Members of the public attend a hearing over Enbridge Line 5. (Photo courtesy of Devon Young Cupery)

An administrative law judge in Madison heard arguments Wednesday in a case contesting Wisconsin’s approval of Enbridge’s proposed Line 5 pipeline reroute. Members of the  public testified, followed by an expert witness in geology and hydrology, who questioned aspects of the reroute plan. 

The lawsuit, brought by Clean Wisconsin and Midwest Environmental Advocates (on behalf of the Sierra Club of Wisconsin, the League of Woman Voters of Wisconsin and 350 Wisconsin), challenges permits allowing the Canadian oil company to move forward with rerouting the Line 5 pipeline around the Bad River reservation in northern Wisconsin. Wednesday’s hearing followed the opening day of testimony in Ashland and was one of a series of hearings  scheduled through early October. The Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa is challenging Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources permits for a Line 5 reroute, which was designed to fix a legal problem with the existing pipeline after a federal court found that it trespasses on tribal land. Attorneys for the Band, environmental groups and Enbridge testified at the hearing. 

Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline has been a polarizing issue, with one side arguing that it’s crucial for energy independence and jobs in Wisconsin, while the other points to a history of leaky and ruptured Enbridge pipelines causing ecological damage, a national need to transition away from fossil fuels, and the company’s years-long trespass on the Bad River Band’s sovereign land. 

Public testimony Wednesday drew  people from both sides of the debate. “The loss of Line 5 would have devastating impacts on the propane industry,” said Connor Kaeb, an associate manager with GROWMARK, which Kaeb said is Wisconsin’s fifth largest provider of propane. Kaeb stressed that farmers and northern Wisconsin communities depend on affordable and easily accessible propane. Shutting down Line 5 could cause “immense strain on the entire propane system in the region,” he said. 

Tabitha Faber, who spoke against the pipeline, said that the reroute would cross more than 100 waterways, and that even though it avoids the Bad River Band’s reservation, that the pipeline remains in the Bad River watershed, continuing to endanger the Band’s natural resources. Faber recalled visiting sites along the reroute path and seeing bald eagles and wood turtle  habitats. Faber also said that the pipeline’s construction and operation could wash invasive species into new and sensitive habitats, including within the Bad River reservation. Steve Boas, a Madison resident, also spoke against the project, calling the more than 70-year-old pipeline “an accident waiting to happen.” 

The American Petroleum Institute called the relocation project “essential to maintaining Wisconsin’s energy reliability.” The Institute claimed that rerouting Line 5 will create more than 700 jobs, adding that the pipeline has heated homes and businesses, aided agriculture and enabled transportation for decades “without any issue.” In contrast, Third Act Wisconsin — a group of older Americans concerned about climate and democracy — echoed concerns that Line 5 would threaten high-quality wetlands, the Bad River watershed as a whole and even Lake Superior.

Access to clean water is a crucial asset for Wisconsin, environmental groups testified. Tourism generates $378 million in Bayfield, Ashland, Douglas, and Iron counties, while also supporting 2,846 jobs, all in the area near Line 5, according to Clean Wisconsin. 

“For decades, the Bad River Band has been sounding the alarm about the unprecedented risks posed by Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline,” Ellen Ferwerda, who leads Third Act Wisconsin’s work on Line 5, said in a statement. Despite “a myriad of scientists, economists, environmental groups, and citizens” who’ve spoken out against the pipeline, “the DNR summarily dismissed these concerns and issued a permit allowing Enbridge to begin construction of a reroute around the Bad River Reservation.” 

“It feels like the Bad River Band is being punished for standing up for their legal right to protect the watershed their culture and livelihood has relied on for centuries,” she added. Julia Issacs, co-facilitator of Third Act Wisconsin, said in a statement that “we should be decommissioning old and dangerous pipelines, not investing in new fossil fuel infrastructure.” 

Most of Wednesday’s hearing was dedicated to grilling William Joseph Bonin, a licensed senior geologist with Midwest Geological Consultants. He produced a report in May 2025 that pushed back on assessments made by experts from the DNR and Enbridge. 

