20, 2024, that 193 absentee ballots from three wards were never processed — 68 from two wards that were found on Nov. 12 and 125 from another ward found on Dec. 3.

“The failure to count the 193 ballots in Madison was a result of a confluence of errors,” wrote commission members Ann Jacobs and Don Millis, in their report on their joint investigation. Jacobs, a Democrat, is the current commission chair; Millis, a Republican, is the former chair.

The report found “a complete lack of leadership” by Madison’s city clerk at the time, Maribeth Witzel-Behl, after the uncounted ballots were discovered. Witzel-Behl resigned in April.

“These ballots were treated as unimportant and a reconciliation nuisance, rather than as the essential part of our democracy they represent,” Jacobs and Millis wrote.

“The buck didn’t stop anywhere,” Jacobs told the commissioners.

While the report found violations of state election law, it stipulated that those weren’t crimes and that there was no recommendation for criminal referrals.

“This is not a criminal investigation,” Jacobs said. “The focus of this investigation has been discovering what happened and making sure it doesn’t ever happen again in Madison and throughout the state.”

The report’s proposed order requires the Madison city clerk to produce a plan for which employees handle each task in running an election; to print pollbooks that record absentee ballots no earlier than the Thursday before the election; and to watermark ballots that arrive after that date.

Pollbooks printed three weeks before the Nov. 5 election and ballots that were marked with a highlighter, but not watermarked, when they arrived after the books were printed were among the anomalies the report found in the Madison case. 

The proposed order also includes requirements for the city clerk’s office and election officials who handle and process absentee ballots on Election Day.

Haas said “wholesale personnel management changes” in the order could be costly and that it didn’t account for changes the city has already made in its procedures.

Commission member Mark Thomsen urged the body to separate the report from the order, postponing the order so the city clerk’s office could respond.

“We have oversight but clerks run the elections, and it seems to me that we should at least defer to the city and the clerk on the specifics of an order,” said Thomsen, a Democrat.

Republican commissioner Bob Spindell agreed. “I’d like to see this cool off a bit and give Mike [Haas] the chance to come back as he’s requested,” he said.

The commission approved the report, minus the order, on a 5-1 vote, with Spindell the lone dissenter, saying that the former clerk “should not be crucified” over the incident.

A motion to approve the order failed on a tie vote. Commissioners then voted unanimously to defer it, giving the city until Aug. 7 to offer comments and setting a follow-up meeting for Aug. 15.

Emil Bove, President Donald Trump's nominee to be a judge for the 3rd Circuit, testifies during his Senate Judiciary Committee nomination hearing on June 25, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Despite a walkout from Democrats, Senate Republicans tasked with vetting nominees to the federal bench on Thursday claimed to advance President Donald Trump’s former criminal defense attorney, Emil Bove, one step closer to a spot on the U.S. Appeals Court that handles cases in Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

A spokesperson for Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who chairs the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, told States Newsroom the panel approved Bove’s nomination in a 12-0 vote — that is, despite panel rules that state “at least two members of the minority” must be present to transact committee business. The Iowa Republican’s office did not immediately respond to a follow-up question about committee rules.

In a show of opposition, all Democratic members of the panel, with the exception of Democratic Sen. Cory Booker, stood up and left as Republicans on the panel cast “aye” votes to push Bove’s nomination to the full Senate.

Booker, of New Jersey, refused to stop speaking as Grassley called the vote.

“You are a decent man. Why are you doing this?” Booker protested.

In a post on social media following the meeting, Josh Sorbe, press secretary for the committee’s minority, wrote: “Shameful day in Senate Judiciary. Republicans broke numerous committee rules, ignored privileged motions, denied debate, and rushed through judicial nominees without real vetting. Sen. BOOKER admonished them for it, and Democrats denied quorum and walked out.”

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the top Democrat on the panel, later issued a statement acknowledging the vote took place, but maintained Senate Republicans broke committee rules by ignoring Booker’s request for further debate and moving ahead with the vote.

“Chairman Grassley claimed that he was following Committee precedent. This is simply untrue,” Durbin said. 

Questions about bribery charges, Jan. 6

Senate Democrats, former judges and advocates opposed Bove’s nomination over what they describe as unethical behavior, including questions about his role as a top Department of Justice official in the dismissal of federal bribery charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams and in the firing of prosecutors who worked on cases probing the Jan. 6, 2021, storming of the U.S. Capitol.

Critics also pointed to recent whistleblower accusations that Bove suggested ignoring a federal court order limiting Trump’s mass deportation campaign.

Bove represented Trump in his multiple federal criminal cases in 2023 and 2024, as well as in a New York state trial that ended in Trump’s conviction on 34 felonies for falsifying business records.

Trump appointed Bove as acting attorney general on his first day in office, and Bove shifted to principal associate deputy upon Attorney General Pam Bondi’s confirmation.

Bove’s nomination to a lifetime appointment on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit has been overshadowed by a whistleblower’s account alleging Bove told subordinates to consider defying a federal court order halting Trump’s deportation flights to El Salvador in March.

Both Bove and acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, another of Trump’s former criminal defense attorneys, deny the allegations.

Grassley said Thursday prior to the vote that allegations against Bove “frankly crossed the line.”

“What we’re witnessing has all the hallmarks of a political hit job,” Grassley said.

Illinois’ Sen. Dick Durbin, the top Democrat on the panel, said in his opening statement Thursday that Bove “should not be seriously considered by the Senate for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench.” 

“He led this administration’s embarrassing efforts to strike a corrupt bargain with New York City Mayor Eric Adams, and he has been trailed by a history of complaints, long predating his affiliation with President Trump, about his temperament, his poor judgment and lack of candor before the court,” Durbin said.

Whistleblower complaint

Durbin and fellow minority committee members requested the panel hear testimony from Erez Reuveni, a former senior DOJ official who filed a whistleblower complaint in which he alleged he was fired for refusing to follow department orders to undermine the courts in Trump’s deportation cases. 

In the complaint submitted to the DOJ inspector general and Congress, Reuveni, who spent 15 years with the department, outlined “a pattern of deliberate defiance of federal court rulings related to immigration enforcement,” according to a summary from the Government Accountability Project and Gilbert Employment Law P.C., which filed the complaint on Reuveni’s behalf.

Lawmakers who viewed the complaint said Reuveni recounted witnessing Bove suggesting the DOJ might need to tell the courts “f— you” in relation to any order blocking the administration from sending planes full of deported migrants to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act.

“Mr. Reuveni has made credible allegations against Mr. Bove, which, if true, clearly disqualify him for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. Thus, it is imperative that the Committee hear from Mr. Reuveni, under oath, before we vote on Mr. Bove’s nomination,” according to a letter Monday led by Durbin.

Grassley shut down the request Tuesday, writing in a response that documents provided by the minority to support the claim do not “substantiate any misconduct by Mr. Bove.”

“I respect whistleblowers and the whistleblowing process and have taken this matter seriously. I note that the available documents and the public record are inconsistent with some of the whistleblower’s assertions, which have been reviewed in good faith,” Grassley wrote.

Dozens of former judges protest nomination

More than 80 former federal and state judges described Bove’s nomination as a “disservice to the constitution, to law enforcement and to the rule of law” in a letter to Grassley and Durbin Tuesday.

The judges, including former 4th Circuit Judge Michael Luttig, a George H. W. Bush appointee who endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris last year, slammed Bove’s “egregious record of mistreating law enforcement officers, abusing power, and disregarding the law itself,” adding that the allegations disqualify him for the position.

The letter cited Bove’s alleged role in firing Federal Bureau of Investigation agents and DOJ officials who prosecuted those involved in storming the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Trump pardoned all of the nearly 1,600 Jan. 6 defendants on the first night of his second term, including the most violent convicted felons.

The former judges also called Trump’s nomination of his personal defense attorney to a federal judgeship “deeply inappropriate.”

“In fact, when President Trump nominated Bove, he posted on social media that Bove would ‘do anything else that is necessary to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.’ That statement underscores the peril of confirming a nominee whose principal qualification appears to be personal loyalty to the president,” the former judges wrote.

Lena Zwarensteyn, senior director of the fair courts program at The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said the list of concerns over Bove’s nomination “goes on and on and on.”

“I think when it comes down to it, you know, in a lifetime position that requires good judgment, wise discretion, good temperament and the dedication to the rights of all, Mr. Bove fails on every single one of those accounts,” Zwarensteyn told States Newsroom in an interview Wednesday.

GOP Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who announced his retirement after breaking ranks earlier this month on Trump’s budget reconciliation package, said Thursday he found nothing to prove Bove expressed support for Jan. 6 defendants — something that would have been a “red line,” he said.

“The fact of the matter is, I can’t find one piece of evidence where he said that the violent act against police officers were okay or condoned. If you find it, let me know,” Tillis said.

Bove, of Seneca Falls, New York, graduated from Georgetown University Law in Washington, D.C., in 2008. He clerked for Judge Richard J. Sullivan of the Southern District of New York, and Judge Richard C. Wesley, who now sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

Bove, 44, worked as a federal prosecutor in the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York, and in 2023 became a partner at Blanche Law, the private firm of Todd Blanche.

Tense confirmation hearing

Democratic senators, and in some cases Republicans, peppered Bove with questions and concerns about the numerous misconduct allegations during the Judiciary Committee’s June 25 confirmation hearing.

Booker said he remained worried about a “pattern of behavior” first reported by Politico in February regarding complaints about Bove’s temper from former colleagues in the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York.

“The allegations align with reports about your abuse of power now at the DOJ,” Booker said.

Sen. John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican, pressed Bove on why the DOJ dismissed the federal corruption case against the New York mayor, who was charged with accepting illegal campaign contributions and luxury travel in exchange for favors.

The Trump administration moved to dismiss the Adams case in February, arguing the case interfered with the mayor’s ability to carry out immigration enforcement in the city. The administration requested a dismissal without prejudice — meaning Adams could be prosecuted again — but a federal judge ultimately dismissed the case in April with prejudice, citing concerns the White House would have leverage over Adams’ policy decisions.

“Do you believe in a higher being?” Kennedy asked Bove.

“It’s a very personal question, Senator, but I do,” Bove responded.

“I want you to look me in the eye and swear to your higher being when you answer this question, did you make a deal, a political deal, and dismiss the charges against Mayor Adams?” Kennedy said.

“Absolutely not,” Bove answered.

A voter casts an early ballot at a polling station in Milwaukee in 2023. Wisconsin is among at least nine states that have received requests from the U.S. Department of Justice for voter information, raising concerns among election officials about how the Trump administration will use the data. (Photo by Morry Gash/The Associated Press)

The U.S. Department of Justice is seeking the voter registration lists of several states — representing data on millions of Americans — and other election information ahead of the 2026 midterms, raising fears about how the Trump administration plans to use the information.

The DOJ is also demanding Colorado turn over all records related to the 2024 election, a massive trove of documents that could include ballots and even voting equipment. The Colorado inquiry, the most sweeping publicly known request, underscores the extent of the administration’s attention on state election activities.

At least nine states have received requests for information over the past three months, according to letters from the DOJ obtained by Stateline. Some states also received emails from a DOJ official last week asking for meetings to discuss information-sharing agreements.

The department’s focus on elections comes after President Donald Trump directed U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi in March to seek information about suspected election crimes from state election officials and empowered her to potentially withhold grants and other funds from uncooperative states.

For years, Trump has advanced false claims about elections, including the idea that the 2020 election that he lost was stolen. Now back in power, his administration is taking a new level of interest in how states — and even local authorities — administer elections.

Last week, a political operative approached several Republican county clerks in Colorado to enlist them in election integrity efforts in light of Trump’s sweeping March executive order overhauling elections administration. One clerk told Stateline the operative claimed to represent the White House.

“Whatever the Trump administration tries to pull is very unlikely to be successful,” Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat, said in an interview, calling Colorado elections very secure. “With that said, do I think they are trying to undermine our elections at large in this country? Absolutely.”

DOJ has sent letters to Alaska, Arizona, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, in addition to the request to Colorado.

The letters have typically asked election officials to describe how they register voters and work to identify duplicate registrations and individuals not eligible to vote, such as people with felony convictions and those who have died. The Washington Post earlier Wednesday reported on the letters; Votebeat and NPR previously reported on some of the letters as well.

