Poll workers process ballots in Janesville, Wis., in November. A 2025 survey of local election officials found concern about federal cuts to election security. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Local election officials across the country fear the loss of federal support for election security, according to a new survey.

Sixty percent of local election officials expressed some level of concern, a survey by the Brennan Center for Justice found. The center, a left-leaning pro-democracy institute, surveyed 858 officials between mid-April and mid-May.

The concern comes as President Donald Trump has curtailed federal election security work. The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, or CISA, in March halted its election security work. A month earlier, the Department of Government Efficiency task force also fired 130 cybersecurity workers at the agency.

And Trump in April ordered an investigation into Christopher Krebs, a former agency director who had vouched for the security of the 2020 election, which Trump falsely claims was stolen.

Federal cuts mean election officials are going to need more financial support from state and local governments, said Lawrence Norden, vice president of Brennan’s Elections and Government Program. The federal government has the advantage of being able to see the “big picture” and more easily share information with election officials across the country, he said.

“That is going to be difficult for states to replicate,” Norden said. “It doesn’t mean it’s impossible, but they have to start rethinking how they’re sharing information about what they’re seeing with each other.”

Cybersecurity has long been a concern of states — and not just in elections. Only 22 of 48 states that participated in a voluntary 2023 cybersecurity review conducted by federal agencies met or exceeded recommended security levels.

In the Brennan survey, 36% of local election officials said they were very concerned about federal cuts to election security services, while 24% said they were somewhat concerned and 21% said they were a little concerned. Nineteen percent said they were not concerned at all.

Sixty-one percent of local election officials expressed some level of concern over cuts to the federal cybersecurity agency specifically, with 32% saying they were very concerned. The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

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.

A Planned Parenthood clinic in Salt Lake City is pictured on Wednesday, July 31, 2024. (Photo by McKenzie Romero/Utah News Dispatch)

WASHINGTON — A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction Monday, blocking a provision in Republicans’ “big, beautiful” law that would have barred Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood for one year.

District Court Judge Indira Talwani wrote in a 36-page opinion that Planned Parenthood established “a substantial likelihood of success on their equal protection claim” since the new law “burdens” the organization’s First Amendment rights.

“A preliminary injunction maintains Planned Parenthood Members’ ability to seek Medicaid reimbursements—and maintain their status quo level of service to patients,” Talwani wrote. “And an injunction requiring Defendants to continue funding Medicaid reimbursements in accordance with the status quo imposes no additional Medicaid costs on Defendants, where there is no dispute that Medicaid funds will still be provided only for reimbursable healthcare services.”

Congress has barred federal taxpayer dollars from going to abortion services with limited exceptions for decades. But GOP lawmakers used their sweeping tax and spending cuts package to eliminate Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood for other types of health care, like annual physicals and cancer screenings.

The original House version of the bill included a 10-year moratorium on Medicaid reimbursements to Planned Parenthood, but that was changed to a one-year prohibition in the Senate.

Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit challenging the new law just days after President Donald Trump signed it during a ceremony on the Fourth of July.

Talwani, who was nominated to the bench by former President Barack Obama, issued a temporary restraining order the same day the case was filed, blocking that provision’s implementation.

The Trump administration argued against the court issuing a preliminary injunction, writing in a 58-page motion submitted last week that Planned Parenthood’s “constitutional claims are utterly meritless.”

“All three democratically elected components of the Federal Government collaborated to enact that provision consistent with their electoral mandates from the American people as to how they want their hard-earned taxpayer dollars spent,” the brief states. “But Plaintiffs—Planned Parenthood Federation of America (“PPFA”) and its members (together, “Planned Parenthood”)—now want this Court to reject that judgment and supplant duly enacted legislation with their own policy preferences.”

Don Millis and Ann Jacob, the former and current chairs of the Wisconsin Elections Commission, testify Tuesday, Feb. 4, at an Assembly hearing on a commission rule for election observers. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

Wisconsin was one of several states included in the U.S. Department of Justice’s request for statewide voter registration data — files that include data on millions of Americans. However, after DOJ was told that state law would require the Department to pay $12,500 for the data, it has not followed up on the request, according to a Wisconsin Elections Commission spokesperson. 

The DOJ requests for voter data from at least nine states have raised concerns about what the Trump Administration plans to do with the information as President Donald Trump has remained fixated on disproven  conspiracy theories that the 2020 election was stolen from him.

Correspondence from US DOJ to WEC – 6.17.25

Through the spring and early summer, DOJ officials have requested information from state election authorities based on allegations that states have violated federal election laws. The June 17 letter sent to Wisconsin alleges that Wisconsin has not complied with the Help America Vote Act, a 2002 law meant to streamline and modernize the election process. 

The letter requested that WEC give DOJ Wisconsin’s statewide voter registration list, provide information on how the state manages the files of  voters who become inactive by moving elsewhere or dying and how it verifies voter citizenship. Most of the questions surround topics that have been common complaints among purveyors of election conspiracy theories over the past half decade. 

On July 2, WEC’s chief legal counsel Jim Witecha sent a letter in response to DOJ on behalf of the six election commissioners. The letter gives detailed answers to many of the questions while asserting that state law prevents the commission from simply handing over the voter data. 

State law requires that the elections commission charge a fee for obtaining voter registration data and the price for obtaining the full list is set at $12,500.

USDOJ Response Letter

“Wisconsin law requires the Commission to charge a fee for access to voter registration data and makes no exceptions for elected officials, government agencies, journalists, non-profits, academics, or any other group,” the letter states. 

More than two weeks later, the DOJ has not yet filed a request to purchase Wisconsin’s voter rolls, according to WEC spokesperson Emilee Miklas. 

Information about DOJ’s request to WEC is located on the state agency’s FAQ webpage, along with answers to questions that have been repeatedly raised by election deniers in the state.

President Donald Trump holds up the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" that was signed into law during an Independence Day military family picnic on the South Lawn of the White House on July 4, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Alex Brandon - Pool/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Republicans’ “big, beautiful” law will add $3.394 trillion to deficits during the next decade and lead 10 million people to lose access to health insurance, according to an analysis released Monday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

The updated assessment of the sweeping tax and spending cuts law came weeks after nearly every GOP lawmaker voted to approve the legislation ahead of a self-imposed Fourth of July deadline. The law made permanent the 2017 tax cuts from President Donald Trump’s first term and provided billions to carry out his plans of mass deportations, an immigration crackdown and increased defense spending.

Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, wrote in a statement that it is “still hard to believe that policymakers just added $4 trillion to” deficits after Republican lawmakers “have spent months or years appropriately fuming about our unsustainable fiscal situation.”

“This is a dangerous game we are playing,” MacGuineas wrote. “It has been going on for years, and it was brought to new levels with this bill. And it is time to stop.” 

CBO released numerous reports throughout the months-long process showing how various parts of the bill would affect federal spending and health care access, but the scorekeeper needed additional time to evaluate changes Republicans made during the last few days of debate.

The latest figures are similar to a preliminary report CBO released earlier this month projecting the final version of the package, which underwent considerable changes in the Senate, would likely lead to a $3.4 trillion increase in deficits between 2025 and 2034.

That total was significantly higher than the $2.4 trillion increase in deficits CBO expected the original House version of the bill would have had during the next decade.

Health spending to fall by more than $1 trillion

Republicans’ numerous changes to health programs, predominantly Medicaid, will reduce federal spending during the next decade by $1.058 trillion.

The law made more than a dozen changes to the state-federal health program for lower income individuals and certain people with disabilities, though some of those have larger budget impacts than others.

Language barring Medicaid spending from going to Planned Parenthood for one year would actually increase federal deficits during the 10-year window by $53 million.

The CBO score shows that policy change would decrease federal spending by $44 million this fiscal year and another $31 million during the next fiscal year, before increasing deficits by $91 million during fiscal year 2027 and continuing.