Bonin raised a multitude of concerns, particularly around how construction of the pipeline could affect springs, aquifers and groundwater. He pointed to the presence of glacial sediments, which make it difficult to predict how water flow could be affected. Bonin recalled one 2018 project in Minnesota, where a gas pipeline was installed along a roadway near adjacent springs. The springs disappeared, and then other springs showed up in a parking lot on a private property, he said. Springs and aquifers that help feed nearby wetlands and other adjacent habitats could be affected by pipeline construction, he testified, and cutting trenches to construct the pipeline could also lead to increased erosion.

Bonin said the risk of aquifer breaches is higher than what had been assessed, and questioned how the presence of already fractured rock layers could be altered by the use of blasting in constructing the reroute. He also pointed to the possibility of “thermal impacts” to waterways, including high-quality trout streams which are sensitive to temperature changes. “Blasting is going to have a larger impact than the expert reports discussed and the reason for that is the already fractured bedrock was not taken into consideration in the reports,” Bonin said. “The effects of blasts, especially on fracture networks, may be permanent,” he added.  “The basted rock is never going to be restored.” This, in turn, could have a ripple effect on how water moves and behaves in the ground around the pipeline reroute, he testified. 

Attorneys representing the DNR and Enbridge took turns cross-examining Bonin. They discussed knowledge gaps Bonin had regarding the wetland aspects of the permits, and argued that methods like blasting and trenching are very common construction practices for all sorts of projects from pipelines to roads.  Enbridge’s attorney pointed out that, while  Bonin has reviewed and analyzed the effects of blasting, Bonin himself has not worked in the field. 

Another hearing in Madison is scheduled for Friday, Sept. 12, at the Hill Farms State Office Building. On Sept. 15 and 19, there will be  hearings in Ashland at the Northwood Technical College Conference Center, followed by more hearings in Madison on Sept. 22, Sept. 26, Sept. 29 and Oct. 3. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A health care worker fills a syringe with the MMR vaccine at a vaccine clinic in Texas in March. Florida announced plans to end all state vaccine mandates, while three Western states — California, Oregon and Washington — are forming an alliance to issue their own vaccine guidelines amid federal upheaval. (Photo by Jan Sonnenmair/Getty Images)

The Democratic governors of California, Oregon and Washington said Wednesday they are forming an alliance to coordinate vaccine recommendations for their states.

Meanwhile, Florida announced plans to become the first state to phase out all vaccine mandates, including ending requirements that kids be vaccinated against dangerous diseases before enrolling in schools.

Public health experts have relied on vaccines, including school mandates, for decades to limit the spread of communicable diseases and keep kids and adults safe.

The contrasting moves come amid turmoil at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where several top leaders resigned last week to protest efforts by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a vaccine skeptic, to dismiss CDC Director Susan Monarez for pushing back against Kennedy’s vaccine policies.

Accompanied by Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, state Surgeon General Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo said at a news conference Wednesday that vaccine mandates are “wrong” and “immoral,” the Florida Phoenix reported.

“Your body is a gift from God. What you put into your body is because of your relationship with your body and your God,” Ladapo said.

“They do not have the right to tell you what you put in your body. They don’t have the right to tell you what your kids have to put in [their] body. They do not have the right. Do not give it to them. Take it away from them. And we’re going to be starting that here in Florida.”

The Florida Department of Health can eliminate some vaccine mandates on its own, Ladapo said, but the Florida legislature would have to scrap other ones. He did not mention specific vaccines, but repeated that his goal was to end “all of them. Every last one of them.”

“Every last one of them is wrong and drips with disdain and slavery,” Ladapo said.

The goal of the new West Coast Health Alliance, governors said, is to disseminate evidence-based recommendations about who should get immunized, as well as to provide vaccine education throughout the three states. In the coming weeks, the states will coordinate and finalize immunization guidelines that are in line with leading medical organizations.

In their announcements, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek and Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson criticized recent Trump administration actions, including the firing of scientists and the upheaval at the CDC.