Most letters also ask about each state’s process for flagging noncitizen applicants. Noncitizen voting is against federal law and incredibly rare, but Trump and his allies have promoted false claims about its prevalence. The Trump administration is also conducting a general crackdown on illegal immigration.

The letters call on election officials to turn over voter registration lists, which in some instances contain data on millions of residents in their states. This request has raised the most concerns, with some experts saying it’s unclear exactly why the DOJ wants the information.

“They don’t make much sense as law enforcement investigations. That makes me think that there’s some other purpose,” said Justin Levitt, who served as senior policy adviser for democracy and voting rights in the Biden White House and is now a law professor at Loyola Marymount University.

Trump’s proof of citizenship elections order blocked for now in federal court

While many states make their voter registration lists available to the public, Levitt emphasized the data could still be largely off-limits to the federal government. Federal privacy law sometimes restricts how the government can use data that’s publicly obtainable. The DOJ may need voter information in some individual circumstances, but “that’s not blanket permission to go vacuuming up data.”

The DOJ didn’t respond to questions for this story.

Federal laws restrict the federal government’s ability to centralize information on Americans, said David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research. Even if states provide voter registration information to the public, they often redact sensitive information.

In Orange County, California, the DOJ sued local election officials in June, seeking unredacted voter registration information, such as Social Security numbers and driver’s licenses, as part of an investigation into noncitizen voting.

More than 350 election officials from some 33 states participated in a conference call about federal actions on Monday hosted by Becker, who was previously an attorney in the DOJ Voting Rights Section during the administrations of Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. He said the interest in the call shows the level of uncertainty and anxiety over the current “federal imposition” on election administrators.

“The DOJ seems dead set on acquiring personal information on voters, including driver’s license numbers, Social Security numbers and dates of birth — records that are highly protected under federal law and under state law and which state election officials are sworn to protect,” Becker said.

Sweeping Colorado requests

In Colorado, the amount of data the DOJ wants is enormous. On May 12, Harmeet Dhillon, an assistant U.S. attorney general in the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, sent a letter to Griswold, the secretary of state, asking for access to “all records” related to the 2024 election.

Federal law requires state election officials to preserve records related to elections for 22 months. Typically, the rule ensures records are preserved in case any lawsuits are filed over an election. In the letter, Dhillon referred to a complaint against Griswold’s office alleging noncompliance with records retention laws, but provided no details.

Experts on election administration who spoke to Stateline expressed shock at the scope of the demand to Colorado. The request encompasses a vast trove of material, potentially including ballots.

“The amount of records being requested from a place like Colorado … it’s really, really significant in terms of the volume of materials that are required to be retained,” said Neal Ubriani, a former voting rights litigator at the DOJ during the Obama and first Trump administrations and the current policy and research director at the nonpartisan Institute for Responsive Government.

Colorado elections have previously drawn Trump’s attention. Former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters, a staunch Trump supporter, is serving a nine-year prison sentence after a conviction in state court for allowing unauthorized access to voting equipment in 2021.

On May 5 of this year — a week before the Dhillon letter to Griswold — Trump posted on social media that Peters should be released, calling her a “political prisoner.” Griswold noted the timing.

“I think the bigger picture is Donald Trump is continuing to try and rewrite the 2020 election and destabilize the ’26 and ’28 elections,” Griswold told Stateline.

Trump signs broad elections order requiring proof of citizenship

The Colorado Secretary of State’s Office responded to the DOJ by providing copies of the state’s master voter file and voter history file. All of the information provided is also available to the public.

Some Colorado Republican county clerks in recent days have also been approached by Jeff Small, a political operative who worked at the U.S. Department of the Interior during the first Trump administration. Stateline and Colorado Newsline spoke to three GOP clerks who said they had spoken to Small last week.

Steve Schleiker, clerk of El Paso County, which includes Colorado Springs and is the most populous county in the state, said that on July 9 he received a text and call from Small, who introduced himself in a voicemail as someone who “works for the White House.”

Schleiker said that when he called back, Small said he wanted to build relationships with clerks because the Trump administration was unhappy with progress on the president’s elections executive order. He later connected Schleiker with a Homeland Security official who wanted to test the security of El Paso County’s election systems, said Schleiker, who added that he opposed the request.

Weld County Clerk Carly Koppes said she also heard from Small, but that Small told her he wasn’t under contract or being paid for the calls. Small indicated he was making the calls on behalf of former colleagues, Koppes said.

Small, a former Capitol Hill chief of staff who now works for a Colorado-based government affairs firm, didn’t return a call to his office on Wednesday. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security said in a statement that the agency works with local partners to ensure elections remain safe.

“We don’t disclose every single conversation we have with them,” an unidentified DHS spokesperson wrote in an email.

Matt Crane, executive director of the Colorado County Clerks Association, said he was aware of 10 clerks approached by Small. He noted that every clerk approached by Small hails from a county that uses Denver-based Dominion Voting Systems.

While Dominion is widely used in Colorado, it’s also been the subject of election conspiracy theories. A former candidate for county sheriff in southwest Colorado was arrested in June, accused of firebombing a clerk’s office. Colorado Public Radio reported the suspect, according to law enforcement, had spoken publicly about trying to get rid of the county’s Dominion machines.

“I think the really important thing to say here is that it was Republican clerks who stood up to a Republican administration and said, ‘No, we’re going to follow the law,’” Crane said.

The intent of the efforts by Small and the federal government “has been muddied up it seems,” Montrose County Clerk Tressa Guynes said. Based on her conversations with other clerks, she said, it appeared Small represented one thing to other clerks and then “represented maybe a watered-down version by the time it got to me.”

Guynes said Small wanted to discuss Trump’s elections executive order. She said Small asked whether she would be willing to support a federal task force’s efforts in an advisory role.

“I said absolutely I will advise,” Guynes said. “I said I’m frankly glad that they’re finally reaching out to the boots on the ground, the people who actually conduct the elections, instead of listening to those who have never conducted a Colorado election.”

Letters to other states

As Colorado grapples with the most far-reaching request, other states are choosing how to respond. In Wisconsin, the state election commission responded to a DOJ request for the voter registration list with instructions on how to request public voter data.

Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, responded on June 2 — after DOJ in a May 20 letter told the state to ensure voter registration applicants provided a driver’s license number, if they have one, instead of a partial Social Security number. The DOJ also wanted Arizona to check voters against a state database to look for noncitizens.

Fontes replied that Arizona complies with federal law and conducts checks using a state motor vehicle division database.

“We are focused on dealing with DOJ in a good faith manner while ensuring we are following the letter of federal and state laws,” Fontes spokesperson JP Martin wrote in an email to Stateline.

More recently, Arizona received a letter July 10 from DOJ about implementation of Trump’s elections executive order. Rhode Island Democratic Secretary of State Gregg Amore also received an email about the order the same day, according to a copy provided to the Rhode Island Current.

In the email, Scott Laragy, principal deputy director in the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, asks for a call to discuss a possible information-sharing agreement to provide DOJ with information on individuals who have registered to vote or have voted despite being ineligible, or those who have committed other forms of election fraud.

The email echoes the language in Trump’s elections executive order, which calls for DOJ to reach information-sharing agreements with states. While much of the order, which focused on proof of citizenship in elections, has been struck down in federal court, provisions related to information sharing remain.

The executive order directs Bondi, the U.S. attorney general, to prioritize enforcement of federal “election integrity laws” in uncooperative states. It also requires her to review grants and other DOJ funds that could be withheld from states that resist.

Some states have already struck deals with the Trump administration. Indiana Republican Secretary of State Diego Morales announced an agreement last week with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services allowing the state to access a database to verify the citizenship of registered voters. Alabama Republican Secretary of State Wes Allen has signed a similar agreement.

“With your cooperation, we plan to use this information to enforce Federal election laws and protect the integrity of Federal elections,” Laragy wrote to Rhode Island.

Janine Weisman of the Rhode Island Current and Lindsey Toomer of Colorado Newsline contributed to this report. Stateline reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@stateline.org.

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.

The National Public Radio headquarters in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, May 27, 2025.  (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate agreed to legislation early Thursday that will cancel $9 billion in previously approved funding for public broadcasting and various foreign aid accounts, another victory for the Trump administration. 

The 51-48 mostly party-line vote at about 2:30 a.m. sends the bill back to the House, where GOP lawmakers in that chamber would have to clear the final version for President Donald Trump’s signature before a Friday deadline.

Maine Sen. Susan Collins and Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski were the only Republicans to vote against passing the measure, which was opposed by all Democrats present and voting.

Democratic Sen. Tina Smith of Minnesota was absent, and her staff said on social media that after she began to feel unwell Wednesday and saw the Capitol physician, she went to George Washington University Hospital, where “out of an abundance of caution, they are keeping her overnight.”

Murkowski voiced concerns with the legislation during a floor speech, saying the White House’s request lacked detail and could have negative repercussions around the world.

“We’ve got big, broad categories, but I haven’t been given the comfort, if you will, that we’re not impacting maternal and child health; that we’re not impacting HIV/AIDS; that we’re not impacting nutrition programs and programs related to tuberculosis, malaria, polio, neglected tropical disease, pandemic prevention, family planning,” Murkwoski said.

“I think that we are entitled to have that level of detail when these funds that we have authorized, that we have appropriated to are now being clawed back. I don’t think that that is too much to ask,” she said.

Murkowski said the right approach to addressing some conservatives’ perception of left-leaning bias at National Public Radio shouldn’t be to completely eliminate funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds both public radio and television.

The impact on local communities in rural areas, she said, could be significant, given that many people rely on their stations for emergency alerts related to tsunamis and other forms of extreme weather as well as educational programs.

Missouri Republican Sen. Eric Schmitt, who managed the bill, said the cancellations were intended to “restore some fiscal sanity” that’s needed after “bureaucrats have betrayed the trust of the American people” by spending foreign aid dollars on programs he described as “offensive.”

“What this bill is about is to test the will of this chamber — if we can actually move forward on what the American people sent us here to do, which is to find waste, to find fraud and find abuse,” Schmitt said. “And also to realign the taxpayer dollars that go out the door with actual American interests.”

The win in the Senate for the GOP and Trump followed approval on July 1 of a massive tax and spending cut package he had advocated.

Two years of federal funds taken back

The rescissions bill will claw back $1.1 billion in previously approved spending for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which contributes funding to NPR, the Public Broadcasting Service and hundreds of local stations throughout the country. That money was slated to cover the fiscal year set to begin Oct. 1 and the following year.

The legislation also cancels about $8 billion in foreign aid spending that Congress had appropriated for dozens of programs, including global health initiatives.

Senate Republicans opted to preserve full funding for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR.

South Dakota Republican Sen. Mike Rounds secured a handshake deal with White House budget director Russ Vought to transfer $9.4 million from an undisclosed account within the Interior Department to Native American radio stations. But that wasn’t included in the actual bill.

Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota and Wisconsin all hold public broadcasting stations that will receive a piece of that funding, according to Rounds’ office.

Lack of details

North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis used floor debate to caution the White House budget office against going too far with the rescissions included in the bill and scolded the administration for not giving Congress more detail about what it wants to cut.

“The only time that we’ve had a successful rescissions package in modern history was 1992,” Tillis said, adding that request was approved, in part, because it was sent to Congress with “very detailed lists of specific programs that were going to be cut.”

The request this year, Tillis said, doesn’t include nearly that level of information. But he said he’s willing to vote for it anyway, giving the president and the Office of Management and Budget “the benefit of the doubt that they’re going to be responsible cuts.”

Tillis said he was assured the rescissions wouldn’t affect a $200 million account that provides non-miliary aid to Ukraine or foreign aid accounts like the one funding maternal and child health programs at a Sudanese refugee camp he visited earlier this year.

“However, if we find out that some of these programs that we’ve communicated should be out of bounds, that advisers to the president decide that they’re going to cut anyway, then there will be a reckoning for that,” Tillis said.

‘It did not have to be this way’

Washington Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, warned Republicans that unilaterally cutting funding approved through bipartisan bills could upend the annual government funding process.