That section of the law is on hold for the moment after a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order earlier this month that required the Trump administration to continue paying Planned Parenthood for routine health care coverage for Medicaid enrollees.

Federal law for decades has barred the federal government from spending taxpayer dollars for abortion services with limited exceptions, so the one-year prohibition on Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood would have blocked patients enrolled in the program from going to their clinics for routine health appointments, like annual physicals and cancer screenings.

The CBO report didn’t include a state-by-state breakdown of the effects of the health care changes in the law, but the agency is expected to release more detailed analysis of the health impacts in the coming weeks.

Nutrition assistance cuts

Apart from Medicaid, two large projected deficit reductions in the law come in the agriculture title’s sections on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

A provision requiring states to pay for some portion of SNAP benefits starting in fiscal 2028 would save the federal government between $5.7 billion and $6 billion per year, totalling just less than $41 billion for the first seven years it will be in effect.

And new work requirements for SNAP would result in $68.6 billion less in federal spending over the 10 years starting in fiscal 2026, the CBO projected.

Federal student loan program

Republicans’ streamlining of the federal student loan program is projected to reduce federal spending in the next decade by $270.5 billion.

As part of a sweeping overhaul of higher education, the law limits repayment options for borrowers with any loans made on or after July 1, 2026, to either a standard repayment plan or an income-based repayment plan.

Extension and expansion of tax cuts

The extension of Trump’s 2017 tax law, plus new tax breaks, will cost $4.472 trillion over the next decade, according to the latest CBO score.

The United States collects the majority of its revenue from individual taxpayers, and the continuation of lowered income tax brackets, plus an increased standard deduction, will comprise the bulk of lost revenue over 10 years, adding up to $3.497 trillion.

Trump also campaigned on several other tax cut promises, including no tax on tips and overtime, as well as no tax on car loan interest. The temporary provisions come with stipulations and will end in 2029. Together they will cost $151.868 billion.

The child tax credit increases under the new law to $2,200, up from $2,000, though lawmakers did not increase the amount lower income families can receive as a tax refund. The CBO estimates the bumped-up tax credit will cost $626.345 billion over the next decade.

Lawmakers offset some costs of the bill by repealing clean energy tax credits, including ending tax credits for personal and commercial electric vehicles, nixing energy efficiency improvement credits for homeowners, and terminating clean electricity production credits. In all, Republicans saved $487.909 billion from axing the measures meant to address the effects of climate change.

Jacob Fischler, Shauneen Miranda and Ashley Murray contributed to this report.

Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought testifies before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Jan. 15, 2025. (Screenshot from committee webcast)

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to once again publish details about the pace at which it plans to spend money approved by Congress.

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Emmet Sullivan wrote in his ruling that Congress “has sweeping authority” to require the president to post a website detailing how it doles out taxpayer dollars throughout the year.

“As explained in this Memorandum Opinion, there is nothing unconstitutional about Congress requiring the Executive Branch to inform the public of how it is apportioning the public’s money,” he wrote. “Defendants are therefore required to stop violating the law!”

The ruling won’t take effect until Thursday at 10 a.m. Eastern, giving the Trump administration time to appeal and to seek the ruling be put on hold during the appeals process.

Sullivan was appointed to the federal district court by President Bill Clinton but was selected for two prior judicial appointments by President Ronald Reagan and President George H. W. Bush.

Website pulled down

More than two years ago, Congress began requiring the White House budget office to publicly post apportionment information and the Biden administration took that step, though Trump officials pulled down the website in March.

That decision led to two separate lawsuits, one from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and another from the Protect Democracy Project.

Apportionments are the first step the executive branch takes when spending money appropriated by Congress. The documents and their footnotes usually detail how quickly, or how slowly, departments and agencies plan to send money out the door throughout the fiscal year.

The documents and the public website would have been a window into whether the Trump administration was impounding, or refusing to spend, funding that lawmakers have said it should allocate on behalf of taxpayers.

Trump administration protested provision

An attorney for the Department of Justice argued during a May hearing the Trump administration believes the provision is unconstitutional and seeks to micromanage how the executive branch spends federal funds throughout the year.

The DOJ lawyer also said posting the information within two business days, as called for in the law, would require the White House budget office to divert staff from other work.

Lawyers for CREW and Protect Democracy Project told the judge the White House was in clear violation of the law and that the data is valuable information that helps the organizations monitor if a president were to cease spending on programs funded by Congress.

The watchdog organization attorneys noted during that hearing the Government Accountability Office is looking into dozens of instances where the administration held onto congressionally approved funding instead of spending it.

They said the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, wasn’t a helpful alternative to the website since it can take months or years for organizations to get a response to their request.

Public’s right to see decisions

Sullivan wrote in the 60-page ruling the Trump administration “complaining about the extra work” that goes along with posting the information on a public website represents “a management issue; not a constitutional one.”

“Here, Congress has determined that OMB’s apportionment decisions should be publicly available so that, among other things, it and the public can see whether they are consistent with congressional appropriations,” Sullivan wrote, adding the website aids Congress with “its undisputed oversight role.”

“The Acts do not dictate how OMB should apportion funds, nor do they establish a congressional management role in the administration of apportionments,” Sullivan wrote. “The Acts merely require that the final apportionment decisions be made publicly available to provide transparency to Congress and the public.”

Sullivan rejected an argument from the Trump administration that publicly sharing details about the pace at which it’s spending taxpayer dollars was unconstitutional because it required “the disclosure of privileged information.”

“There is no evidence in the record remotely supporting the notion that the apportionment documents are presidential communications or are in any way subject to the presidential communications privilege,” Sullivan wrote. “Accordingly, the Court rejects this constitutional claim.”

Advocates applaud ruling

Cerin Lindgrensavage, counsel for Protect Democracy Project, wrote in a statement the judge’s ruling “makes clear that the executive branch cannot simply ignore appropriations laws they disagree with on policy grounds, no matter what President (Donald) Trump or OMB Director Russell Vought thinks.

“Congress passed a law making sure the American public could see how their taxpayer dollars are being spent, and we will continue to hold the administration accountable for making good on that promise.”

Nikhel Sus, deputy chief counsel at CREW, wrote in a separate statement that the organization applauds “the court’s thorough and well-reasoned decision, which reaffirms Congress’s constitutional authority to require public disclosure of how taxpayer dollars are spent.

“Americans have a right to know how taxpayer money is being spent. Ensuring public access to this information serves as a critical check on the executive branch’s abuse and misuse of federal funds.”

Rachel Cauley, communications director for the White House Office of Management and Budget, wrote in a statement the administration strongly disagrees with the ruling.

“This leftist, anti-Trump judge undermines the President’s ability to effectively manage his agencies,” Cauley wrote. “Moreover, these progressive dark money groups have zero standing to claim injury for not having access to this privileged internal information.”

The Department of Justice did not return a request for comment about the ruling or whether the administration would appeal to the Circuit Court.

U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash., wrote in a statement that “the law is clear as day: every president is required to show the public how they are spending taxpayer dollars, and it is past time President Trump and Russ Vought get the website they illegally ripped down back up.”

Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, didn’t immediately return a request for comment. 

Emma Widmar, shown with her dog Zander, has relied on Medicaid while managing complex health problems that she has had since she was 12. (Photo courtesy of Emma Widmar)

At the age of 26, Emma Widmar has been chronically ill for more than half her lifetime.

Widmar was 12 when her symptoms first showed up — severe allergies to food, hormones and her environment. At the age of 18 she qualified for Social Security disability payments as well as for Medicaid. The combined federal-state health insurance program pays for her ongoing medical care, frequent emergency room visits and necessary home care.

“I equate Medicaid to a lifeline,” Widmar says. “Some people might think that’s an exaggeration, but it isn’t. It ensures all my needs are met.”

With the enactment on July 4 of the mega-bill extending the tax cuts passed during President Donald Trump’s first term along with deep cuts in Medicaid and other safety net programs, Widmar is uncertain how her life might change.