“When federal agencies abandon evidence-based recommendations in favor of ideology, we cannot continue down that same path,” Washington Secretary of Health Dennis Worsham said in a statement.

Worsham added that “public health at its core is about prevention — preventing illness, preventing the spread of disease, and preventing early, avoidable deaths.”

Last week, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration restricted access to updated COVID-19 shots. In June, Kennedy ousted all 17 members of the vaccine advisory committee at the CDC, replacing them with some members who are vaccine skeptics. Many states rely on the committee to form vaccination guidelines.

And in May, Kennedy rescinded recommendations for children and pregnant women to get vaccinated against COVID-19 — sidestepping the usual process for issuing official recommendations.

The three Western states said the “dismantling” of the CDC has created “a vacuum of clear, evidence-based vaccine guidance,” hampering health care providers, disrupting manufacturers’ production plans and creating uncertainty for families.

In 2020, at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the three states, along with Nevada, created a similar workgroup that emphasized the scientific rigor behind the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine in an effort to boost confidence in the shot.

“President Donald Trump’s mass firing of CDC doctors and scientists — and his blatant politicization of the agency — is a direct assault on the health and safety of the American people,” the joint statement from the three governors’ offices said.

“The CDC has become a political tool that increasingly peddles ideology instead of science, ideology that will lead to severe health consequences. California, Oregon, and Washington will not allow the people of our states to be put at risk.”

Stateline reporter Nada Hassanein can be reached at nhassanein@stateline.org.

Women who say they were abused by disgraced financier and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein raise their hands as attorney Bradley Edwards speaks at a news conference outside the U.S. Capitol on Sept. 3, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — As survivors of abuse inflicted by the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein pleaded on Capitol Hill Wednesday for the release of investigative files, Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie accused House GOP leaders of using “the oldest trick in the swamp” to avoid the issue.

An unusually large crowd gathered outside the U.S. House to hear from the women, who described emotional manipulation and physical coercion, beginning as early as age 14 in some cases, at the hands of Epstein and convicted co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell. 

The speakers included family of the late Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who pursued charges against Maxwell and died earlier this year by suicide.

In speech after speech, the victims urged Congress and President Donald Trump to make public what federal authorities uncovered about the reach of Epstein’s abuse, and specifically voiced support for Massie’s bipartisan effort that would bypass House leadership and force the release of volumes of records.

“Congress must choose — will you continue to protect predators, or will you finally protect survivors?” said Lisa Phillips, who was victimized by Epstein on his private Caribbean island and now hosts a podcast about healing after abuse. 

The government’s investigation into Epstein’s widespread sexual abuse has dogged and splintered House Republicans since July, when Trump’s administration declared it would not share any further information on the powerful and well-connected financier. Epstein died in 2019 in a Manhattan jail cell while awaiting trial on federal charges of sex trafficking minors. 

Epstein surrounded himself with celebrities and politicians, including Trump and former President Bill Clinton. 

Trump campaigned on releasing what he and many describe as the “Epstein files,” and for years many of his supporters, including some now in his administration, fixated on conspiracy theories about the scandal.

Discharge petition roils House

“There are real victims to this criminal enterprise, and the perpetrators are being protected because they’re rich and powerful and political donors to the establishment here in Washington, D.C. So today, we’re standing with these survivors,” Massie said at the outdoors press conference.

Massie and House Democrat Ro Khanna of California need just two more Republican signatures on a discharge petition that would trigger the release of the Epstein case file, leapfrogging House leadership.

House Speaker Mike Johnson instead urged his party Wednesday to support a symbolic measure approving an already ongoing GOP-led committee probe.

Khanna, and GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, welcomed the victims to Capitol Hill alongside Massie.

“This is the most important fight we can wage here in Congress, fighting for innocent people that never received justice, and the women behind me have never received justice. And do you want to know why? It’s because Jeffrey Epstein somehow was able to walk among the most rich, powerful people,” Greene said.

Republican Reps. Lauren Boebert of Colorado and Nancy Mace of South Carolina joined Massie and Greene in signing the petition. All Democrats in the House, which has a 219-212 split, are expected to sign.