“It did not have to be this way and it still does not have to be this way,” Murray said. “In fact if Republicans come to their senses and vote this down, we can still go a different route. We can do what we have always done and consider bipartisan rescissions as part of our annual appropriations process.”

Congress must pass some sort of bipartisan funding bill before the start of the new fiscal year on Oct. 1, otherwise there will be a partial government shutdown.

Murray also said that “cutting these investments is just downright wrong.”

“We should not be voting to let children starve or die from preventable diseases. We should not be voting to go back on our word to the world,” Murray said. “Saving a couple pennies is not worth losing our credibility or causing millions of needless deaths across the globe. It is not even close.”

Democrats introduced a series of amendments to change portions of the bill related to public broadcasting funding and foreign aid, but did not succeed.

House Republicans up next

The reworked bill now goes back to the House, where GOP leaders in that chamber need nearly all their members to support the changes made in the Senate.

If the House cannot meet the Friday deadline, the White House budget office would be required to spend the funding it included in its original rescissions request, which it released in early June.

The House voted 214-212 earlier this year to send the original bill to the Senate, where GOP lawmakers raised concerns about various elements, including how reducing foreign aid spending would impact America’s leadership among adversarial countries like China and global health initiatives.

The Senate didn’t make many changes to the legislation, but did remove the proposed rescission for PEPFAR. The initiative, launched by former President George W. Bush, has saved more than 26 million lives.

The change decreased the total amount of funding that will be canceled from $9.4 billion to about $9 billion.

Both figures are miniscule compared to the $6.8 trillion the federal government spends each year, though this bill is meant to be the first of many the Trump administration hopes Republicans approve in the months and years ahead. 

Advocates, Gov. Tony Evers and Republican lawmakers have conflicting views about the Department of Corrections funding in the 2025-27 state budget. (Photo by Caspar Benson/Getty Images)

For criminal justice advocates in Wisconsin, the new state budget leaves much to be desired. Although the $111 billion two-year budget signed by Gov. Tony Evers earlier this month will help eventually close the beleaguered Lincoln Hills juvenile prison, some feel that it missed opportunities to reform the state’s justice system. 

“Wisconsin’s elected officials, including Gov. Evers and state legislators, have once again failed to take meaningful action to overhaul the state’s broken and inhumane carceral system,” Mark Rice, statewide coordinator for WISDOM’s Transformative Justice Campaign, wrote in a statement released July 11. “The recently passed state budget ignores the deep harm caused by mass incarceration and falls far short of what is needed to address the humanitarian crisis unfolding inside Wisconsin’s prisons.”

Evers’ original budget proposal released in February contained a number of proposals that were removed or reduced by the Legislature’s Republican-led Joint Finance Committee, including $8.9 million to support alternatives to revocation. Another pitch by Evers for $4 million to fund community reentry centers was cut in half by Joint Finance. His proposed $3.19 million in supportive housing service beds for people under DOC supervision was removed. Over $1 million in funding for six positions on the DOC’s Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance team was also removed by JFC. 

Evers proposed a total increase of $519 million to the  Department of Corrections budget over the next two years.  The final budget deal instead increased the DOC budget by $461 million over the two-year period. 

The budget’s capital projects plan, passed by the Legislature and signed by Evers, allocated $225 million to the Department of Corrections (DOC), as well as another $15 million towards construction planning for facilities, with the goal of closing the Green Bay Correctional Institution by 2029. 

Evers used his partial veto to strike the 2029 deadline for closing Green Bay. “We need more compromise on that,” said Evers, who added that he supports closing the prison, one of Wisconsin’s oldest, but called the timeline unrealistic: “Saying we’re going to do Green Bay by ‘29 doesn’t mean a damn thing.” In his veto message, Evers said that he objected to the Legislature “assigning a date” to close the Green Bay prison “while providing virtually no real, meaningful, or concrete plan to do so.” 

“I support closing Green Bay Correctional Institution,” Evers wrote. “Indeed, my administration spent years working on a comprehensive corrections reform plan to be able to close Green Bay Correctional Institution quickly, safely, and cost efficiently, which was included in the biennial budget I introduced months ago. I proposed a ‘domino’ series of facility changes, improvements, and modernization efforts across Wisconsin’s correctional institutions while improving public safety by expanding workforce training opportunities to reduce the likelihood that people might reoffend after they are released. Under that plan, Green Bay Correctional Institution would be closed in 2029. Instead, the Legislature sent this budget with the same deadline and no plan of which to speak.”

The fight to close old and blighted prisons

Lincoln Hills, Wisconsin’s notoriously troubled juvenile prison, which still houses 79 boys according to the DOC’s most recent population report, blew years past its own closure deadline. Now, the budget provides $130.7 million to build a new Type 1 juvenile facility in Dane County to help facilitate the closure of Lincoln Hills. Plans for a second Type 1 facility in Milwaukee County ran into roadblocks from local resistance and political disagreements in the Capitol, though the facility’s completion is still planned. 

Green Bay’s prison was originally built in 1898. Plaques embedded in its outer wall commemorate that the wall was “erected by inmates” in 1921. Over 1,100 people are incarcerated in the prison, which is designed to hold only 749, according to the DOC’s most recent weekly population report. In late June, prison reform advocates from JOSHUA, a local affiliate of WISDOM, held a monthly vigil and prayer service outside the prison, where people are held in “disciplinary separation” for the longest periods in any of DOC’s adult facilities. Protesters  included people whose loved ones have died inside the prison, some by suicide due to a lack of mental health support. In late August, 19-year-old Michah Laureano died in the prison after he was attacked by his cell mate. 

Although the budget aims to close Green Bay, how that will be accomplished remains hazy. Rice wrote that the budget “includes no plan” to close the prison, “despite overwhelming evidence that the facility is beyond repair.” Instead, Rice wrote in a statement that “some legislators continue to push for more studies and planning tactics that will only delay justice while people continue to suffer and die behind bars. This is unacceptable.”

That sentiment was echoed by the Ladies of SCI, an advocacy group formed by women with loved ones at the Stanley Correctional Institution. Although the group appreciated that closing Green Bay was part of the budget discussion, “we also agree that does not mean much without funding an actual plan,” the group wrote in an email to Wisconsin Examiner. “The [Joint Finance Committee] committed that the plan presented by [DOC] Secretary [Jared] Hoy’s team in the Governor’s initial budget was ‘just an idea’ and yet, the JFC also just put an ‘idea’ in the budget. Yes, they put in dollars for a plan to be developed, but this has already been done several times over.” 

Studies for closing Green Bay, Waupun, and other old and blighted facilities have been recommended as far back as 1965, Ladies of SCI wrote in the statement. “Here we are, 60 years later, STILL discussing it. The most recent study was done in 2020 and called out almost $1 billion in projects to increase capacity across our facilities to just handle that population level…We are well above that population level today.”

The group asks, “Is $15 million actually enough to finally get tangible actions to deal with our Corrections crisis? We’d like to know what the magic combination of dollars and opinions are needed to finally address issues that have been identified over and over.” Ladies of SCI said “setting aside money for yet another study and plan development is rinse and repeat of history…The bottom line is our state’s prison population is too big for what we currently have.”

Rice concurred, writing in his own statement that prisons like Green Bay, Waupun (the state’s oldest prison where multiple deaths have occurred in recent years), and the Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility (MSDF) “are notorious for inhumane conditions and should have been shut down years ago.” Rice added that “there is no justification for continuing to pour hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars into maintaining or expanding a failed prison system.” 

Instead, he believes that the state should commit to reducing the prison population by expanding treatment alternatives to incarceration, commuting “excessive and unjust sentences,” granting “fair access to parole and early release,” and stopping the practice of locking people up for “technical or convictionless revocations.” 

When Evers wrote his message vetoing the deadline for closing Green Bay, there were 362 people working at the prison and more than 1,100 incarcerated adults. “As of this writing, Wisconsin has the capacity to house 17,638 individuals at its correctional institutions but there are 23,275 people living in [DOC] institutions across Wisconsin;” Evers wrote, “the Legislature provides no steps whatsoever to stabilize the state’s skyrocketing prison population.” 

Referring to the saga of Lincoln Hills, Evers added, “Wisconsin already has about a decade’s worth of painful experience learning how well it works in practice to set unrealistic, artificial timelines and due dates for closing prison facilities without a complete and thorough plan for implementation. It would be foolish and dangerous to attempt to take a similar approach with a maximum-security institution like Green Bay Correctional Institution.”

Alternatives to incarceration 

Just over one-third of the 2,727 new prison admissions statewide between January and April were people sent back to prison for issues like violating the rules of community supervision, and without a new crime committed or sentence issued, according to the DOC’s dashboard. Over the same period of time, there were more than 63,435 people on community supervision, probation, or parole.

Sean Wilson, senior director of organizing and partnerships at Dream.org, criticized the cuts to proposals to expand alternatives to incarceration, “clean-slate” legislation and expungement reforms that were left out of the final budget deal. “I think that there continues to be a lack of re-entry investments, which should be pretty high on the list,” Wilson told Wisconsin Examiner. For years, criminal justice advocates have pushed for support for housing, access to mental health care and jobs, “those things were not included in the budget.” 

With less than 3,000 people housed between Green Bay, Waupun, and MSDF, Rice feels that “these prisons could be emptied and closed within months” and that “doing so would not only alleviate human suffering but it would also free up critical resources” which “must be reinvested in the communities most harmed by incarceration.” From providing living-wage jobs and stable housing to creating educational opportunities and violence prevention, Rice wrote in his statement, “that is how we build true public safety.”

Wilson declared that “the biggest elephant in the room” was that “there’s no real movement on closing outdated prisons or reducing the DOC’s footprint.” He stressed that “we are beyond design capacity…with 5,000 additional bodies [beyond the number] this system was designed for.” Without a concrete roadmap and deadline, he says the budget commitment to closing the Green Bay prison doesn’t mean much.  

Over 20 years ago, Wilson spent time in the Green Bay prison, which he remembers as “a dilapidated hellhole…It was a trauma pressure cooker in my opinion.” 

“But the fact that they’re talking about just studying it, that really made me livid as someone who spent time in that facility, and is currently in communication with many individuals who are still housed there today,” he added.

Wilson said he doesn’t see focused funding to reduce racial disparities in incarceration, nor is there funding to support people who have been directly impacted by the criminal justice system and are trying to lead a reform effort. “I think if you look at the movement at large for the last 20 years, it’s been led by directly impacted leadership,” said Wilson. “Because we believe in the words of Glenn Martin that those closest to the problem are closest to the solution.” People with personal experience need to be brought to the table to offer both critiques and solutions, he said. 

Ladies of SCI called the building plans in the budget “just one of the steps our lawmakers must take to address things,” and pointed to separate legislation introduced by Republican Senator Andre Jacque (R-DePere) and Rep. Paul Tittl (R-Manitowoc), which the group believed would have put needed investments into rehabilitation “instead of warehousing people in our crumbling facilities.”

Evers said the budget was an exercise of compromise and cooperation. “We need to work together,” he said after signing the budget less than an hour after the Assembly passed it.  “Compare that to what’s going on in Washington, D.C., and it’s significantly different, so I’m very proud to sign it,” Evers said of the bipartisan compromise. In order to retain $1 billion per year in federal Medicaid matching funds, legislators on both sides of the aisle worked to finalize the bill before the federal reconciliation bill was signed by President Donald Trump.

Another one of Evers’ partial vetoes stirred discussion around juvenile incarceration. The Senate version of  the budget specified that state juvenile correctional facilities would operate at a rate of $912,000 in 2025-26 per kid, per year, before increasing to over $1 million per kid per year for 2026-27. Evers’ partial vetoes lowered the rates to $182,865 per kid in 2025-26, and $275,670 per kid in the following years.

Over the last decade the cost of housing for each young person in youth corrections in Wisconsin has quadrupled from $303 per day in 2014 to $1,268 per day in 2024, largely due to a lower population of incarcerated youth and higher staffing needs. In his veto message, Evers objected to the Legislature’s plan to continue expanding the costs of the existing youth incarceration system during a time of “uncertainty,” and delays in closing youth prisons.  

Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine) criticized Evers for using a veto to cut housing expenditures for juvenile offenders. “Evers’ veto of this provision is unsustainable and he knows it,” said Wanggaard. “The statutory daily rate is not a number that we come up with out of thin air. It’s simple math – the total cost to operate our juvenile facilities divided by the average population.” 

Wanggaard added that “up until now, a county sending a juvenile to a state facility paid for those costs…Governor Evers just decided unilaterally to turn it on its head and have the state pick up the vast majority of costs. It flips the entire funding of juvenile corrections without debate or discussion. It’s irresponsible.” Wanggaard also said that Evers’ refusal to utilize the expansion of the Mendota Juvenile Treatment Center to house more youth offenders is driving costs higher. Children can only be placed in Mendota when it’s clinically appropriate, however. The facility was never intended to replace Lincoln Hills, or augment bed space for incarcerated kids. 

In his veto message, Evers explained why he shifted the cost burden from local communities to the state, writing that he objected “to establishing a daily rate that is unaffordable to counties.” He continued that, “I have heard loud and clear from counties that the current daily rate is burdensome and will detrimentally impact public safety. Unbelievably, despite that clear message from the counties, the Legislature has chosen to increase that rate by over $1,000 per day. This increase and funding model is untenable, and counties have expressed that this unaffordable increase will have serious and detrimental effects on other county services.” Evers urged the Legislature to “revisit this issue in separate legislation and appropriate those additional GPR funds to the department.”

Criminal justice advocates around the state say viable solutions must go beyond incarceration. Lincoln Hills continues to be under a court-ordered monitor due to a successful lawsuit that brought attention to the harms done to both incarcerated youth and reports of abuse within the facility. Waupun’s prison has yet to recover from a string of deaths which ultimately led to charges against the prison’s warden and several staff. Green Bay is also notorious for inhumane conditions and deaths behind bars. 

“We don’t need more studies, we need action,” said Wilson. 

When he was incarcerated at Green Bay between the years 2000 and 2005, he added, “I watched people get battered by each other. I saw individuals get beaten by staff. I see the paint peeling, the walls are sweating. The prison cells are outdated. You’re talking about a facility that was built in the 1800’s…And you’re putting people in this facility in 2025 and you are expecting them to come home sane. You are expecting them to navigate this space in a rational way. You expect them to interact with one another in a humane way when you are housing them, or caging them, as if they were animals. Wisconsin should stop wasting taxpayer money by keeping people in cages that should’ve been shuttered decades ago!” 

Gov. Tony Evers and Veterans Affairs Sec. James Bond spoke an event for veterans in the state Capitol on April 22, 2025. (Photo via Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs Facebook page)

Two Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs programs that provide support to struggling veterans, including those experiencing homelessness, are on track to close locations and shrink in size due to a lack of funding in the new state budget.

The state budget was passed by the Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Tony Evers in early July following months of negotiations. While Evers and lawmakers hailed the agreement as a bipartisan accomplishment, they are now blaming each other for the anticipated closure of two facilities, one in Chippewa Falls and one in Green Bay, that serve veterans struggling with homelessness this year due to insufficient funding available. Another program that provides support for veterans dealing with mental health and substance use issues will also face cuts due to the budget.

The Veterans Housing and Recovery Program (VHRP), which currently has three physical sites, serves veterans who are on the verge of or experiencing homelessness, including those who have experienced incarceration, unemployment or underemployment, physical and mental health problems. The program lasts a maximum of 24 months, but the average length of stay is six to 10 months.

The VHRP locations in Chippewa Falls, which has 48 beds, and Green Bay, which has 17, will close by September 30 of this year. The Union Grove location, which has a capacity of 40 beds, will remain open.

“We make a promise to our veterans that when they return home to their civilian life, we will support and serve them just as they have supported and served us. Our veterans should not have to worry about being able to afford to keep a roof over their heads. Period,” Evers said in a statement Monday. 

Randy Nelson, 63, has resided at Klein Hall in Chippewa Falls for about three months. He told the Wisconsin Examiner in a phone interview that it has been the “perfect place for me to come and figure some things out,” especially since his daughter lives nearby. Before he moved in, he had been experiencing homelessness and navigating substance use issues.

Nelson served in the military for three years starting in 1979 and spent much of his time working on aircraft repairs. He said he has been lucky to receive some of the veterans’ services that he has. 

Nelson said the VHRP program has given him an array of resources, including access to recovery and anger management programming, and it has also been a safe place for him to look for housing. 

“I just lucked out in getting a housing voucher this quick, otherwise I’d have no place to go,” Nelson said.

Nelson said he is confident in his sobriety now and “more hopeful about my remaining years,” but is “truly worried” about his fellow veterans, given the recent news. He said some residents are considering leaving the state to try to find a new place with similar services, even though they want to remain in the area. 

“They’re scared of getting kicked out and being homeless,” Nelson said. He said residents are still considered homeless to some degree, since they lack a permanent address, but the closure could mean some would “actually be out on the streets again.”

“There’s people that are working and saving up money here, and they don’t know what to do because they’re not making enough money to get into a place yet,” Nelson said.

The Legislature, Nelson said, is “taking away valuable resources for veterans” with the cuts to the program. 

The program was created by Wisconsin lawmakers in the 1993-95 state budget and was initially supported from Wisconsin’s veterans trust fund. It was expanded in the following years and is currently funded from a combination of trust fund payments, payments made by program participants and per diem payments, which are made to the agency by the federal government at a current rate of about $71 per resident per day. Participants can be charged up to 30% of their monthly income in rent when using transitional housing. 

Growing staffing and maintenance costs at the facilities led to Evers and the agency requesting nearly $2 million in additional state funding during the budget process, but it wasn’t included in the final bill. 

“The bottom line is that there will now be fewer options for homeless veterans as a result of the Legislature’s irresponsible decision to reject the investments,” Evers said, adding that he would be urging the Legislature to provide additional support for veterans in the fall.

Democratic lawmakers, including Sens. Jeff Smith (D-Brunswick), Jamie Wall (D-Green Bay) and Reps. Jodi Emerson, Ryan Spaude, Christian Phelps, Christine Sinicki, Brienne Brown, Amaad Rivera-Wagner, Maureen McCarville and Angelito Tenori, quickly introduced legislation Wednesday that would provide the necessary funding.

“Republicans withheld critical funds for over a year while our region struggled with hospital closures. Now homeless veterans are the victims of the Republicans’ callous inaction,” Smith said in a statement. “These men and women served our country. We have a moral obligation to ensure they have a roof over their heads.”

Emerson called the closures “extremely alarming” in a statement, noting that the facilities  are scheduled to close just as the weather in Wisconsin turns cold.   

The co-chairs of the Joint Finance Committee Rep. Mark Born and Sen. Howard Marklein pushed back on Evers in a statement, saying his comments were “simply disingenuous.”

“The Legislature made significant investments to support veterans in our state including in this program,” the lawmakers said, noting the budget included $5 million to support Wisconsin veterans homes, $2.5 million to support the Veterans Community Project which provides housing and support services for veterans and a slight increase in the Veterans Housing and Recovery Program.

“Legislative leaders negotiated for weeks with Governor Evers and he did not bring this topic up once,” Born and Marklein said. “Evers is looking for a scapegoat to blame for his administration’s failure to adequately manage the changes to the program volume and demands.”

WDVA Assistant Deputy Secretary Joey Hoey told the Wisconsin Examiner, however, that it is “disingenuous” to blame Evers when lawmakers made the decision to exclude the funding from the budget.

“They can try and paint it however they want,” Hoey said. “If they wanted to fund it, they could have put it in the budget.”

The agency worked with lawmakers on the Joint Finance Committee during the budget cycle, agreeing to eliminate over 200 positions that were unfilled. Rep. Mark Born (R-Beaver Dam) thanked the head of the agency for working with them during the committee’s June 12 meeting. 

Hoey said the agency had hoped the budget would reflect that collaboration and would include funding for the Veterans Housing and Recovery program (VHRP) or the Veterans Outreach and Recovery program (VORP). Ultimately, it did not.

The VHRP program’s base funding was about $2.1 million, including $1.3 million in federal funding, $677,500 from the veterans trust fund and $115,500 from rent payments.

The Legislative Fiscal Bureau (LFB) laid out the stakes for the program in a memo to lawmakers as they were writing the state budget. 

“Without additional funding, the Department would not have sufficient resources to maintain the program’s three sites,” the memo stated. 

One of the funding issues outlined by LFB was the rising cost of staffing. According to the memo, about two-thirds of VHRP costs went towards Lutheran Social Services, the organization providing management and supportive services at each location. Lutheran Social Services has incurred higher staffing costs in recent years. Evers dedicated $500,000 in ARPA funds to those increased costs in 2023-24, but that funding has run out.

The facilities were also proving a problem, Hoey said. Evers had requested $24 million in his capital budget to build new facilities in Green Bay and Chippewa Falls, but lawmakers declined to fund them.

“The physical upkeep was also above what we had calculated or budgeted,” Hoey said, noting that the Chippewa Falls building had roof leaks and the HVAC system was old. “We were paying people to repair it and Band-Aid it. In Green Bay, we had problems, and every time you have a problem and you can’t have a resident in a room… you’re not getting that $73 per day from the federal government. It’s a double whammy, and that’s why we thought new facilities would fix that for Green Bay and Chippewa Falls.” 

Evers had proposed providing $1.95 million across the biennium for the program.

Lawmakers provided an adjustment to the program of $100,000, which they are touting as a 15% increase. Hoey said in an email, however, that the funding is an adjustment that reflects what the agency has already been spending and still falls “well short” of the funding the LFB identified as necessary to keep the sites open.

Hoey also noted another program administered by the WDVA will face cuts under the new state budget.

The Veterans Outreach and Recovery Program (VORP), which serves veterans dealing with mental health and substance use issues and aims to reduce the suicide rate among veterans, is set to lose seven employees. Evers had asked for seven positions and more than $1.1 million to help support the program. 

The program launched in 2015 with the help of a federal mental health grant, and has since become state funded. ARPA funds were used in 2023 to expand the reach of the program, but with those funds running out the agency sought state funds to continue its current size. The positions expire in October 2025.

“We had expanded to 16 regions where there was somebody who was living in that part of the state, and now we’re having to go back to 11 regions,” Hoey said. “They wouldn’t fund that.”

Those positions had helped the agency reach more veterans, provide support in a more timely manner and give veterans more time, according to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau. The program provided services to 2,222 people in 2023-24 — nearly 70% more contacts than in 2021-22 when the program served 1,329 people. 

“It was really very disappointing, because these are two programs that have incredible track records of really helping veterans who need it,” Hoey said. “It was really disappointing being in Joint Finance when that vote came up. My heart was breaking, sitting there thinking ‘Oh, my God, all these people who won’t get served.’” 

Hoey shared an anecdote of a former program participant who recently returned to the Chippewa Falls site to give people an update on where he was, to illustrate the effectiveness of the programs. The VHRP, Hoey explained, is a monthslong process to help struggling veterans get to “the point where they can return to society in a stable, functioning way.” 

“He came in and wanted to tell everyone that, you know, five years ago, he was homeless, and now he’s married with a kid, and he had just bought his first house and was so proud because he had paid his first property tax bill,” Hoey said. “That’s the kind of result these programs have… Between the two programs you’re looking for $4 million and we couldn’t find that.” 

Wisconsin DVA Secretary James Bond said in a statement that the agency remains committed to assisting veterans. 

“We have a duty to support veterans, especially in their darkest times,” Bond said. “VHRP has been integral in helping veterans find stability and succeed in their communities, and along with our partners on the ground, we intend to still carry out that mission to the best of our ability.”

Veterans who are currently residing at the two facilities will be offered alternative placement options and will continue to receive assistance through supportive services.

Hoey said even as the Department of Veterans Affairs continues its work, the cuts and closures will likely mean fewer veterans will be served and it could be more difficult to reach veterans across the state. He said wait times could also become more of an obstacle for veterans seeking services. 

“Most of these veterans, they want to go to a program that’s somewhat near their community so they can count on whatever support systems they have, so… it’s unlikely we’ll be able to serve as many veterans in the majority of the state, since the home that’s existing is near Milwaukee.” 