After she graduated from Gateway Technical College, Widmar worked for four years for the Racine County Eye, an online journalism outlet. A case of respiratory syncytial virus — RSV — in January 2024 brought on severe neuropathy and hampered her breathing, forcing her to give up a job she had loved.

“I lost my ability to walk,” Widmar says. “It really wreaked havoc on my body and I couldn’t keep up.”

As complex as her health problems are, they’ve also become deeply familiar to her. 

 “It has been my life, and I simply can’t ignore it,” Widmar says. “It’s just the way that it is.”

While she and her family along with many others hope that science will one day unlock treatments for intractable illnesses such as hers, “these are chronic, lifelong conditions that right now there’s no cure for,” she says. For now, “it’s about finding the best quality of life for myself.”

Widmar lives with her parents in Mount Pleasant. Her mother is a primary caregiver.

Wisconsin’s home- and community-based care Medicaid waiver covers the cost of medications “that allow me to function,” she says.

 It also makes it possible for her to have additional home and personal caregivers. With Medicaid “those caretakers can be compensated,” Widmar says. “It ensures that I always have eyes on me and that I’m getting what I need.”

Her chronic food allergies require a special diet, with food that is more expensive than the typical grocery store purchase. Widmar’s disability has qualified her for benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — SNAP, known as FoodShare in Wisconsin.

“Health care and food assistance are not just line items in a budget — they are a matter of life and death for American families,” said Sondra Goldschein, executive director of Family Friendly Economy, which campaigned against the mega-bill and shared the stories of people affected by it, including Widmar.

The bill passed despite widespread popular opposition. Widmar says she wants to encourage people “to continue voicing their opinions to policymakers, lawmakers and politicians,” not give up in resignation. “We are the ones that employ the government,” she says. “They work for us and we have to remind them of that.”

Widmar suspects most people wouldn’t consider her a typical Medicaid recipient — younger, coming from a middle-class upbringing and with a family that is able to support her. But that’s really the point: Medicaid, she observes, has helped people from all different backgrounds, regardless of class, race, ethnicity or education.

She also expects the spending cuts will ripple far beyond the Medicaid population.

“We’re altering health care as a whole, which will have an impact on everyone,” Widmar says.

For several years, the Affordable Care Act has helped drive down the number of people without health insurance. The mega-bill’s changes not just to Medicaid but also the ACA have been forecast to reverse that trend, increasing the uninsured population by 17 million over the next decade.

One Medicaid change, scheduled to take effect in 2027, will be the imposition of work requirements for some recipients. Nationally, two-thirds of Medicaid recipients already work full- or part-time, according to KFF, a nonprofit health policy research, polling and news organization, and researchers have found that some people who qualify are excluded due to paperwork problems.

Widmar has already experienced a work requirement as part of her SNAP enrollment. When her illness made work impossible, the requirement was waived.

With the extent of her current disabilities, she hopes that she would qualify for an exemption from the coming Medicaid work requirement.

She might not know for sure until late 2026, however. Wisconsin won’t be able to draw up the details of how it implements the work requirement until the publication of the federal rules, which aren’t due until next June.

In her previous experience with SNAP, Widmar said work requirements didn’t always match the realities for people with disabilities.

“Unfortunately we don’t make it easier for people who are disabled to have a job and contribute,” she says. “It’s not a system that says, ‘We have a work requirement — do what you’re able to do…’”

When she was able to work, “I loved my job,” Widmar says. Her employer was understanding and accommodated her disabilities.

That was no small matter. Because of her condition, Widmar says, she can’t be alone: Her low blood pressure can cause her to faint unpredictably. Her hours also had to be flexible to match her erratic energy levels.

“It’s difficult to work and have a disability and be on these programs,” Widmar says. “It’s like an agility course you have to go through.”

While Widmar is concerned about what lies ahead for her when the changes to Medicaid take effect, her foremost worry is for people whose lives are more difficult.

“I have a support system to help me get through it. But there’s people that don’t know where to turn for help. And it’s really unfortunate for them,” she says.

For people living at or near poverty, she sees life on the verge of becoming more harsh.

“We’re already at bare bones,” Widmar says, “and now we’re taking away more from the most vulnerable populations.”

As power-hungry data centers proliferate, states are searching for ways to protect utility customers from the steep costs of upgrading the electrical grid, trying instead to shift the cost to AI-driven tech companies. (Dana DiFilippo/New Jersey Monitor)

Regular energy consumers, not corporations, will bear the brunt of the increased costs of a boom in artificial intelligence that has contributed to a growth in data centers and a surge in power usage, recent research suggests.

Between 2024 and 2025, data center power usage accounted for $9 billion, or 174%, of increased power costs, a June report by Monitoring Analytics, an external market monitor for PJM Interconnection, found. PJM manages the electrical power grid and wholesale electric market for 13 states and Washington, D.C., and this spring, customers were told to expect roughly a $25 increase on their monthly electric bill starting June 1.

“The growth in data center load and the expected future growth in data center load are unique and unprecedented and uncertain and require a different approach than simply asserting that it is just supply and demand,” Monitoring Analytics’ report said.

Data centers house the physical infrastructure to power most of the computing we do today, but many AI models and the large AI companies that power them, like Amazon, Meta and Microsoft use vastly more energy than other kinds of computing. Training a single chatbot like ChatGPT uses about the same amount of energy as 100 homes over the course of a year, an AI founder told States Newsroom earlier this year.

The growth of data centers — and how much power they use — came on fast. A 2024 report by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission in Virginia — known as a global hub for data centers — found that PJM forecasts it will use double the amount of average monthly energy in 2033 as it did in 2023. Without new data centers, energy use would only grow 15% by 2040, the report said.

As of July, the United States is home to more than 3,800 data centers, up from more than 3,600 in April. A majority of data centers are connected to the same electrical grids that power residential homes, commercial buildings and other structures.

“There are locational price differences, but data centers added anywhere in PJM have an effect on prices everywhere in PJM,” Joseph Bowring, president of Monitoring Analytics said.

Creeping costs

At least 36 states, both conservative and liberal, offer tax incentives to companies planning on building data centers in their states. But the increased costs that customers are experiencing have made some wonder if the projects are the economic wins they were touted as.

“I’m not convinced that boosting data centers, from a state policy perspective, is actually worth it,” said New Jersey State Sen. Andrew Zwicker, a Democrat and co-sponsor of a bill to separate data centers from regular power supply. “It doesn’t pay for a lot of permanent jobs.”

Energy cost has historically followed a socialized model, based on the idea that everyone benefits from reliable electricity, said Ari Peskoe, the director of the Electricity Law Initiative at the Harvard Law School Environmental and Energy Law Program. Although some of the pricing model is based on your actual use, some costs like new power generation, transmission and infrastructure projects are spread across all customers.

Data centers’ rapid growth is “breaking” this tradition behind utility rates.

“These are cities, these data centers, in terms of how much electricity they use,” Peskoe said. “And it happens to be that these are the world’s wealthiest corporations behind these data centers, and it’s not clear how much local communities actually benefit from these data centers. Is there any justification for forcing everyone to pay for their energy use?”

This spring in Virginia, Dominion Energy filed a request with the State Corporation Commission to increase the rates it charges by an additional $10.50 on the monthly bill of an average resident and another $10.92 per month to pay for higher fuel costs, the Virginia Mercury reported.

Dominion, and another local supplier, recently filed a proposal to separate data centers into their own rate class to protect other customers, but the additional charges demonstrate the price increases that current contracts could pass on to customers.

In June, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission convened a technical conference to assess the adequacy of PJM’s resources and those of other major power suppliers, like Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., ISO New England Inc., New York Independent System Operator, Inc., California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) and Southwest Power Pool (SPP).

The current supply of power by PJM is not adequate to meet the current and future demand from large data center loads, Monitoring Analytics asserts in a report following the conference.

“Customers are already bearing billions of dollars in higher costs as a direct result of existing and forecast data center load,” the report said.