Lured by Epstein 

With the U.S. Capitol as their backdrop, numerous women shared stories of being lured, some at just 14 years old, by money and opportunities Epstein offered to them.

Annie Farmer said she was 16 when she and her sister were flown to New Mexico to spend a weekend with Epstein and Maxwell, where she said they were assaulted and photographed. Her sister reported their sexual abuse to authorities later that year.

“I am now 46 years old. Thirty years later, we still do not know why that report wasn’t properly investigated, or why Epstein and his associates were allowed to harm hundreds, if not thousands, of other girls and young women. 

“We have never been told whether those images were found when they discovered a large amount of child sexual abuse material on his property,” said Farmer, who testified publicly in both cases against Epstein and Maxwell.

Farmer said for many years it felt like Epstein’s abusive behavior was “an open secret” and that his network of powerful friends “chose to look the other way because it benefited them.” 

Farmer called for a thorough public review of the government’s findings in the Epstein case.

“At a time with record-high levels of distrust in our institutions and a perception that there are two Americas — one for those with power and privilege and one for everyone else — passing this Epstein transparency bill is one important step that can be taken to prove to Americans that the government does not side with sexual perpetrators,” she said.

Jena-Lisa Jones told the large crowd that Epstein began abusing her when she was 14.

“I know that I was just a little kid, but sometimes I still feel like it is my fault that this happened,” she said.

“If you’re a member of Congress and you’re listening to all of us speak here today, please really listen to us. Please vote for this bill to be passed. Please recognize how important it is for transparency relating to Jeffrey Epstein. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, this does not matter.”

Jones then directly appealed to Trump: “Please, President Trump, pass this bill and help us. Make us feel like our voices are finally being heard.” 

Trump rebuffs reports on Epstein relationship

Trump’s past relationship with Epstein has been under a microscope since July. The president sued the Wall Street Journal for reporting on a 50th birthday card Trump gave to Epstein. The card allegedly featured a cryptic message and a doodle of a naked woman with Trump’s signature mimicking pubic hair. 

The Journal also reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi briefed the president in May that his name appeared in the Epstein case files. The context in which his name appeared is unclear. 

Trump has denied the reports.

Trump dismissed questions about releasing the Epstein case files when asked by reporters in the Oval Office Wednesday afternoon.

“This is a Democrat hoax that never ends,” Trump said while sitting alongside Poland’s President Karol Nawrocki during their previously planned meeting.

“What they’re trying to do with the Epstein hoax is getting people to talk about that instead of speaking about the tremendous success like ending seven wars. I ended seven wars, nobody’s going to talk about (that) because they’re going to talk about the Epstein whatever,” Trump continued. Trump did not detail specifically which wars.

“I understand that we were subpoenaed to give files, and I understand we’ve given thousands of pages of files, and I know that no matter what you do, it’s going to keep going.”

The GOP-led House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released roughly 33,000 pages Tuesday night related to the government’s Epstein investigation. But the collection was quickly dismissed by many observers as duplicates and items that were already public.

“I appreciate the efforts of my colleague, James Comer, who’s leading the Oversight Committee,” Massie said of his fellow Kentucky lawmaker. “They may find some information, but they’re allowing the (Department of Justice) to curate all of the information that the DOJ is giving them. If you’ve looked at the pages they’ve released so far, they’re heavily redacted. Some pages are entirely redacted, and 97% of this is already in the public domain.” 

Subpoenas issued

Comer’s committee has also subpoenaed testimony from Clinton, as well as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and numerous former Department of Justice officials, from both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Massie told reporters Wednesday that Speaker Johnson urged colleagues not to support the Kentucky Republican’s discharge petition and instead vote for a procedural rule to support the Oversight Committee’s investigation. A committee investigation, however, does not require a floor vote to proceed.

“My message to my colleagues was, ‘Don’t set yourself up.’ Yes, the speaker’s resolution will give you temporary political cover, but there are millions of people watching this,” Massie said.