Hoey said the agency decided to retain the Union Grove site, located just south of Milwaukee, because upgrades and repairs that were funded with state and federal funds were recently completed.

“The VORP team, instead of referring someone to Chippewa Falls, now they have to refer them to a program in Minneapolis, so we’re going to still try and get people the help they need,” Hoey said. “It’s just going to be harder.”

Wisconsin State Capitol (Wisconsin Examiner photo)

With the fields for the 2026 elections still shaping up, incumbents and candidates for the Wisconsin Supreme Court and governor’s office turned in their campaign finance reports over the last week. 

Gov. Tony Evers, who has not yet announced whether he will run for a third term, reported raising $757,214 this year with just over $2 million on hand at the end of June. In comparison, Evers had raised $5 million during the first six months of 2021 before going on to beat Republican businessman Tim Michels in November 2022. Evers said he would make a decision about running following the completion of the state budget, which he signed earlier this month. He has said he expects to announce a decision any day. 

Whitefish Bay manufacturer and former Navy SEAL Bill Berrien, who entered the GOP primary for governor last week, hasn’t had to submit campaign fundraising information yet, but he told WISN-12 that he expected to raise “just shy of $1 million” in the first week of his campaign.

Berrien’s “Never Out of the Fight” PAC, which he launched in April to help further conservative causes and to help Republican candidates win elections, reported raising nearly $1.2 million in its first few months. 

The majority of the PAC’s total comes from Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, who each contributed $500,000.

The New York-based twins are co-founders of Gemini, a cryptocurrency platform that they launched in 2014. They are well known for suing Mark Zuckerberg in 2004, claiming that he stole their idea when he started Facebook. Both twins were portrayed by actor Armie Hammer in 2010 in the movie The Social Network.

Berrien’s campaign has already started spending 13 months ahead of the primary, announcing a $400,000 ad buy this week. Berrien is seeking to align himself with President Donald Trump, despite not supporting him during the 2024 presidential primary.

“I got into the race for governor because I believe we need a leader to shake up Madison the same way President Trump has shaken up Washington,” Berrien said in a statement about the ad buy. “I’ll use my experience as a former Navy SEAL and Wisconsin manufacturer to turn our state around from the weak leadership we’ve experienced under Tony Evers and put Wisconsin families first.” 

Republican Washington County Executive Josh Schoemann, who was the first candidate in the race, raised $424,143 during his first two months. He thanked his supporters in a statement, saying that the numbers show that there is a “huge appetite for a new generation of common sense leadership in Wisconsin — one that reforms state government” and “puts taxpayers first.” 

2026 Supreme Court fundraising 

Ahead of the November gubernatorial election, Wisconsin will have another April election for the state Supreme Court. The balance of the Court, which currently has a 4-3 liberal majority, will not be at stake as conservative Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley is up for reelection.

While the state Supreme Court race is still eight months away, Bradley reported no fundraising activity this month, creating uncertainty about whether she’ll run. 

Bradley told WisPolitics in April that she would run for another term, saying she wanted to “ensure that there is a voice for the Constitution and for the rule of law to preserve that in the state of Wisconsin.” However, since then speculation has risen that she may change her mind. A report from conservative talk radio host Mark Belling in June said it was unlikely she would run.

Spending in the nominally nonpartisan races has skyrocketed in recent years, breaking all records in April. Spring statewide elections in Wisconsin have been increasingly tough for conservatives over the last several years. The last three consecutive Supreme Court races were won by the liberal candidate by double-digit margins.

Appeals court judge and former Democratic state Assembly lawmaker Chris Taylor launched her campaign for the Supreme Court in May. She reported raising $583,933 in the first weeks of her campaign. The total comes from nearly 4,800 contributions, including from people in each of Wisconsin’s 72 counties. 

At this point in her campaign in 2024, Justice-elect Susan Crawford had raised $460,000.

Taylor’s campaign manager Ashley Franz said in a statement that the fundraising numbers show that Wisconsinites want to reinforce the current liberal majority on the Court. 

“Judge Taylor’s broad base of support reflects her commitment to serving all Wisconsinites and ensuring our courts remain fair and independent,” Franz said.

A “no trespassing” sign outside of Northwest ICE Processing Center, also known as Northwest Detention Center. (Photo by Grace Deng/Washington State Standard)

WASHINGTON — Immigration advocacy groups sued the Trump administration Wednesday for dismissing cases in immigration courts in order to place immigrants in expedited removal for swift deportations without judicial review.

As the White House aims to achieve its goals of deporting 1 million immigrants without permanent legal status by the end of the year and a 3,000 arrests-per-day quota for Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, immigrants showing up to court appearances have been arrested or detained.

President Donald Trump’s administration has moved to reshape immigration court, which is overseen by the Department of Justice, through mass firings of judges hired during President Joe Biden’s term and pressuring judges to clear the nearly 4 million case backlog.

The suit was brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by immigration legal and advocacy groups the National Immigrant Justice Center, Democracy Forward, Refugee and Immigrant Center for Legal Education and Services and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area.

The suit is a proposed class action representing 12 immigrants who filed asylum claims or other types of relief and had their cases dismissed and placed in expedited removal, subjecting them to a fast-track deportation. 

The individual plaintiffs, who all have pseudonyms in the court documents, had their asylum cases dismissed and were arrested and placed in detention centers far from their homes.

One plaintiff, E.C., fled Cuba after he was arrested and raped after he opposed that country’s government. He came to the U.S. in 2022 and applied for asylum and appeared for an immigration hearing in Miami.

At his hearing, DHS attorneys moved to dismiss his case “without notice and without articulating any reasoning whatsoever” and when he tried to leave the court, ICE arrested and detained him, according to the suit.

E.C. is currently detained in Tacoma, Washington, “thousands of miles from his family, including his U.S. citizen wife,” according to the suit.

New policies

The groups argue new policies from the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice are unlawful.

Those policies include the approval of civil arrests in immigration court, instructing ICE prosecutors to dismiss cases without following proper procedure, instructing ICE agents to put immigrants who have been in the country for more than two years in expedited removal and pursuing expedited removal when removal cases are ongoing.

“(DHS) has now adopted the policy that it will arrest a noncitizen and place them in expedited removal even if the immigration judge does not immediately grant dismissal or if the noncitizen reserves appeal of the dismissal—either of which means that the full removal proceedings are not over,” according to the suit. “In plain terms, DHS is disregarding both immigration judges who permit noncitizens an opportunity to oppose dismissal and the pendency of an appeal of the dismissal decision.”

The Trump administration has expanded the use of expedited removal, meaning that any immigrant without legal status who’s been in the U.S. for less than two years can be swiftly deported without appearing before an immigration judge.

“DHS and DOJ have implemented their new campaign of courthouse arrests through coordinated policies designed to strip noncitizens of their rights … exposing them to immediate arrest and expedited removal,” according to the suit.

The impact has been “severe,” according to the suit.

“Noncitizens, including most of the Individual Plaintiffs here, have been abruptly ripped from their families, lives, homes, and jobs for appearing in immigration court, a step required to enable them to proceed with their applications for permission to remain in this country,” according to the suit.

Detained immigrants’ stories

The suit details the plaintiffs’ circumstances.

One known as M.K., appeared in immigration court for her asylum hearing after she came to the U.S. in 2024 from Liberia, fleeing an abusive marriage and after she endured female genital mutilation.

DHS attorneys dismissed “her case without notice and, upon information and belief, without articulating any change in circumstances,” according to the suit.

“M.K. speaks a rare language, and because the interpretation was poor, she did not understand what was happening at the hearing,” according to the suit. “M.K. was arrested by ICE at the courthouse and detained; she was so distressed by what happened that she required hospitalization.”

She is currently detained in Minnesota. 

Another asylum seeker, L.H., came to the U.S. in 2022 from Venezuela, fleeing from persecution because of her sexual orientation, according to the suit. At her first immigration hearing in May, DHS moved to dismiss her case and has received an expedited removal notice.

ICE officers arrested L.H. after she had her hearing and she is currently detained in Ohio. 

Republicans in the U.S. Senate are calling on the Trump administration to release billions in frozen school funding. (Photo by Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Republican members of the U.S. Senate called on Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought in a letter Wednesday to release the $6.8 billion in funds for K-12 schools that the Trump administration is withholding.

The letter marked a major friction point between President Donald Trump and influential lawmakers in his own party as his administration tests the limits of the executive branch’s authority in clawing back federal dollars Congress has already appropriated. Every state has millions in school funding held up as a result of the freeze.

Wednesday’s letter came after the Supreme Court temporarily cleared the way earlier this week for the administration to carry out mass layoffs and a plan to dramatically downsize the Department of Education that Trump ordered earlier this year.

Just a day ahead of the July 1 date when these funds are typically disbursed as educators plan for the coming school year, the Education Department informed states that it would be withholding funding for several programs, including before- and after-school programs, migrant education and English-language learning, among other initiatives.

“Withholding these funds will harm students, families, and local economies,” wrote the 10 GOP senators, many of them members of committees that make decisions on spending. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a West Virginia Republican and chair of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, led the letter.

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, chair of the broader Senate Appropriations Committee, also signed onto the letter, along with: Sens. Katie Britt of Alabama, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, John Boozman of Arkansas, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Deb Fischer of Nebraska, John Hoeven of North Dakota, Mike Rounds of South Dakota and Jim Justice of West Virginia.

“The decision to withhold this funding is contrary to President Trump’s goal of returning K-12 education to the states,” the senators wrote. “This funding goes directly to states and local school districts, where local leaders decide how this funding is spent, because as we know, local communities know how to best serve students and families.”

States Newsroom has asked the Office of Management and Budget for comment on the letter.

Meanwhile, a slew of congressional Democrats and one independent — 32 senators and 150 House Democrats — urged Vought and Education Secretary Linda McMahon in two letters sent last week to immediately release the funds they say are being withheld “illegally.”

Democratic attorneys general and governors also pushed back on these withheld funds when a coalition of 24 states and the District of Columbia sued the administration earlier this week. 

Birth control pills. A nonprofit group's new scorecard assesses how state policies affect access and availability for contraception. (Getty Images)

For Wisconsinites who care about access to birth control, a new scorecard published Wednesday offers a mix of good and bad news.

On the plus side, Wisconsin’s Medicaid program covers the cost of contraception for people with incomes up to just over 300% of the federal poverty line, according to the Population Reference Bureau. State law also requires insurers to cover the cost of prescription contraceptives.

On the down side, Wisconsin law allows health insurance plans to require a patient co-payment, the Population Reference Bureau reports. And the state also hasn’t enacted legislation that allows more health care professionals to issue birth control prescriptions.

The Population Reference Bureau is a nonprofit, nonpartisan policy and research organization that describes its mission as improving people’s health and well-being through policies and practices rooted in scientific evidence.

Wednesday the bureau published its first-ever scorecard assessing contraceptive access for all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Reviewing a collection of policies that address affordability,  availability and the environment of health care, the scorecard rates each state as protective, restrictive or mixed on contraception access. 

“Nearly 35% of Americans or 121 million people currently live in a state that actively restricts access to contraception through their policies,” said Cathryn Streifel, senior program director for the organization, in a briefing for reporters Tuesday. “This patchwork of policies creates a system where reproductive health care access depends on where you live.”

Broad access to contraception “is essential to helping people live with more freedom, health and possibility,” Streifel said — allowing people to have reproductive autonomy, making it possible for them to complete education and join the workforce, and contributing to economic stability. Contraception also reduces the risks for maternal and infant mortality and helps reduce public health costs, she added.

“We are at a moment where understanding state policy landscapes matters more than ever, because state policies are really shaping the reality of contraceptive access on the ground — especially because the federal protections are crumbling,” Streifel said.

Christine Power, a senior policy advisor with the organization, said the scorecard can help policymakers, advocates and the general public understand where each state stands.

The goal is “to ensure that this contraceptive policy is more transparent and actionable and to highlight both progress and gaps in access across the country,” Power said.

The scorecard rates 16 states and D.C. as protective for contraception access and 16 as restrictive. Wisconsin is one of 18 states with a mixed scorecard.

Wisconsin’s protective policies include the Medicaid coverage for family planning services. In addition, the state requires that hospital emergency rooms provide access to emergency contraception.