Proposed changes

One of the often-proposed solutions to soften the increased cost of data centers is to require them to bring their own generation, meaning they’d contract with a developer to build a power plant that would be big enough to meet their own demand. Though there are other options, like co-location, which means putting some of the electrical demand on an outside source, total separation is the foremost solution Bowring presents in his reports.

“Data centers are unique in terms of their growth and impact on the grid, unique in the history of the grid, and therefore, we think that’s why we think data centers should be treated as a separate class,” Bowring said.

Some data centers are already voluntarily doing this. Constellation Energy, the owner of Three Mile Island nuclear plant in central Pennsylvania, struck a $16 billion deal with Microsoft to power the tech giant’s AI energy demand needs. 

But in some states, legislators are seeking to find a more binding solution.

New Jersey Sen. Bob Smith, a Democrat who chairs the Environment and Energy Committee, authored a bill this spring that would require new AI data centers in the state to supply their power from new, clean energy sources, if other states in the region enact similar measures.

“Seeing the large multinational trillion dollar companies, like Microsoft and Meta, be willing to do things like restart Three Mile Island is crazy, but shows you their desperation,” said co-sponsor Zwicker. “And so, okay, you want to come to New Jersey? Great, but you’re not going to put the basis (of the extra cost) on ratepayers.”

New Jersey House members launched a probe into PJM’s practices as the state buys its annual utilities from the supplier at auction this month. Its July 2024 auction saw electrical costs increase by more than 800%, which contributed to the skyrocketing bills that took effect June 1.

Residents are feeling it, Smith said, and he and his co-sponsors plan to use the summer to talk to the other states within PJM’s regional transmission organization (RTO).

“Everything we’re detecting so far is they’re just as angry — the other 13 entities in PJM — as us,” Smith told States Newsroom.

Smith said they’re discussing the possibility of joining or forming a different RTO.

“We’re in the shock and horror stage where these new prices are being included in these bills, and citizens are screaming in pain,” Smith said. “A solution that I filed in the bill, is the one that says, ‘AI data centers, you’re welcome in New Jersey, but bring your own clean electricity with them so they don’t impact the ratepayers.”

Utah enacted a law this year that allows “large load” customers like data centers to craft separate contracts with utilities, and a bill in Oregon, which would create a separate customer class for data centers, called the POWER Act, passed through both chambers last month.

If passed, New Jersey’s law would join others across the country in redefining the relationship between data centers powering AI and utilities providers.

“We have to take action, and I think we have to be pretty thoughtful about this, and look at the big picture as well,” Zwicker said. ”I’m not anti-data center, I’m pro-technology, but I’m just not willing to put it on the backs of ratepayers.” 

Economist Darrick Hamilton’s work shows publicly funded savings accounts for children could reduce income inequality over time. But he said the $1,000 accounts for babies that Congress approved this month were poorly designed and will benefit the wealthy. (Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images)  

With fertility rates declining in the United States, Republicans backed a policy tucked inside the megabill President Donald Trump signed earlier this month that they say will help save for children’s futures.

The $1,000 investment accounts established by the government have some passing similarities to baby bonds, a concept proposed by economist Darrick Hamilton more than 15 years ago as a way to reduce income inequality.

But Hamilton told States Newsroom the design of these so-called Trump accounts, which hinge on contributions from a child’s relatives instead of the government, will benefit those who come from wealthier families that have more money to chip in.

“They’re subsidizing the transmission of intergenerational wealth for those that already have wealth in the first place,” he said.

Money plays a significant role in deciding whether to grow a family, according to a United Nations Population Fund report on falling fertility rates released in June.

Fifty-three percent of Americans surveyed said the ideal number of children to raise is two, but 38% said financial limitations led them to have fewer children than they initially wanted. Unemployment or job insecurity, housing limitations and lack of sufficient child care options — also financial factors — rounded out the list.

Policies restricting abortion play a role, too. Some young Americans have sought voluntary sterilizations or delayed having children, citing how pregnancy care has been diminished by the U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned federal abortion rights.

The U.S. fertility rate reached a historic low: 54.4 births per 1,000 women of reproductive age in 2023, down 3% from the previous year, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The GOP that’s branded itself “pro-family” has voiced concerns about fewer people having children in the United States.

A provision included in the tax break and spending cut bill Trump signed into law on July 4 establishes $1,000 savings accounts for babies born between 2025 and 2028. 

Parents, other relatives and friends can contribute up to $5,000 annually, and employers can add up to $2,500 yearly for an employee’s dependent. The Treasury Department will roll out the accounts, which have several tax rules, next year.

Initially, lawmakers included caveats in the policy that said people could only use half of the money for education, home ownership or entrepreneurship when they turn 18, but the final version Trump signed is less restrictive when the account holder reaches adulthood.

Before the bill passed, conservative and liberal tax experts told States Newsroom’s D.C. Bureau that the proposal favors the wealthy and contains so many rules that a 529 savings plan — tax-free accounts that must be used for college expenses — would be a better option for parents saving for their child’s future.

Democrats have pitched their version of these accounts since 2019. The American Opportunity Accounts Act, introduced by New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker and Massachusetts Rep. Ayanna Pressley, would create savings accounts for babies. The legislation was introduced in recent sessions but never gained momentum.

One key difference: Trump accounts rely on individual contributions, while in Booker and Pressley’s proposal, the federal government would contribute up to $2,000 yearly depending on the family’s income. A child born to a family with low income could have a decent-sized launchpad of cash at age 18.

Booker and Pressley’s initiative would be considered baby bonds, according to Hamilton, a professor at The New School and founder of the Institute on Race, Power and Political Economy. 

Hamilton has been writing about how baby bonds could reduce the widening wealth gap since 2010. Since then, several states and cities have enacted baby bonds programs.

He said baby bonds stemmed from “understanding the role of assets in poverty” and studying the work of economists focused on income inequality, the racial wealth gap and how they manifest generationally.

Hamilton’s personal experience shaped his scholarship, too: He grew up in the Bed-Stuy neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York, where he said he was exposed to networks of wealth and poverty. He learned that economic mobility is not about motivations, attitudes or astuteness, but access.

“Individuals from one set of environments will grow into families that can provide a foundation in terms of capital to allow them to get into an asset like a home, like higher education without debt or some capital to start a business,” Hamilton said. “Other individuals will not have access to those things.”

States Newsroom spoke to Hamilton about state baby bonds programs, the pros and cons of Trump accounts, and how investing in children’s futures is connected to reproductive justice.

The following interview has been edited and condensed.

States Newsroom: Baby bond programs have been piloted in 10 places total, including California, Connecticut, Washington, D.C, and most recently Rhode Island. What aspects of the state policies are working?

Darrick Hamilton: The thing that is percolating is the political momentum, as well as a better understanding of the role of the state as it relates to engaging with families, particularly low-income families, one of investment. Narratives are changing, and resources are being invested in children for which we’ll see the full rewards once the children are of age to receive the accounts.

SN: Is there anything that could be improved in the places where baby bond programs have been piloted so far? For instance, I know the latest D.C. mayoral budget hasn’t necessarily given funding to the baby bonds program there.

DH: Yes, so there are several places for which there’s been legislative movement, but one needs executive movement as well. As exemplified in Washington, D.C., the municipal legislator made clear what their priority was in terms of passing the law, but the mayor has yet to offer the resources to yield the accounts. That’s a problem.

Big shout out to Connecticut, for instance, and in particular, (former) Treasurer (Shawn) Wooden and Treasurer (Erick) Russell for not only ensuring that the legislation passed, but being diligent in both economically and politically generating the funds — politically building up momentum and movement to command it from the executive branch, and then economically having the wherewithal and the astuteness to be able to best find within the state budget how to fund the accounts.

But the big point is at the end of the day, it is the federal government that really has the capacity to fully fund this in the way that it should be funded.