Members of the House Oversight Committee met with several Epstein victims Tuesday.

Johnson, of Louisiana, said Massie and Khanna’s petition is “moot and unnecessary.”

“The Oversight Committee’s investigation is already ongoing. They’re already producing and putting out there the documents that are covered, the White House is in full compliance. The administration is willfully complying with the subpoenas because they want maximum transparency as well. I talked to the president himself last night, so this is going to be an ongoing effort.”

Jennifer Shutt and Shauneen Miranda contributed to this report.

Federal agents patrol the halls of immigration court at the Jacob K. Javitz Federal Building in July in New York City. Despite a show of force on immigration raids in cities, arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement dropped in August and remain well below the Trump administration’s daily target of 3,000. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Despite the assistance of armed troops in U.S. cities, federal immigration officials recorded fewer daily arrests in August than in July and remain well short of a Trump administration plan for 3,000 arrests a day, according to a new report.

As of Aug. 29, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrests averaged 1,055 a day for the month, down 14% from 1,124 a day in July, according to data obtained by Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University. The organization tracks federal immigration data.

“President Trump’s orders recently assigning substantial personnel from the national guard and the U.S. military to target Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. may have been counter-productive in failing to increase total arrests countrywide,” said Susan B. Long, co-founder of TRAC and a professor in the Whitman School of Management, in an e-mail statement.

In a Tuesday decision a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration’s deployment of Marines and National Guard units to Southern California, where they assisted with immigration and other arrests, was illegal.

In May, Stephen Miller, a White House deputy chief of staff, told Fox News that the administration was “looking to set a goal of a minimum of 3,000 arrests for ICE every day and President Trump is going to keep pushing to get that number up higher.”

ICE did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced it would give more financial incentives to state and local police to cooperate with ICE, including reimbursement for salary and benefits for officers trained in the 287(g) program to assist ICE in making arrests, and “performance awards” for “successful location of illegal aliens.”

“By joining forces with ICE, you’re not just gaining access to these unprecedented reimbursement opportunities — you’re becoming part of a national effort to ensure the safety of every American family,” ICE Deputy Director Madison Sheahan said in a statement.

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

Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo and his boss, Gov. Ron DeSantis, want to eliminate all vaccine mandates from Florida law as well as rules and regulations. (Stock photo by Getty Images)

School children, college students, and even nursing home residents would no longer have to be vaccinated against infectious diseases and viruses if Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo and his boss, Gov. Ron DeSantis, have their way.

The DeSantis administration rolled out the proposed change on Wednesday and, if they’re successful, the state would be the first in the nation to completely eliminate vaccine requirements that many health experts credit with nearly eliminating some diseases.

“Your body is a gift from God. What you put into your body is because of your relationship with your body and your God,” said Ladapo, attacking the government mandates.

“It’s wrong, it’s immoral. They do not have the right to tell you what you put in your body. They don’t have the right to tell you what your kids have to put in [their] body. They do not have the right. Do not give it to them. Take it away from them. And we’re going to be starting that here in Florida.”

’Choose a side’

Neither Ladapo nor DeSantis discussed with legislative leadership their intent in the 2026 legislative session to push to eliminate vaccine mandates from the books before making the announcement.

The surgeon general praised the Legislature and went so far as saying he “loves our lawmakers.” But Ladapo issued an ultimatum.

“They’re going to have to make decisions, right? That’s the way that this becomes possible. So, people are going to have to make a decision. People are going to have to, have to choose a side. And I am telling you right now that you know the moral side is, it’s so simple.”

Patients would remain free to take shots if they like.

Democratic officials quickly blasted the announcement, deeming it a “reckless” decision that could lead to a drop in those immunized in the state. Florida has already seen its immunization rate for school-aged children tick down in recent years, although more than three-quarters of school children have received shots.

“This is ridiculous. Florida already has broad medical and religious exemptions for childhood vaccines, so any family that has a sincere opposition to vaccination can opt-out. Removing the mandate wholesale is dangerous, anti-science, and anti-child. Nobody wants to go back to the days of iron lungs,” Senate Democratic leader Sen. Lori Berman, from Boynton Beach, said in a statement.