Wisconsin’s laws on sex education get a mixed rating. Positive points include  requiring medically accurate curricula, not requiring parental consent and not limiting sex ed to abstinence only. On the negative side, school districts are not required to offer sex ed.

The scorecard rates the state’s failure to fully expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act as restrictive, along with the failure to expand contraceptive prescription authority to more health providers. A bill that would allow pharmacists to prescribe birth control pills has passed the Wisconsin Assembly and is awaiting a vote in the state Senate.

On several other issues that the scorecard includes, Wisconsin has no policy.

The state doesn’t require insurers to cover an extended supply of contraceptives beyond three months, which increases a state’s score for being protective. Wisconsin also has no policies explicitly allowing minors to independently access contraceptive services or restricting them from doing so.

“Ten states restrict most minors from independently accessing contraceptive services,” said Power. “This policy creates additional hurdles for young people seeking to make informed decisions about their reproductive health, potentially leading to delayed care, unintended pregnancies, and negative long-term health outcomes.”

Wisconsin law is silent on whether health care providers or facilities can refuse to provide contraceptive services on religious or moral grounds. In other states, laws permitting that refusal are rated as restrictive.

The scorecard doesn’t rank the 50 states, but it does single out those with the highest scores for protection as well as those with the most restrictive policy framework.

Washington and California are the two states with the most protective contraception policies, Power said, while Kansas had the lowest score, with a mix of restrictive policies and the absence of any policy.

National Public Radio headquarters on North Capitol Street in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, July 15, 2025. (Photo by Jacob Fischler/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate on Wednesday began debating changes to a bill that will cancel $9 billion in previously approved spending on public broadcasting and foreign aid — but with a deal for grants to some Native American radio stations that may help offset cuts to public media.

The vote-a-rama, which could extend overnight, represents a prime opportunity for Democrats to force GOP senators to vote on each of the proposed rescissions. And while it’s unlikely enough Republicans break with their party to substantially change the bill, key votes will serve as fodder for campaign ads heading into next year’s midterm elections.

The Trump administration sent Congress the rescissions request in early June, allowing the White House budget office to legally freeze funding on the programs in the proposal for 45 days.

The House voted mostly along party lines later that month to send the rescissions bill to the Senate, where Republican leaders have spent weeks addressing concerns raised by their own lawmakers.

At the center of the dispute is how cutting foreign aid for dozens of programs, including those addressing global health and democracy, would affect American influence around the globe.

GOP senators also raised qualms during a hearing about how eliminating funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would impact rural communities and emergency alert systems. 

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting provides funding for National Public Radio, the Public Broadcasting Service and hundreds of local stations throughout the country. In North Dakota, for example, the president of Prairie Public said he anticipates elimination of federal funding would mean a loss of about $2 million for his PBS station over the next two years.

South Dakota Republican Sen. Mike Rounds announced Tuesday he’s secured an agreement with White House budget director Russ Vought to move $9.4 million from an account within the Interior Department to at least two dozen Native American radio stations in multiple states.

Those include Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota and Wisconsin, according to Rounds’ office.

Republican leaders also agreed to keep funding for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, whole by removing that rescission from the bill. PEPFAR is a global health program to combat HIV/AIDS launched by former President George W. Bush.

But those changes didn’t sway every Republican senator to support the bill. Maine’s Susan Collins, Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski voted against moving forward with debate on Tuesday night.

Vice President JD Vance casting a tie-breaking vote was the only reason the proposal advanced to the vote-a-rama, which began early Wednesday afternoon. 

International disaster relief

Amendment debate kicked off with a proposal from Delaware Democratic Sen. Chris Coons to eliminate the $496 million rescission for international disaster relief funding, which he said “doesn’t just save lives around the world,” but strengthens American global leadership.

Missouri Republican Sen. Eric Schmitt argued against preserving full funding for that program, saying “many foreign governments and U.N. agencies have become reliant on U.S. emergency funding, using it to avoid investing in their own disaster preparedness.”

The amendment was not adopted following a 49-50 vote with Collins, McConnell and Murkowski voting with Democrats to strike the funding cut.

Nevada Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto tried unsuccessfully to block any cancellation to Corporation for Public Broadcasting funding that would hinder public safety.

“For years public broadcasting has been essential to keeping Americans informed during severe weather and environment threats and broader public safety situations,” Cortez Masto said. “Let me give you an example from my home state.

“As the Davis wildfire raged in northern Nevada last summer the local CBS affiliate lost their transmitter in the fire. But thanks to public broadcasting services, CBS was able to air their local newscast and keep Nevadans informed about evacuations, the path of the fire and safety measures.”

Schmitt opposed the provision saying it isn’t necessary to ensure emergency alerts. The attempt to send the bill back to committee failed following a 48-51 vote, with Collins and Murkowski voting in support.

Congress and the Constitution

In a brief interview before voting began, New Jersey Democrat Cory Booker said the rescissions package undermined what was supposed to be a bipartisan budget and appropriations process.

He also objected to Congress giving away its constitutional authority for spending decisions. 

“The reason why this is an assault, in my opinion, on the Constitution right now is because the powers of the Article I branch of government really are the budget, and we should be doing things together,” he said. “To rescind money that was approved in a bipartisan way undermines that spirit and that work.”

Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican who said he planned to support the bill, also raised objections to the process.

“I’m trying to have a positive view about how this rescission is going to be implemented,” he told reporters outside the Senate chamber. “It’s not near as prescriptive as I would like for it to be, but if they misstep, it’ll definitely influence my posture for future recissions.”

Jacob Fischler and Shauneen Miranda contributed to this report.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy greets members of the U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee before the panel’s hearing on the White House fiscal 2026 budget request for the Transportation Department on July 16, 2025. (Photo by Jacob Fischler/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy urged patience Wednesday from Democratic and Republican members of the U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee who asked about a backlog of approved grants the department has yet to pay out to state and local governments.

Duffy, in his first appearance before the panel, said former President Joe Biden’s Transportation Department approved an unprecedented 3,200 grants between Election Day 2024 and President Donald Trump’s inauguration in January 2025. Duffy told the panel his department was working to send out the remaining 1,300 grants, but that the task would take time.

He added that his hope was to complete the review by late summer or early fall.

“We have been left 3,200 grants — that is a historic number — from the last administration,” he said in response to a question from ranking Democrat Rick Larsen of Washington. “I know you all want your grants, but I don’t think everyone recognizes the workload that was left to us.”

Duffy also promoted the inclusion in Republicans’ budget reconciliation law of $12.5 billion to overhaul the nation’s air traffic control system, calling it a “down payment” on a $31.5 billion need. He called on Congress to fund the remaining $19 billion.

The air traffic control system has been targeted for reforms and technical upgrades for years. Renewed urgency on the issue came this year after a deadly crash near Washington Reagan National Airport in Northern Virginia during Duffy’s first full day on the job.

‘Leaving construction jobs on the table’

Larsen pressed Duffy on the delayed grants, and several members of both parties also asked about the status of grants to projects in their districts.

“I urge you to get on with the review of the remainder of these grants, because we’re leaving construction jobs on the table without these grants going out the door,” Larsen said. “Holding up these grants stalls badly needed job training, construction investments, and we need to get them going on that.”

Duffy said the department processed more grants in the first three months of the year than previous administrations had during the same period, but acknowledged that members of Congress and state transportation departments still wanted faster movement.

“I know that’s not enough for everybody,” he said. “Everyone wants their grants right now, and so we are working diligently to do that as quickly as possible.”

But some Democrats also complained about seven grants that had been canceled outright. Six of the seven were in Democratic states, California Democrat John Garamendi said. The seventh was a grant to the University of New Orleans, he said.

The projects appeared to be targeted because their titles included words related to diversity, equity and inclusion, Garamendi said.

Duffy said those grants departed from what the department’s priorities should be, such as decreasing the 40,000 traffic deaths per year.

“The racial stuff, as opposed to keeping people safe, that’s my drive,” Duffy said.

Air traffic control modernization

Duffy noted many members of the panel did not vote for the reconciliation law that extended 2017 tax cuts while slashing spending on Medicaid and nutrition assistance programs. No Democrats voted for the law.

But he said he thought everyone on the committee would have supported the $12.5 billion for air traffic control.

Chairman Sam Graves, a Missouri Republican, praised the provision.

“This funding will allow the administration to immediately get to work to replace critical telecommunications infrastructure and radar systems, invest in runway safety and airport surveillance projects and replace antiquated air traffic control facilities,” Graves said.

That initial payment would be insufficient to the total need of the system, Duffy said.

“We are going to need more money from the Congress than this $12.5 billion,” he said. “We will need more to do it. No offense to anybody, but the way Congress spends money, we’re talking $31.5 billion to do the full project. And my hope is that we’ll have an additional conversation about how we can do that. And I think time is of the essence.”

Electric vehicles

Democrats said they wanted to restore funding, provided in the bipartisan 2021 infrastructure law, for electric vehicle, or EV, chargers.

Republicans said that money could be better spent on other priorities, such as dedicated parking spaces for truckers, an issue raised by Rep. Rick Crawford of Arkansas. Crawford, a former chair of the panel’s Highways and Transit Subcommittee, applauded the department’s recent move to redirect $275 million for truck parking.

“Our nation was not and is still not at a point where rapid rollouts of charging infrastructure is a pressing issue,” Crawford said. “In contrast, our trucking industry is certainly not in a position where transitioning to electrification is a priority, but we do need parking.”

Duffy told the panel that the Biden administration’s rules for building EV charging were part of the reason why relatively few electric vehicle chargers had been built. He told Wisconsin Republican Tony Wied and New Hampshire Democrat Chris Pappas that the previous administration’s requirements regarding social justice and climate requirements in contracts delayed construction.

“There were so many rules about how the money could be spent, and it was polluted with ideas of the DEI and all the green work, which made it really challenging for states to build,” he said.

Duffy, a former House member from Wisconsin, said he would carry out laws passed by Congress, including funding for EV charging, even though he disagreed with it. But he also said he supported Trump’s attempt to revoke funding.

Pappas told Duffy his state was ready for the new guidelines.

“We’re ready to put shovels in the ground in New Hampshire,” Pappas said.

A Wisconsin Fair Maps Coalition yard sign posted in 2020. The coalition has begun a new round of work advocating for an independent, nonpartisan system of drawing Wisconsin's legislative maps. (Photo by Tony Webster/Wisconsin Fair Maps Coalition)

With court-ordered maps that have made more Wisconsin legislative races competitive for both political parties, pro-democracy advocates are turning back to a longstanding objective: a permanent change in how the maps are drawn.

Instead of state lawmakers who are currently in charge, political reform groups are organizing to move the task to a new, independent commission that would draw Assembly and Senate districts every 10 years, following the new U.S. census, in ways that reflect Wisconsin’s close political divide.

“Our goal is to have a more accountable legislative body,” says Iuscely Flores, organizing director for the Wisconsin Fair Maps Coalition.

A change will require an amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution, which currently assigns the task of drawing legislative districts to the Wisconsin Legislature.

Until 2011, the state’s redistricting process generally went well for nearly half a century, according to Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause Wisconsin. The Legislature was closely divided between Republicans and Democrats. Regardless of the governor’s party, the other party usually had a slim majority in either the Senate or the Assembly.

“It was split control,” says Heck. “Redistricting was usually incumbent protection, but it wasn’t particularly partisan.”

The 2010 election in Wisconsin changed that, with Republicans for the first time in a half-century getting control of the governor’s mansion and both houses of the Legislature.

In 2011 the lawmakers drew what became widely recognized as one of the most gerrymandered legislative maps in the country. “They picked the most partisan maps they could,” says Heck.

The 2012 election showed the impact: Wisconsin voters reelected Democratic President Barack Obama to a second term and sent another Democrat, Tammy Baldwin, to the U.S. Senate. And 51% of the votes for the Wisconsin Assembly were for Democratic candidates. Yet Republicans won 60 of the 99 seats in the lower house.

In the years that followed, Common Cause, the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign and the League of Women Voters all took up the cause of putting redistricting in the hands of an independent body, arguing that a group of citizens drawn from across the political spectrum could more accurately reflect the state’s true political makeup.