SN: The tax break and spending cut bill approved by Congress earlier this month includes a provision that sets up $1,000 savings accounts for babies born between 2025 and 2028, and lets them use the money, whatever that may end up being, when they turn 18. What’s your take on these so-called Trump accounts?

DH: Well, they co-opted a good idea in both rhetoric and design. The regressive design is essentially tax shelters akin to the 529 college and education savings plans that will lead to further inequities. The problem of wealth inequality in America is largely one of endowment and capital, rather than the behavior of active savings, so they’re going to further facilitate the capacities of those people that have resources in the first place.

The legislation as is doesn’t address the benefit cliff. A $1,000 seed growing over time would render individuals perhaps ineligible for some of the social safety net programs. That’s a regressive design that I don’t know if they even did it intentionally.

The $1,000 seed in and of itself is not bad. However, if you add on the regressive component, that’s going to grow inequality rather than reduce inequality. And a $1,000 seed, even if compounding over time with interest, is not going to be nearly enough to achieve the goal of the program, which is to allow individuals who otherwise would not have access to something like a home and education without debt, or to be able to start a business.

SN: The Democratic-backed American Opportunity Accounts Act would create $1,000 savings accounts the federal government would add money to annually, depending on the family’s income. How would this proposal affect economic inequality?

DH: I’d say two things. One is the progressive design — it will have an impact on reducing inequality. So it facilitates those that will have the least resources to actually have enough to get into an asset that will appreciate over their lives. It facilitates the capability of wealth-building in a progressive way, in an inclusive way, which is the opposite of what the Trump accounts do. The second part is it will have the added benefit of redressing the racial wealth gap, because if we look at the dimension by which Blacks and whites are most disparate, it’s wealth.

SN: Do baby bonds, in your view, have a connection to reproductive justice?

DH: You can’t isolate these so-called Trump accounts from the larger reconciliation bill that passed in the first place. What they’re investing is trivial compared to the ways in which they’re structuring inequality writ large with the tax code for the wealthy. This is a rhetorical distraction that’s aimed at trying to appear populist, especially when they’re cutting Medicaid, SNAP and other investments that go toward low-income individuals. So that’s thing one. We’d be naive to ignore the political context in which this comes up.

The second part is, again, with the larger package that they’re putting forth. This is almost trying to manage the demography, and if they’re not saying it out loud, they certainly are saying it implicitly. With policies aimed at trying to promote additional births, the subtext is which women are they trying to incentivize to have children or not.

In contrast, what baby bonds do is they invest in the fertility decisions of our people. A good way to promote fertility and family formation is to trust the American people, to ensure that there’s resources directed at them in fair and just ways, and allow them to make fertility decisions for themselves. In other words, part of our humanity should be able to reproduce, to be able to form family formations in ways in which we identify. We need a role of government to facilitate these decisions in ways that are just and inclusive.

Nasal Narcan, used to reverse an overdose, stock the inside of Milwaukee County's first harm reduction vending machine. (Photo | Isiah Holmes)

Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley is proposing to utilize over $9 million in opioid settlement funds to support seven initiatives aimed at expanding treatment and reducing opioid use disorder. Crowley said in a statement that his administration “continues to deploy opioid settlement dollars across Milwaukee County.” 

“These upstream investments are proving to be effective,” Crowley said, “but we know there’s more work to do in expanding substance use prevention, harm reduction, treatment, and recovery efforts.” 

The Milwaukee County Board Committee on Finance unanimously approved Crowley’s proposal during a meeting Thursday. Next week, the full county board will vote on whether to approve the plan. The projects, proposed for the 2026-28 fiscal years, include providing outreach to older adults with disabilities through door-to-door canvasing and  funding community-based organizations which partner with the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Providing more staffing to the medical examiner’s office, funding residential room and board programs for people struggling with addiction and enhancing the county’s publicly available data analysis of the overdose crisis are among the other proposed initiatives. 

“Through these proven initiatives and by working together, we will keep leading the way to change the lives of individuals affected by substance use disorder and reduce the likelihood of overdose-related fatalities in our community — because lives depend on it,” Crowley said in a statement. 

Shakita LaGrant-McClain, executive director of DHHS, said the funding will allow the department to “continue the life-saving work that began with the initial round of opioid settlement funds…We are seeing promising trends and look forward to continuing our prevention, harm reduction, treatment and recovery work, including ensuring residents have access to harm reduction supplies, targeted community outreach, and collaboration with community partners.”

A publicly available dashboard illustrates the toll the overdose epidemic has taken on Milwaukee County. It provides information on both fatal and non-fatal overdoses, which communities are most impacted, how much anti-overdose Naloxone has been utilized, and more. Across Milwaukee County, over 4,500 people have lost their lives to an overdose between 2016 and 2024. The deaths peaked in 2022, which saw 674 people lose their lives to an overdose. Non-fatal overdoses are even more common; more than 5,400 occurred during 2022. There have been 1,061 non-fatal overdoses so far this year and 124 people have died of an overdose in 2025. 

The data shows that so far this year, 14% of fatal overdoses have been people between 55-59 years old and 11% were  60-64. People aged 35-39 made up 13% of the fatal overdoses this year. The lowest percentages came from young people 15-29 years old, and much older people aged 75-85 years or more. 

Over 18 years, Milwaukee County will receive a total of $111 million in opioid settlement funds. So far, $34 million has been allocated across three cohorts of funded projects focused on breaking cycles of addiction, advancing racial equality and improving community health.

Then-Detective Joseph Mensah testifies before the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety in 2025. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Detective Joseph Mensah, a  Waukesha County Sheriff’s detective who attracted protests and controversy for his involvement in three fatal shootings over a five year period while employed at the Wauwatosa Police Department (WPD) will resign from the Sheriff’s office. Mensah, hired to the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department in 2021, issued a resignation letter on July 17. In a resignation letter, Mensah said he plans to leave the law enforcement profession all together. 

A version of the letter was posted on social media by Jessica McBride, a contributor to the right-wing media outlet Wisconsin Right Now. Mensah’s resignation will be effective on July 31, according to the letter.

A Waukesha County Sheriffs Department spokesperson sent a slightly different version of the letter to Wisconsin Examiner upon request. “After much consideration, I feel it would be in the best interest of the Sheriffs Department, the community, my family, and my own personal well-being, that I transition out of the law enforcement profession,” Mensah wrote in the letter. “Words can not express how grateful I am that you, Sheriff Severson, along with Inspector Gumm, Deputy Inspector, the command staff, and the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department accepted me and brought me into your family when I needed you most. I am beyond grateful and thankful, that I had the opportunity to serve alongside the men and women of this agency. If there is anything I can do to assist with this process, please let me know.”

Mensah was hired by the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department after resigning from WPD in 2020, following months of protests. After he was  hired by WPD in 2015, Mensah was involved in three fatal shootings. In his first year on the job Mensah shot 29-year-old Antonio Gonzales, who was wielding a sword when officers arrived at his home. Less than a year later, Mensah fatally shot 25-year-old Jay Anderson Jr., who was sleeping in his car in a county park. Mensah said that Anderson lunged for a handgun that sat beside him on the front passenger seat. Four years later in early 2020, Mensah killed 17-year-old Alvin Cole, who was fleeing Mayfair Mall with his friends after being involved in a fight, and brandishing a handgun. Mensah said that Cole attempted to shoot him during the chase. 

The Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office declined to charge Mensah in any of those shootings, stating that his actions were either justified or privileged. 

Residents and elected officials in Wauwatosa called for criminal charges against Mensah for the three shootings. When the district attorney declined to issue charges in the Cole shooting, protests ensued and a curfew was declared in Wauwatosa with  protesters confronted by militarized law enforcement.

An independent investigation found that Mensah violated department policies when he gave radio interviews in which  he discussed the Cole shooting, which was still under investigation at the time, and gave misleading information about his fatal shootings, according to the report, authored by attorney Steven Biskupic. 