“Republicans have gone from entertaining anti-science conspiracy theories to fully endorsing an anti-science health policy. As a member of the Senate Health Policy Committee, I’ll be doing everything in my power to protect our kids from these reckless attempts to harm them.”

Sen. Shevrin Jones, a Democrat from Miami Gardens, also criticized the announcement.

“Ending vaccine mandates poses a grave public health risk and will likely lead to a resurgence of preventable diseases. This reckless move jeopardizes the health and lives of countless Floridians — from children to seniors — especially those too young to be vaccinated or those with compromised immune systems. The DeSantis administration is actively undermining public health, making communities more vulnerable to outbreaks and increasing the burden on healthcare systems.”

Public Citizen’s Health Research Group Director Robert Steinbrook said ending all vaccine mandates is a “recipe for disaster” and goes in the wrong direction. He urged the Legislature to stand against the DeSantis administration.

“High immunization rates against dangerous infectious diseases such as measles and polio protect individuals as well as their communities. If this plan moves forward, Florida will terminate one of the most effective means of limiting the spread of infectious diseases and embolden U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to wreak even more havoc on vaccinations nationally. The Florida Legislature and state residents must vociferously reject these plans,” Steinbrook said in a prepared statement.

Current requirements

Florida law contains a number of immunization requirements for the young and the old.

Immunization for poliomyelitis, diphtheria, rubeola, rubella, pertussis, mumps, and tetanus are required for entry and attendance in Florida schools, childcare facilities, and family daycare homes. The state allows exemptions for valid medical reasons but also for religious and certain belief systems and, in some cases, allows personal exemptions for philosophical beliefs.

Florida law also requires school districts to develop and disseminate parent guides that include information about the importance of student health and available immunizations and vaccinations, including, but not limited to, recommended immunization schedules in accordance with federal recommendations.

The school guide must include detailed information regarding the causes, symptoms, and transmission of meningococcal disease and the availability, effectiveness, known contraindications, and appropriate age for the administration of any required or recommended vaccine against that infection.

The Florida Education Association issued a statement warning that changing the rules would endanger students and faculty.

“When leaders talk about pulling back vaccines, they’re talking about disrupting student learning and making schools less safe. State leaders say they care about reducing chronic absenteeism and keeping kids in school — but reducing vaccinations does the opposite, putting our children’s health and education at risk,” the union said.

“We’re reviewing the potential impacts on public schools and our communities. But, make no mistake, FEA will continue to stand up for our students, our educators, and our public schools.”

College students who reside in on-campus housing must provide documentation of vaccinations against meningococcal meningitis and hepatitis B. Again, the law contains exemptions and students who refuse the vaccines are required to sign waivers.

Nursing homes are required to assess residents within five business days post admission of eligibility for pneumococcal vaccinations or revaccinations. If indicated, the resident must be be vaccinated or revaccinated within 60 days after admission, in accordance with the recommendations of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, subject to exemptions for medical contraindications and religious or personal beliefs.

Immunization may not be provided to a resident who provides documentation that he or she has been immunized. A resident may elect to receive the immunization from his or her personal physician and, if so, the resident needs to provide proof of the immunization to the facility. The agency may adopt and enforce any rules necessary to comply.

2025 efforts fall short

The 2026 legislative session begins in January, which is when the DeSantis administration will work with the Legislature in hopes of accomplishing its goal. But the Department of Health will also revise rules for a handful of vaccines that are mandated in rule but not in statue.

A substantially scaled-back effort to address vaccine mandates fell short during the 2025 session.

The DOH this spring championed a broad bill (HB 1299) continuing a law initially passed in 2021 that banned businesses, government entities, and education institutions from denying people entry or service based on vaccination status or requiring people to wear masks. HB 1299 extended the ban permanently.

The bill expanded the Patient’s Bill of Rights and Responsibilities statutes to prohibit providers and facilities from denying admission, care, or services to a patient based solely on vaccination status.