While the idea gained public support, it got the cold shoulder from the Legislature’s majority.

Then came the maps drawn after the 2020 census, approved in 2022 following a legal battle that was settled by the conservative majority in the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Those maps further solidified a lopsided balance between the parties in the Legislature.

In 2023, voters flipped the Court’s balance from conservative and aligned with the Republican party (although the justices are officially nonpartisan) to a majority elected with the support of the Democratic Party. For reform advocates, the switch presented a new opportunity, and the focus turned to a lawsuit challenging how the 2022 maps were drawn.

The outcome of that lawsuit in 2024 produced maps that more closely reflected the narrow partisan divide in the states. In the 2024 elections, Democrats picked up four state Senate seats, erasing a GOP supermajority, and added 14 seats in the Assembly.

While those maps were closer to fair, however, a larger problem remains, reform groups argue: the Wisconsin Constitution gives the lawmakers the ultimate power to draw their districts in ways that preserve their political advantage.

The process for amending the state constitution requires lawmakers to vote on a proposal in two successive legislative sessions, then for voters to endorse the amendment in a statewide referendum. That means a little more than four years must pass before the change could be instituted.

Flores says the coalition is keeping an eye on that timeline, with plans to engage lawmakers from both parties next year in order to get legislation introduced and passed.

“We have to fix this permanently — that is what we are now focused on,” says Penny Bernard Schaber, leader for the Fair Maps Coalition’s team in the 8th Congressional District. “We want to put both parties on notice that we need to fix what we are doing.”

Even as the maps lawsuit was underway, advocates for bigger change were continuing to meet and organize, Flores says. And after the Court ruling and the adoption of the new, fairer maps, the work for an independent redistricting body kicked into higher gear.

An ad hoc committee on redistricting reform met monthly and later more often over the last year, with participants drilling down into alternatives for structuring independent redistricting bodies.

“We were able to really study how independent redistricting commissions in other states really worked,” Flores says.

“We looked at every single state that has an independent commission,” says Debra Cronmiller, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin. There were conversations with academics and other groups that draw legislative maps.

“We tried to glean from all of that information what would work best for Wisconsin,” Cronmiller said.

The Wisconsin Fair Maps Coalition has drawn up a draft for how a Wisconsin commission might work, but Flores emphasizes that it’s still a work in progress.

The coalition has begun a series of community hearings to engage the public, explain the concept and refine the details. Hearings were held in the Milwaukee North Shore suburbs in June and in Dodgeville on July 12.

On Wednesday evening, there will be a hearing in Green Bay at the Brown County Central Library starting at 5:30 p.m. On Thursday one is scheduled for Wausau, and more meetings are planned through the summer and into the fall.

“We’re trying to get community input,” Flores says. “There are questions we still don’t know the answers to, and we’re learning so much  — it’s been an amazing, citizen-led process that I don’t think I’ve seen before.”

The groups and individuals working on the project are considering “how to make sure that the commission accurately reflects and represents the people of Wisconsin — how to make sure that we incorporate people from different political backgrounds, different ethnicities,” Flores adds. “We’re trying to be what Wisconsin looks like.”

Donald Trump signs the tax- and spending-cut meg-abill on July 4. A new Democratic Party website uses key talking points from Donald Trump's 2024 campaign against the president and his policies. (Photo by Alex Brandon - Pool/Getty Images)

Aiming to use President Donald Trump’s signature policies against him, Democrats unveiled a website Wednesday that depicts their purported costs to taxpayers in each state.

The TrumpTax.com website draws on projections from the Congressional Budget Office and other sources as it advances the argument that the mega-bill passed by Republicans in the U.S. House and Senate and signed into law by Trump on July 4 “takes money out of working people’s pockets to give handouts to the rich.”

The campaign combines the impact of Trump’s on-again, off-again tariff declarations with the mega-bill to derive a so-called “Trump Tax,” generating state-by-state calculations for the data.

“The Trump Tax will explode the deficit by $3.3 trillion — leading to higher inflation, higher energy bills, and higher grocery and prescription drug costs,” the website states — pinpointing specific messages about consumer pocketbook issues that were key talking points during Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign.

The site lists all 50 U.S. states with a drop-down list of bullet points for each.

In Wisconsin, the campaign projects 276,000 people will lose health insurance over the next decade. The number is calculated from changes to the Medicaid program that have been projected to cut some recipients off from the state-federal health insurance plan for the poor, along with the end of premium subsidies for low or moderate income households that purchase health insurance from the Affordable Care Act online marketplace.

It projects 49,000 Wisconsinites could lose food assistance through SNAP, the federal nutrition program and pegs the cost to Wisconsin businesses to date of Trump administration tariff policies at more than $900 million, citing calculations published in Axios.

“The Trump Tax is the largest redistribution of wealth and the largest cut to health care in Wisconsin history,” Democratic National Committee Chair Kenneth Martin said in a statement with the unveiling of the website.

White House budget director Russ Vought speaks with reporters inside the U.S. Capitol building on Tuesday, July 15, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate on Tuesday night moved one step closer to canceling $9 billion in previously approved funding for several foreign aid programs and public broadcasting after GOP leaders addressed some objections.

Nearly all the chamber’s Republicans voted to begin debate on the bill, though Maine’s Susan Collins, Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski opposed the procedural step along with every Democrat.

The 51-50 vote marked a significant moment for President Donald Trump’s rescissions request, which faced more headwinds in the Senate than in the House. Vice President JD Vance cast the tie-breaking vote.

Trump proposed doing away with $1.1 billion for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting that lawmakers had approved for the next two fiscal years as well as $8.3 billion from several foreign aid accounts.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting provides funding to National Public Radio, the Public Broadcasting Service and local media stations throughout the country.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said before the vote that some of the progress stemmed from removing a spending cut for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, a global health program to combat HIV/AIDS launched by former President George W. Bush.

“There was a lot of interest among our members in doing something on the PEPFAR issue and that’s reflected in the substitute,” Thune said. “And we hope that if we can get this across the finish line in the Senate that the House would accept that one small modification.”

South Dakota Republican Sen. Mike Rounds, who had raised concerns about cutting funding for rural public broadcasting stations run by tribal communities, announced a few hours before the vote he’d reached an agreement with the White House.

“We wanted to make sure tribal broadcast services in South Dakota continued to operate which provide potentially lifesaving emergency alerts,” Rounds wrote in a social media post. “We worked with the Trump administration to find Green New Deal money that could be reallocated to continue grants to tribal radio stations without interruption.”

Rounds said during a brief interview that $9.4 million will be transferred from an account within the Interior Department directly to 28 Native American radio stations in nine states.

“I had concerns specifically about the impact on these radio stations that are in rural areas with people that have basically very few other resources, and to me, they got caught in the crossfire on public broadcasting,” Rounds said. “And so I just wanted to get it fixed and I was successful in getting it fixed.”

White House budget director Russ Vought told reporters after a closed-door lunch meeting with Republican senators that he didn’t want to get “too far ahead” of discussions, but that his office was working with GOP senators to ensure certain local broadcast stations “have the opportunity to continue to do their early warning system and local reporting.”

Maine’s Collins wants more details

Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Collins, who voiced reservations about several of the rescissions during a June hearing, said preserving full funding for PEPFAR represented “progress.”

But Collins said a few hours before the vote she still wants more details from the White House budget office about the exact source of the other $9 billion in cuts to previously approved spending.

“One of the issues, which I raised at lunch, is the total is still $9 billion and it’s unclear to me how you get to $9 billion, because he’s listed a number of programs he wants to, quote, protect,” Collins said, referring to Vought. “So we still have the problem of not having detailed account information from OMB.”

Collins, R-Maine, then held up a printed version of the 1992 rescissions request that President George H.W. Bush sent Congress, which she said was “extremely detailed” and listed each account.

“I would contrast that to the message that we got for this rescission, which just has a paragraph and doesn’t tell you how it’s broken down in each program,” Collins said, adding she’s still “considering the options.”

The Senate’s procedural vote began a maximum of 10 hours of debate that will be followed by a marathon amendment voting session that could rework the bill. A final passage vote could take place as soon as Wednesday.

Trump expected to send more requests

The House approved the legislation in June, but the measure will have to go back across the Capitol for a final vote since the Senate is expected to make changes.

The effort to cancel funding that Congress previously approved in bipartisan government funding bills began last month when the Trump administration sent Congress this rescission request.

The initiative, led by White House budget director Vought, is part of Republicans’ ongoing efforts to reduce federal spending, which totaled $6.8 trillion during the last full fiscal year.

Vought expects to send lawmakers additional rescissions proposals in the months ahead, though he hasn’t said publicly when or what funding he’ll request Congress eliminate.

Once the White House submits a rescission request, it can legally freeze funding on those accounts for 45 days while Congress debates whether to approve, amend, or ignore the proposal.

Johnson slams funding for public media

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said during a press conference before the PEPFAR removal was announced that he hoped the Senate didn’t change the bill at all.

“I’ve urged them, as I always do, to please keep the product unamended because we have a narrow margin and we’ve got to pass it,” Johnson said. “But we’re going to process whatever they send us whenever they send (it to) us and I’m hopeful that it will be soon.”

Johnson said canceling the previously approved funding on some foreign aid programs and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting represented “low-hanging fruit.”

Federal funding for public media, Johnson said, embodied a “misuse of taxpayer dollars” on organizations that produce “biased reporting.”

“While at its origination NPR and PBS might have made some sense, and maybe it does now,” Johnson said. “But it shouldn’t be subsidized by taxpayers.”

Trump has also sought to encourage Republican senators to pass the bill without making any significant changes.

“It is very important that all Republicans adhere to my Recissions Bill and, in particular, DEFUND THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING (PBS and NPR), which is worse than CNN & MSDNC put together,” Trump wrote on social media last week. “Any Republican that votes to allow this monstrosity to continue broadcasting will not have my support or Endorsement. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

A federal judge has ordered Wisconsin to stop denying unemployment insurance to applicants who are also on Social Security Disability Insurance. (Getty Images creative)

Updated Wednesday, 7/16/2025, 2 p.m.

Wisconsin residents who receive federal disability benefits and also work will no longer be denied unemployment compensation if they get laid off under a federal court order issued this week.

The order effectively ends enforcement of a 12-year-old state law that disqualifies people from unemployment insurance coverage if they collect Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) payments.

The order, released late Monday, comes a year after U.S. District Judge William Conley found that the Wisconsin law barring unemployment insurance for SSDI recipients unlawfully discriminates against people with disabilities.

The Department of Workforce Development (DWD) issued a comment Wednesday, after this report was initially published, stating, “The Department of Workforce Development did not oppose a prospective preliminary injunction in this case from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin but cannot provide additional comment at this time due to ongoing litigation.”

The law blocking unemployment compensation for SSDI recipients was passed in 2013 with only Republican support in the Legislature and signed by then-Gov. Scott Walker. It was based on the premise that most SSDI recipients didn’t work and that when they filed UI claims they were “double-dipping” and probably committing “fraud.”

That impression is false, according to Victor Forberger, whose legal practice is almost exclusively focused on unemployment insurance claims.

Many people with disabilities who qualify for SSDI are still able to do some kinds of work, and they often want and need to, Forberger said Tuesday.

“They need to do this work to support themselves,” Forberger said. The typical monthly SSDI benefit “is a bare minimum, and in some cases not even that.”

Forberger, working with two other law firms, filed a lawsuit in 2021 against Amy Pechacek, secretary-designee at the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development (DWD). The suit charged that banning SSDI recipients from filing for unemployment compensation when they lose work violates the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

In a ruling July 17, 2024, Conley sided with the plaintiffs. Despite that ruling, DWD continued to reject unemployment insurance claims made by people receiving SSDI payments.

Conley’s new order, filed late Monday, instructs Pechacek and DWD to stop enforcing the UI ban for people on SSDI.

The lawsuit was filed as a class action. In an order June 11, Conley certified two classes of people with claims under the litigation: Those who applied for unemployment benefits in Wisconsin after Sept. 7, 2015 and were denied because they received SSDI benefits; and those who had received UI benefits after that date, but then were ordered to pay them back because they also were on SSDI.