Mensah’s three shootings in Wauwatosa also became the subject of several lawsuits. In 2021, a John Doe hearing was called to review the Anderson shooting, after which a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge ruled that probable cause existed to charge Mensah with a crime. Special prosecutors appointed to the case, however, declined to pursue charges. 

In 2025, Mensah testified before state legislative committees to advocate for prohibitions against the use of the John Doe law to review fatal shootings by police. Mensah told Wisconsin Examiner that he’d sought a promotion to lieutenant while at the sheriff’s department, but was unsuccessful. 

Another federal civil lawsuit involving the Cole shooting was brought to trial, and a judge found that Mensah and other officers provided contradictory statements. Wisconsin Examiner also found that Mensah and other officers violated policies related to police shooting investigations in the Milwaukee area. The Cole trial in 2025 ended in a hung jury, with a retrial scheduled for early September. 

In a statement to Wisconsin Examiner, a spokesperson for the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department said that agency staff “support Detective Mensah and wish him the best.” 

Attorney Kimberley Motley, who has represented the families of those killed by Mensah and the protesters who supported them, said in a statement to Wisconsin Examiner that the Cole family “is looking forward to the trial that is set in September against Joseph Mensah. Both the Alvin Cole and Jay Anderson family continue to focus on fighting for justice on behalf of their loved ones.”

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

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s administration confirmed Friday that it’s releasing funds that support before- and after-school programs as well as summer programs, a portion of the $6.8 billion in withheld funds for K-12 schools that were supposed to be sent out two weeks ago.

The administration has faced bipartisan backlash over its decision to freeze billions of dollars that also go toward migrant education, English-language learning, adult education and literacy programs, among other initiatives. Those other funds apparently remained stalled on Friday, and Democrats, a key Republican appropriator and school leaders called for them to be released as well.

The funds that will be released total $1.3 billion, according to Democrats on the Senate Appropriations Committee, and are intended for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers initiative.

The Education Department says the program “supports the creation of community learning centers that provide academic enrichment opportunities during non-school hours for children, particularly students who attend high-poverty and low-performing schools.”

A senior administration official said the programmatic review for 21st Century Community Learning Centers has concluded and funds “will be released to the states.”

“Guardrails have been put in place to ensure these funds are not used in violation of Executive Orders,” the official added. 

Pressure from GOP senators

The announcement came after 10 Republican senators sent a letter to Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought on July 16 urging him to release the $6.8 billion in funds to states.

West Virginia GOP Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, who led the letter, said in a statement Friday that “21st Century Community Learning Centers offer important services that many West Virginians rely on.”

“This program supports states in providing quality after-school and summer learning programs for students while enabling their parents to work and contribute to local economies,” said Capito, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies.

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who leads the broader Senate Appropriations panel, also signed the July 16 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.

While Collins said in a Friday statement she is glad she and her colleagues were able to work together to “effectively urge the Administration to get these funds released,” she noted that “there is more funding that still needs to be disbursed.”

“I will continue to work to ensure it is delivered swiftly so educators can prepare for the upcoming academic year with certainty and Maine students and families have the resources they need to succeed,” she said.

July 1 notification

The Education Department notified states of the freeze just a day before July 1, when these funds are typically sent out as educators plan for the school year, saying the funds were under review.

A slew of congressional Democrats and one independent pushed back on the funding freeze.

Thirty-two senators and 150 House Democrats urged Vought and Education Secretary Linda McMahon in two letters dated July 10 to immediately release the funds they say are being withheld “illegally.”

A coalition of 24 states and the District of Columbia also sued the administration over the withheld funds.

The rest of the school money

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, the top Democrat on the Senate spending panel, called on the Trump administration to release the rest of the frozen funds.

“After we spoke up — and after weeks of needless chaos — the Trump administration is now releasing funding for after school programs while continuing to block billions more in funding for our students, teachers, and schools,” Murray said in a statement Friday.

“Every penny of this funding must flow immediately,” she said. “Whether or not parents know the afterschool program they depend on will exist should not depend on whether Republicans will push back against Trump’s lawlessness — he should simply get the funding out, just as the law requires him to do. I am going to keep pushing until every dollar goes.”

David Schuler, executive director of AASA, The School Superintendents Association, expressed similar concerns in a statement Friday.

“While we’re pleased to see crucial dollars going to afterschool programs which are vital for students across the nation, the bottom line is this: Districts should not be in this impossible position where the Administration is denying funds that had already been appropriated to our public schools, by Congress,” said Schuler, whose organization helps to ensure every child has access to a high quality public education.

“The remaining funds must be released immediately — America’s children are counting on it.” 

Minister of Justice and Public Security Héctor Villatoro, right, accompanies Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, center, during a tour of the Terrorist Confinement Center (CECOT) on March 26, 2025 in Tecoluca, El Salvador. (Photo by Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — House Democrats sent a letter Thursday to the heads of Homeland Security and the State Department seeking more information about the financial agreement between the United States and El Salvador to detain more than 200 men at a notorious megaprison.

“Congress has the right and the obligation to conduct oversight over the executive branch and determine what deals our government has struck with a foreign dictator to imprison individuals seized in the United States in an effort to place them beyond the reaches of our court,” according to the letter by California’s Robert Garcia, Maryland’s Jamie Raskin, Mississippi’s Bennie Thompson and New York’s Gregory Meeks.

In March, the Trump administration flew several planes to El Salvador containing 238 men removed either under an 18th-century wartime law, known as the Alien Enemies Act, or because they are immigrants who had final orders of removal and are citizens of El Salvador. The men arrived at the notorious prison known as CECOT.

The letter challenges the Trump administration’s position publicly and in courts that any individuals removed to El Salvador to be detained are no longer in U.S. custody and any court order to facilitate the return of wrongly removed immigrants cannot be fulfilled.

According to court documents filed last week, testimony from Salvadoran officials noted that those individuals removed and detained at CECOT were considered in the jurisdiction of the U.S. government.

“The actions of the state of El Salvador have been limited to the implementation of a bilateral cooperation mechanism with another state, through which it has facilitated the use of the Salvadoran prison infrastructure for the custody of persons detained within the scope of the justice system and law enforcement of that other state,” according to the court document submitted by the American Civil Liberties Union.

That document was submitted in a court case that relates to the Trump administration’s use of the wartime law, and whether or not officials violated a federal judge’s order to return the planes to the U.S. The planes still landed in El Salvador.

“Court filings last week suggest the Administration misled federal judges, Congress, and the American people about the legal status of individuals the U.S. government has spirited away to El Salvador and who are being held in torture prisons like Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT),” the Democrats wrote. 

The Democrats addressed the letter to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, asking to see the agreement between the U.S. and El Salvador to accept non-Salvadoran citizens and information on the men detained at CECOT.

“This document indicates that the Department of Justice has misled federal courts in assertions regarding the agreement with El Salvador,” wrote the  Democrats, who sit on House committees on Homeland Security, Foreign Affairs, Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform.

$15 million payment to El Salvador

The State Department is paying up to $15 million to house immigrants removed from the U.S. at CECOT, but the agreement has not been made publicly available. Former State Department officials and foreign policy aides have raised concerns that the State Department payments violate a human rights law.

The Leahy Law bars financial assistance to “units of foreign security forces” — which can include military and law enforcement staff in prisons —  facing credible allegations of gross human rights violations, such as CECOT.

The State Department has denied any wrongdoing.

The Trump administration has resisted court orders to return wrongfully deported men from CECOT, such as in the high-profile deportation case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and a separate case out of Baltimore, Maryland concerning another wrongly deported man sent to the megaprison. Abrego Garcia detailed how he experienced physical and psychological torture while at CECOT.

Noem visited CECOT earlier this year, and said the prison would be one of the Trump administration’s tools amid its aggressive immigration crackdown. 

At the location of the future Moss Universal Park, surrounded by about 50 people, including Democratic lawmakers and community members, Vining focused her remarks on creating a world where everyone can thrive. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

WAUWATOSA — Continuing Senate Democrats’ effort to flip control of the state Senate next year, Rep. Robyn Vining (D-Wauwatosa) announced her campaign late Thursday afternoon for Wisconsin’s 5th Senate District, which is currently represented by Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield). 