Although the House agreed to the language, passing HB 1299 by a near-unanimous vote, state Sen. Gayle Harrell, a Republican from Stuart whose late husband was a physician, warned that the requirement would open doctors to increased liability. Sen. Jason Pizzo, a Hollywood lawmaker with no party affiliation, said the mandate to treat patients would have contradicted a law DeSantis championed that guarantees Florida physicians legal protections to not treat patients on the basis of their conscience.

The Senate deleted the language before passing the proposal and the House ultimately agreed to the Senate’s version.

Ladapo the lightning rod

Ladapo is a well known vaccine skeptic. He emphasized parents’ rights to send their kids to school unvaccinated in spring after a measles case in a Miami-Dade County high school. He altered a DOH COVID-19 vaccine study to exaggerate the risks of cardiac death for young men

His positions on vaccinations aren’t the only reason he’s become a public health lightning rod.

The DOH last month announced 21 cases of Campylobacter and E. coli infections tied to raw milk consumption in the central and northeast portions of the state, and said that seven people had been hospitalized. Six of the cases were reported in children under age 10. Nevertheless, Ladapo didn’t warn against consuming raw milk.

Two days later, Florida Agriculture Commissioner Wilton Simpson issued a statement encouraging residents to stick to pasteurized milk.

And in 2021, Ladapo made national headlines when he refused to don a mask during a meeting with state Sen. Tina Polsky, who was being treated for cancer and requested that he wear one. At the time, Ladapo was up for Senate confirmation.

Polsky, a Democrat from Boca Raton, lambasted Ladapo’s announcement Wednesday.

“Vaccines are crucial for our children because they protect them from deadly diseases and keep entire communities safe through herd immunity,” she said in a written statement.

Diseases, including polio, that once destroyed our children’s health and futures, will have the chance to return under this dangerous policy change. I voted against Dr. Ladapo’s confirmation in 2023 because he has a habit of misrepresenting science and making decisions that affect the health of Floridians. He remains determined to prioritize political dogma over smart health decisions.”

Florida Make America Healthy Again Commission

Ladapo’s announcement dovetails with DeSantis’ news that he has created a Florida Make America Healthy Again Commission that will recommend the integration of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again effort. The Florida Commission will be co-chaired by  first lady Casey DeSantis and Lt. Gov. Jay Collins.

Meanwhile, at the end of August, the Food and Drug Administration approved updated vaccines for COVID-19. While previous versions of the vaccine were recommended to individuals 6 months of age and older, access to the FDA’s newly approved vaccines is limited to individuals 65 and older and individuals between the age of 5 and 64 with an underlying condition placing them at high risk for severe COVID-19.

Florida Phoenix reporter Jay Waagmeester contributed to this report.

This story has been updated with reaction from lawmakers, the Florida Education Association, and the Public Citizen’s Health Research Group.

A courtroom and a judge's gavel. (Getty Images creative)

The Milwaukee County judge accused of helping a man evade arrest by federal immigration authorities this spring is set to go to trial in December. 

Judge Hannah Dugan, who has been charged with federal felony and misdemeanor counts, said on Wednesday she would not appeal a U.S. District Court judge’s decision not to dismiss the case against her — though she reserved the right to appeal later. On Wednesday, federal Judge Lynn Adelman scheduled Dugan’s trial to begin Dec. 15. 

Dugan’s case has become a national example of the Trump administration’s effort to crack down on officials in other branches of government at the local, state and federal levels who are perceived as working against Trump’s aggressive immigration policies. Her April arrest drew widespread condemnation as a threat to judicial independence and criticism of federal Department of Justice officials for publicizing the case before she was even indicted. 

The case stems from what federal prosecutors allege was a deliberate attempt to conceal Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a 30-year-old Mexican immigrant, from federal authorities. Flores-Ruiz was in Dugan’s courtroom for an appearance in a misdemeanor battery case against him when federal agents arrived with an administrative warrant — which only allowed the agents to operate in the public areas of the Milwaukee County courthouse, not within Dugan’s courtroom. 