The plaintiffs and DWD still differ on how to handle remedies for the two classes of people.

DWD wants to reprocess their claims from the start, and argues in a court brief that some of them might still not qualify for unemployment insurance for other reasons. The plaintiffs want the order to include a provision for supplemental filings and hearings.

Conley’s order requires both sides to work out a remedy agreement by Aug. 18, and if they can’t, to each submit a proposed order and identify their differences.

The judge rejected two other proposed classes: UI claimants who were penalized after failing to report their SSDI income, and SSDI recipients who never filed for unemployment insurance after losing a job.

The penalties in the law were not part of the lawsuit, Conley wrote. Identifying who might have applied for UI and did not was “unknown and unknowable,” he added.

Forberger said Tuesday that there may be several thousand people who were on SSDI and were denied unemployment compensation as a result. Once the remedy details are resolved, he expects that notifying everyone who qualifies for payment will be a complicated and time-consuming task.

“We’ve got to do a lot of outreach and a lot of explanation,” Forberger said.

Keri Rodrigues, president of the National Parents Union, speaks at a rally on Friday, March 14, 2025, in Washington, D.C, protesting the U.S. Education Department’s mass layoffs and President Donald Trump’s plans to dismantle the agency. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON  — The U.S. Department of Education has emerged as central in the struggle over control of the power of the purse in the nation’s capital.

Democrats in Congress are pushing back hard on the Trump administration’s freeze of $6.8 billion in funds for after-school programs and more at public schools, some of which open their doors a few weeks from now. California alone lost access to $939 million and every state is seeing millions of dollars frozen.

At the same time, the Supreme Court on Monday slammed the door on judicial orders that blocked the dismantling of the 45-year-old agency that Congress created and funds.

The nation’s highest court cleared the way for the administration to proceed, for now, with mass layoffs and a plan to dramatically downsize the Department of Education that President Donald Trump ordered earlier this year.

In her scathing dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that “the majority is either willfully blind to the implications of its ruling or naive, but either way the threat to our Constitution’s separation of powers is grave.”

Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote that the president “must take care that the laws are faithfully executed, not set out to dismantle them.”

“That basic rule undergirds our Constitution’s separation of powers,” she wrote. “Yet today, the majority rewards clear defiance of that core principle with emergency relief.”

Just a day after the Supreme Court’s decision, House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters at a Tuesday press conference that while he hasn’t had a chance to digest the Supreme Court’s order, he also knows that “since its creation, the Department of Education has been wielded by the executive branch.”

“I think that was the intent of Congress, as I understood it back then. We have a large say in that, but we’re going to coordinate that with the White House,” the Louisiana Republican said.

“If we see that the separation of powers is being breached in some way, we’ll act, but I haven’t seen that yet,” he added.

Letters from Democrats on frozen funds

Two letters from Senate and House Democrats demanding the administration release the $6.8 billion in federal funds for various education initiatives also depict the Education Department as a key part of the tussle between the executive branch and Congress.

Just a day ahead of the July 1 date when these funds are typically sent out as educators plan for the coming school year, the department informed states that it would be withholding funding for programs, including before- and after-school programs, migrant education, English-language learning and adult education and literacy, among other initiatives.

Thirty-two senators and 150 House Democrats wrote to Education Secretary Linda McMahon and Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought last week asking to immediately unfreeze those dollars they say are being withheld “illegally.”

“It is unacceptable that the administration is picking and choosing what parts of the appropriations law to follow, and you must immediately implement the entire law as Congress intended and as the oaths you swore require you to do,” the senators wrote in their letter.

The respective top Democrats on the Senate Appropriations Committee and its subcommittee overseeing Education Department funding, Sens. Patty Murray of Washington state and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, led the letter, alongside Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

In the lower chamber, House Democrats wrote that “without these funds, schools are facing difficult and unnecessary decisions on programs for students and teachers.”

“No more excuses — follow the law and release the funding meant for our schools, teachers, and families,” they added.

Georgia’s Rep. Lucy McBath led the letter, along with the respective top Democrats on the House Committee on Education and Workforce, its subcommittee on early childhood, elementary and secondary education and its panel on higher education and workforce development: Reps. Bobby Scott of Virginia, Suzanne Bonamici of Oregon and Alma Adams of North Carolina.

Democratic attorneys general, governors file suit

Meanwhile, a coalition of 24 states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration on Monday over those withheld funds, again arguing that Congress has the power to direct funding.

The states suing include: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and Wisconsin.

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, both Democrats, also signed onto the suit filed in a Rhode Island federal court.

“Not only does Congress require that Defendants make funds available for obligation to the States, Congress, in conjunction with (Education Department) regulations, also directs the timing of when those funds should be made available,” the coalition wrote.

An analysis earlier in July by New America, a left-leaning think tank, found that the top five school districts with the greatest total funding risk per pupil include those in at least two red states: Montana’s Cleveland Elementary School District, Kester Elementary School District and Grant Elementary School District, along with Oregon’s Yoncalla School District 32 and Texas’ Boles Independent School District.

The think tank notes that program finance data was not available for Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Wisconsin. 

In an aerial view from a helicopter, the migrant detention center dubbed "Alligator Alcatraz" by Florida Republicans is seen at the site of the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport on July 4, 2025 in Ochopee, Florida.  (Photo by Alon Skuy/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Former top immigration officials from the Biden administration warned Tuesday that billions for immigration enforcement signed into law earlier this month will escalate the rapid detention and deportations of immigrants.

During a virtual press conference with the immigration advocacy group America’s Voice, the former Department of Homeland Security officials said they expect to see a trend toward states building “soft” temporary detention centers similar to Florida’s “Alligator Alcatraz,” the name given by Florida Republicans to an Everglades detention center.

Funding for those initiatives will come from President Donald Trump’s tax break and spending cut bill signed into law earlier this month that provides roughly $170 billion for immigration enforcement, the former officials said.

Trump’s massive tax and spending cut bill provides $30 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, making it the nation’s highest-funded law enforcement agency, to hire 10,000 new agents and carry out deportations. Another $45 billion will go to ICE for the detention of immigrants and $450 million in grants to states to partake in border enforcement.

Billions more are provided for border security and for the military to partake in border-related enforcement.

Andrea Flores, who directed border management for the National Security Council under former President Joe Biden said she expects to see states running their own immigration detention centers similar to the “Alligator Alcatraz” center that state officials quickly erected to hold immigrants. That state-run facility in the Florida Everglades is expected to house up to 5,000 immigrants.

Safety for migrants questioned

Jason Houser, who served as ICE chief of staff in the Biden administration, said the quickly built detention centers will likely create an unsafe environment for immigrants brought there. The lack of experience and training for employees running those centers will also put migrants at risk, he said.

“People are gonna get hurt,” he said. “They’re gonna die.”

He added that with the arrest quotas that immigration officials have been given, roughly 3,000 arrests a day, “ICE is going to focus on those (immigrants) that are easily reachable, those who have been complying and checking in,” either with immigration officials or appearing in immigration court.

“Hitting quotas is not in the national security interest,” Houser said.

Houser said with the rapid arrest and detention of immigrants, the need for detention centers will likely lead to states building the “soft sided” detention centers in “some of the most rural parts of the country where they cannot be properly staffed and resourced.”

Flores said if states work to build their own centers like the one in Florida, there will likely be a lack of oversight because DHS has significantly fired federal employees that ran the watchdog that conducted oversight of ICE — the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.

Flores currently serves as the vice president of immigration policy at FWD.us, which focuses on immigration policy and reform.

Increase expected in third-country removals

Royce Murray, a former DHS assistant secretary for border and immigration policy and a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services official during the Biden administration, said she is concerned that the Trump administration will now be able to ramp up third-country removals with the increase in funding.

Any removals  to a third country “have to be to a country that is safe,” she said.

If an immigrant has a final order of removal but their home country will not accept their deportation, then the United States typically looks for another country that will accept the removal — a third country.

The Trump administration has tried to secure agreements with countries to take deportees, such as Mexico and South Sudan, which recently ended a civil war, but is still experiencing violence. The State Department warns against travel to South Sudan, but the Trump administration won a case before the Supreme Court seeking to use the East African country for third-country removals.

Murray said that the Trump administration is using third-country removals to “create a climate of fear” and get immigrants to self-deport.

She said if third-country removals are going to take place, they “need to be a place where people can successfully integrate.”

Wisconsin has joined a lawsuit against the Trump administration's action to withhold $6.8 billion for education progams supporting English language learners, migrants, low-income children, adult learners and others. (Photo by Klaus Vedfelt/Getty Images)

Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul joined 23 states and the District of Columbia Monday in suing the Trump administration for withholding $6.8 billion meant for six U.S. Department of Education programs, which help support English language learners, migrants, low-income children, adult learners and others. 

The funds, approved in the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act 2025 and signed into law on March 15, are typically distributed to states by July 1. However, the Department of Education notified the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction as well as other state education agencies on June 30 that they would be withholding the funds. 

“Depriving our schools of critical resources is bad for our schools, bad for students, and bad for Wisconsin,” Attorney General Josh Kaul said in a statement. “This unlawful funding freeze should be stopped.”

The Wisconsin DPI said in a statement that the federal agency gave no specific explanation for the action. Instead, the U.S. Department of Education said that “decisions have not yet been made concerning submissions and awards for this upcoming academic year” and “accordingly, the Department will not be issuing Grant Award Notifications obligating funds for these programs on July 1 prior to completing that review. The Department remains committed to ensuring taxpayer resources are spent in accordance with the President’s priorities and the Department’s statutory responsibilities.” 

The withholding of funds comes as the Trump administration continues to pursue closing the Department of Education with a plan to lay off more than 1,000 agency employees and resume drastically cutting the agency after getting the greenlight from the U.S. Supreme Court Monday. The Trump administration has also withheld other funds this year, including for grants for mental health in schools. A spokesperson for the Office of Management and Budget said in a statement about the review of education funding that “initial findings have shown that many of these grant programs have been grossly misused to subsidize a radical leftwing agenda.” 

The multi-state lawsuit argues that the freeze of the $6.8 billion violates federal laws and regulations that authorize and fund the programs, federal laws, including the Antideficiency Act and Impoundment Control Act, that govern the federal budgeting process and the constitutional separation of powers doctrine and the Presentment Clause. 

The coalition of states is requesting that the court provide declaratory relief by finding the freeze is unlawful and offer injunctive relief by requiring the release of the funds. 

Over $72 million is being withheld from Wisconsin. Without the funding, school districts face funding shortfalls for programs that have already been planned, DPI may have to lay off 20 employees and programs at Wisconsin’s technical colleges are in trouble with $7.5 million in adult education grants being withheld.

State Superintendent Jill Underly said in a statement that Wisconsin schools depend on the federal funding distributed through an array of programs to support students. There are five programs affected: Title I-C, which supports migrant education, Title II-A, which goes towards teacher training and retention, Title III-A, which supports education of English language learners, Title IV-A, which is for student enrichment and after-school programs and Title IV-B, which supports community learning centers.

“Make no mistake, stopping this money has had and will continue to harm our families and communities,” Underly said. 

Wisconsin schools have received funding through these federal programs for decades to help carry out related programs. According to DPI, federal funding makes up about 8% of funding for Wisconsin schools with nearly $850 million coming into the state. 

Sen. Tammy Baldwin alongside 31 other U.S. senators penned a letter to Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought and Education Secretary Linda McMahon, calling on them to release the money. 

“This delay not only undermines effective state and local planning for using these funds to address student needs consistent with federal education law, which often takes place months before these funds become available, but also flies in the face of the nation’s education laws which confers state and local educational agency discretion on permissible uses of federal formula grant funds,” the senators wrote. “We are shocked by the continued lack of respect for states and local schools evidenced by this latest action by the administration.”

“It is unacceptable that the administration is picking and choosing what parts of the appropriations law to follow, and you must immediately implement the entire law as Congress intended and as the oaths you swore require you to do,” the lawmakers said. 

The lawmakers also said the “review” being undertaken by the administration appears to be intentional to delay the funding and will result in budget cuts for schools. They said it is happening “with no public information about what the review entails, what data the administration is examining or a timeline for such review.”