At the location of the future Moss Universal Park, surrounded by about 50 people, including Democratic lawmakers and community members, Vining focused her remarks on creating a world where everyone can thrive.

“It’s going to take some construction — just like at this park,” Vining said, referring to the playground, which is designed to be accessible to children with disabilities and open to everyone in the community. “If we want a world that works for everyone, we need a government that works for everyone — not the few and the connected, but for everyone. That is the world I want to fight for. That is the world that we all deserve, and when we flip this seat and when we win the majority, we will work hard to create that world. We will move closer to a government that works for everyone.” 

November 2026 will be the first time new, more competitive legislative maps adopted in 2024 will be in effect for the 17 odd-numbered Senate seats up for election. All the seats in the  state Assembly and the governor’s office will also be up for election.

“We’re going to have a trifecta,” Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) told reporters. “We’re finally going to be able to get things done for the very first time in a very long time. We’re going to be able to fund K-12 education, higher education, child care and all the priorities that we’ve been fighting for for over a decade.”

Whether Democrats achieve “trifecta” control of both houses of the Legislature and the executive branch of state government hinges in part on a Democrat holding the governor’s seat. Gov. Tony Evers has not yet announced whether he’ll seek a third term in office, but the decision could come any day. 

“It’s my understanding that Gov. Evers is going to make up his mind in the next week and a half,” Hesselbein said. “If the governor wants to run again, we’re behind him all the way.” 

“It’s either going to be him or it’s going to be someone from the absolutely fabulous bench that we have, so we’re not worried,” Vining said. 

The path to the Senate majority, Vining and Hesselbein said, runs through Senate District 5. Republican lawmakers currently hold an 18-15 Senate majority, meaning Democrats need to flip two seats and hold all of their current seats to win the majority for the first time in more than 15 years. Two other competitive seats include Senate District 17, where Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green) is up for reelection and Rep. Jenna Jacobson (D-Oregon) announced her candidacy last week, and Senate District 21, where Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine) is up for reelection. 

Senate District 5 includes portions of Milwaukee County, encompassing West Allis and Wauwatosa, and Waukesha County, including Pewaukee, Brookfield and Elm Grove. 

According to data from the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, the current 5th Senate District went for former Vice President Kamala Harris by 6 percentage points and Sen. Tammy Baldwin by 5 percentage points. The three Assembly districts that make up the Senate District are split — represented by Vining, Rep. Angelito Tenorio (D-West Allis) and Rep. Adam Neylon (R-Pewaukee).

“We see this as like a 50-51-ish… race where we’re favored ever so slightly,” Vining told reporters. “I mean, that’s the challenge.”

Vining is not the first Democrat in the race. Sarah Harrison, a Brookfield small business owner who ran a failed campaign for the Assembly in 2024, launched her campaign for the seat last month.

The incumbent, Hutton, hasn’t said whether he will run for another term in office. 

Hutton was first elected to the seat in 2022. In the Senate, he currently serves as the chair of the Senate Universities and Technical Colleges Committee and vice-chair of the Senate Transportation and Local Government Committee and has introduced legislation related to transgender Wisconsinites, including banning transgender girls from sports teams that align with their gender and allowing for civil action against medical professionals who provide gender affirming care, and some criminal justice bills, including some related to parole revocation and Wisconsin’s John Doe law.

Prior to the Senate, Hutton served in the Assembly from 2012 to 2018 and on the Waukesha County Board of Supervisors from 2005 to 2012.

Vining said of Hutton that constituents are “frustrated because they don’t know where he stands” on many issues, adding that education funding should be one of the top priorities for lawmakers. 

“What’s the special ed reimbursement rate that he supports? What is it? He’s not going to tell you. There’s going to be issue after issue where you really don’t know where he stands because he’s not going to tell you. I’m going to tell you, I support a 90% special ed reimbursement [rate], I’m going to tell you where I stand on issues,” Vining said. 

Vining has some experience running in competitive races. She flipped Assembly District 14 in 2018, beating out Matt Adamczyk, a former Wisconsin State Treasurer, by slightly more than 130 votes — less than half of 1 percentage point. In her reelection campaign in 2020 with Republicans targeting the seat, Vining beat the Republican candidate by 8 percentage points. In 2024 with new legislative maps in place, Vining ousted one of her Republican colleagues with whom she shared the new district.

“I’ve been the same person in politics the whole time — fighting for families as if they’re my own, fighting for affordable health care. I’m fighting for the things that people care about. People care that you A) listen to them and B) act on it,” Vining said. “I want to continue being the person that hears that you want a 90% special ed reimbursement rate and write the bill to do it and when your EpiPen is too expensive, I’m going to write a bill to try to make that better.”

Showing up to talk to constituents helps win tough districts, Vining said. She has represented about two-thirds of the new Senate district and said she is excited to get out and meet voters in areas she is less familiar with. 

“We have events. We talk with people. We listen. We build relationships,” Vining said.

“Democrats want to take the majority, and we can now spend the next 16 months casting vision for what it would mean to Wisconsinites for us to be in the majority,” Vining said. “It’s our job to cast vision so that people can latch onto it.” 

Vining’s vision focuses on finding the best way to serve people. She listed a number of issues that would be her priority to work on if she were elected and Democrats won the majority, including boosting education funding, improving child care, finally passing postpartum Medicaid expansion and addressing gun violence. She also said she wants to finally pass some of the bills she has proposed over the years while in the Assembly minority, including mental health related measures and a bill that would mandate universal adult-sized changing stations in restrooms in public buildings and encourage businesses to install them as well to help ensure accessibility for those who need it. 

“What we do as representatives is we need to see what we’re missing, and then make sure that we’re talking about those things,” Vining said. In the Assembly, Vining currently serves on the Children and Families Committee, the Health, Aging and Long-Term Care Committee, the Mental Health and Substance Abuse Prevention committee and the Small Business Development Committee. 

Constituents brought the issue of universal changing stations to her attention, she says  — something that other states across the country, including Alabama, have taken action on. A voter named Sarah and her son Matthew, who is disabled, had trouble going to public events because he would have to be changed on the floor of restrooms, she said. 

“Sarah came into my first office hours in February of 2019, right after I was elected, with Matthew [her son]. I met them, then she told me about the problem,” Vining said. “We wrote the legislation. We introduced the legislation and I’ve introduced it every cycle since.” 

Vining said she plans to introduce the legislation again next week. 

“Getting the majority also means making Wisconsin more accessible,” Vining said.

The U.S. Capitol on July 2, 2025. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House cleared legislation just after midnight Friday that will cancel $9 billion in previously approved spending for public broadcasting and foreign aid, marking only the second time in more than three decades Congress has approved a presidential rescissions request.

The 216-213 mostly party-line vote sends the bill to President Donald Trump for his signature and notches another legislative victory for the White House, following passage earlier in July of a giant tax and spending cut package. Republican Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Mike Turner of Ohio voted against approval along with Democratic lawmakers.

The Senate voted to pass the bill earlier this week after removing the section that would have eliminated hundreds of millions of dollars for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR.

South Dakota Republican Sen. Mike Rounds also secured a handshake deal with the White House budget director to transfer $9.4 million from an undisclosed account within the Interior Department to Native American radio stations in rural areas.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting will lose $1.1 billion in funding that Congress had previously approved for the fiscal year slated to begin Oct. 1 and for the year after that.

The corporation provides funding for National Public Radio, the Public Broadcasting Service and hundreds of local stations throughout the country.

Another $8 billion of foreign aid will be eliminated once Trump signs the legislation.

The White House budget office’s original rescissions request included more than a dozen accounts for reduced spending, including those addressing global health and democracy programs.

The proposal called on lawmakers to cancel $500 million the U.S. Agency for International Development used for “activities related to child and maternal health, HIV/ AIDS, and infectious diseases.”

“This proposal would not reduce treatment but would eliminate programs that are antithetical to American interests and worsen the lives of women and children, like ‘family planning’ and ‘reproductive health,’ LGBTQI+ activities, and ‘equity’ programs,” the request states. “Enacting the rescission would reinstate focus on appropriate health and life spending. This best serves the American taxpayer.”

The final bill includes that spending cut but says the cancellation cannot affect HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, nutrition, or maternal and child health programs. It also says that “does not apply to family planning and reproductive health programs.”

The White House asked to eliminate $83 million from the State Department’s democracy fund, writing that “aligns with the Administration’s efforts to eliminate wasteful USAID foreign assistance programs and focus remaining funds on priorities that advance American interests. This best serves the American taxpayer.”

Lawmakers included that request in the bill, along with nearly all the others, without any caveats or additional guardrails.

Congress last approved a stand-alone rescissions bill in 1992 following a series of requests from President George H.W. Bush, according to a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

The first Trump administration sent Congress a rescission request in 2018 that passed the House, but didn’t receive Senate approval.

‘Wasteful spending’ or ‘stealing from the American people’?

House debate largely fell along party lines, with Republicans citing disagreements with how the Biden administration spent congressionally approved funding as the reason to claw back money that would have otherwise been doled out by the Trump administration.

North Carolina Republican Rep. Virginia Foxx said the $9 billion, spread across accounts that have existed for decades, was a prime example of “wasteful spending (that) overtook Washington during the Biden-Harris administration.”

“The American people saw the fiscal ruin that was created by the previous administration,” Foxx said. “That’s why they overwhelmingly chose Republicans to lead the nation and restore fiscal sanity. That restoration is here.”

The federal government spends about $6.8 trillion per year, with $4.1 trillion going to mandatory programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Another $1.8 trillion is spent on discretionary accounts, including for the departments of Agriculture, Defense, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Justice, Transportation and State. Nearly $900 billion goes toward net interest payments on the country’s debt.

Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, said during floor debate the bill represented the Trump administration “stealing from the American people.”

“This bill will shut down rural television and radio stations, cutting off coverage of local news; eliminating emergency information, like severe weather alerts; jeopardizing access to PBS Kids children’s programs, like Sesame Street,” DeLauro said.

The foreign aid spending reduction, she said, “rips life-saving support away from hungry, displaced and sick people in developing countries and conflict zones.”

DeLauro raised concerns that U.S. withdrawal as a source of support for people and nations that are struggling would leave space for non-democratic countries to increase their influence.

“When we retreat from the world, diplomatically and through our assistance to vulnerable people, America will be alone — without allies, in a less stable world, without the support of the international community,” DeLauro said. “And do you know who will come out ahead? China, Russia, Iran.”

Cindy Eastling, Isaiah Eastling, Robert “Bobby” Bintz and David Bintz (from left to right). Photo courtesy of Carla Broadnax of Jarrett Adams Law. 

David and Robert Bintz appeared at a hearing of the Wisconsin Claims Board last week, seeking compensation for decades spent behind bars before their release in September for a wrongful conviction. 

The brothers’ attorney and the Brown County District Attorney expressed different views on a confession made by David Bintz prior to conviction. 

The Bintz brothers spent more than two decades in prison for the murder of Sandra Lison. Robert Bintz is now 69 years old and David is 70, and the brothers have faced health problems and challenges reintegrating into society. In February, Adams’ law firm sent the Examiner their compensation requests, which sought over $2 million for each brother. 

“I missed all the simple things in life that makes life beautiful,” Robert Bintz said via a statement read by his lawyer, Jarrett Adams, at the hearing. 

In April, the Examiner reported on the Bintz brothers’ return from prison and the gap in support to help exonerees in Wisconsin re-enter society. 

“We don’t know if David will still have his housing the next day,” Jarrett Adams, an attorney representing the brothers, said at the hearing. “We don’t know if David will have resources for his medical needs and medication. We don’t know a lot of things…But what we do know is that David is in need right now.”

Wrongly convicted people in Wisconsin can attempt to obtain compensation through the state law, which caps payouts at $25,000 and $5,000 per year of imprisonment. The exception is when the state Legislature approves a higher amount, which is rare. The claims board can recommend that the Legislature issue more compensation. 

Wrongly convicted people can also try to obtain a payout through a lawsuit. The Examiner previously reported that Adams said the brothers might not have an opportunity to get compensation if the state does not award it.

“This may be their only shot,” Adams said at the hearing. 

Brothers’ attorney, DA view case differently 

The claims board has said that the Wisconsin statute does not provide money to someone who only establishes that their conviction was vacated. The board must find that there is clear and convincing evidence of innocence, not just that a conviction was overturned. 

The statute says that the board will decide an amount of compensation for a person if it finds the person is innocent and that they did not contribute to bring about their conviction through their act or failure to act. 

Adams argued that the brothers did not contribute to their convictions. He said David had a documented learning disability and was made to sit under questioning for hours until he signed a confession. 

Brown County District Attorney David Lasee said he didn’t think it was his role to take a position on whether the Bintz brothers should receive additional funds, but he disagreed with Adams’ portrayal of the confession, saying that concern was considered during the legal process.

“…They were not charged until 12 years after the death of Ms. Lison, and that was based on statements that were made by David,” Lasee said at the hearing. “And there’s a confession from David. There’s also statements that David made to other inmates in prison, which is what prompted the investigators to come back and interview him. So that didn’t happen in a vacuum. And again, I take issue with the notion of the statement being coerced…so the defense attorney for David litigated the motion of whether it was a coercive statement that should be suppressed, and the statement obviously was not suppressed, and we proceeded to trial.”

Lasee was asked about how it was determined that the statement was not coerced. He said it was litigated but he did not recall the specifics of the decision.  

The Brown County District Attorney’s Office prosecuted the Bintz brothers with a theory of robbery and murder. 

According to the National Registry of Exonerations, when David’s trial began, the prosecution’s theory changed from the way the case had been investigated at the outset. 

“It was no longer that Lison had been robbed, raped, and killed,” the registry says. “Now, the prosecution contended that the Bintz brothers went to the bar to rob it because they felt Lison had overcharged them for a case of beer and ended up killing her because she could recognize them.”

The registry says that “by the time David’s trial began in May 2000, DNA testing had excluded both brothers from the semen found in the rape kit. Blood found under Lison’s body was not their blood, according to testing.” 

According to the registry, during closing argument in Robert’s trial, the prosecution argued that it was “‘clear that this was not a sexual assault, and whoever the donor of those spermatozoa is, [he] was not involved in this murder.’”

In 2006, the Wisconsin Innocence Project obtained additional DNA testing that confirmed blood found on Lison’s dress came from the same male whose sperm was found in the rape kit, the registry says. A motion for a new trial based on the testing was denied. 

The registry also says that police interviewed 32 year-old David Bintz and his brother, as well as a friend, Vincent Andrus. 

“David reported that Robert and Andrus had gone to the bar from David’s house during the evening to buy a case of beer,” the registry says. “Lison had sold them four six-packs for $3.50 each. When Robert and Andrus got back to David’s home, David, who was intellectually disabled, became angry because he thought Lison should have charged them for the price of a case, which was cheaper. 

“He had called the bar at one point and chewed out Lison. Some would later say he threatened to come over and blow up the tavern.”

The exonerations registry says prisoners testified that David had made various admissions to the crime. 

The registry says that when detectives interviewed David, he eventually agreed to a statement admitting he and Robert were involved and that Robert had strangled Lison. David also said he was home at the time of the crime and was not involved. 

Lasee said that he would “unequivocally state that based on the evidence that exists right now, I do not believe that the state of Wisconsin would be able to prove their guilt at trial.” 

But he said that “we did not stipulate that there was clear and convincing evidence of their innocence, because that’s not what we do. That’s not the standard we operate under.” 

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.