Dugan directed Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out a side door of the courtroom, which led them to the same hallway where the agents were standing but not directly past them. An agent rode down in the elevator with Flores-Ruiz and he was later arrested on the street.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks alongside President Donald Trump at a news conference on May 12. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Public health and access to lifesaving vaccines are on the line in a high-stakes leadership battle at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s push to fire CDC director Susan Monarez is more than an administrative shake-up. The firing marks a major offensive by Kennedy to seize control of the agency and impose an anti-vaccine, anti-science agenda that will have profound effects on the lives and health of all Americans, public health leaders say.

Kennedy wants to see the Pfizer and Moderna messenger RNA-based covid-19 vaccines pulled from the market, according to two people familiar with the planning who asked not to be identified because they’re not authorized to speak to the press. He’s also set his sights on restricting or halting access to some pediatric immunizations, some public health leaders say.

His actions have already reduced federal help to states, creating the potential for more infectious disease outbreaks and incidences of foodborne illness. Some public health leaders say they expect Kennedy will use the CDC to publicize health information that isn’t grounded in science.

“It’s crazy season,” said Richard Besser, former acting CDC director during the Obama administration. “People want information they can trust to make critical decisions about their health. Until now, we’ve been able to say look at the CDC. Unfortunately, we’re not able to do that anymore.”

HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard disputed the criticism.

“Secretary Kennedy remains firmly committed to delivering on President Trump’s promise to Make America Healthy Again, dismantling the failed status quo that fueled a nationwide chronic disease epidemic and eroded public trust in our public health institutions,” Hilliard said in a statement.

White House spokesperson Kush Desai said Kennedy and Commissioner of Food and Drugs Marty Makary have reiterated that covid shots will remain available for Americans who need and want them.

“The Trump administration is restoring Gold Standard Science as the sole guiding principle of health decision-making,” Desai said in an email. “Only the Fake News could ignore these facts to continue pushing Democrat talking points and hysteria.”

Behind the ouster

The shake-up began last week, when Kennedy sought to fire Monarez, a microbiologist who’d just been confirmed by the Senate in July. She refused to leave the position, and her lawyers said Kennedy sought to oust her because she wouldn’t fire senior staff or follow unscientific directives. Four top career officials at the CDC resigned on Aug. 27 in protest.

Career staffers at the CDC and some public health groups had hoped President Donald Trump would intervene and put the brakes on Kennedy. Instead, the White House backed Kennedy, saying Monarez was fired.

Trump on Sept. 1 demanded that drug companies show that covid vaccines work, in a further sign he’s not set on defending the shots.

“I hope OPERATION WARP SPEED was as ‘BRILLIANT’ as many say it was. If not, we all want to know about it, and why???” Trump said on Truth Social.

Operation Warp Speed was the initiative that Trump himself announced in 2020 to accelerate the development of covid vaccines, including the Pfizer and Moderna shots. The vaccines have proved safe and effective in multiple clinical trials; a study published in JAMA Health Forum estimated that they saved about 2.5 million lives worldwide.

CDC staffers are worried the agency’s next director won’t fight for science, according to an employee who asked not to be identified for fear of professional retaliation.

Trump’s support for Monarez’s ouster was a watershed moment that signaled there are no checks on Kennedy and his agenda, public health advocates say. Leading congressional Democrats such as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called for Kennedy’s firing. Hundreds of HHS staffers have also implored Congress to intervene, saying Kennedy threatens science and public health. He is slated to testify Sept. 4 before the Senate Finance Committee.

Kennedy said in a message to CDC staff that his focus is on boosting the agency’s reputation and leadership. The Atlanta-based agency was already reeling after the Trump administration pushed out thousands of its staff and a gunman who reportedly believed the covid vaccine had caused him health problems fired hundreds of rounds at its campus last month, killing a police officer.

“The CDC must once again be the world’s leader in communicable disease prevention. Together, we will restore trust,” Kennedy wrote. “Together, we will rebuild this institution into what it was always meant to be: a guardian of America’s health and security.” He said his deputy, Jim O’Neill, would serve as acting CDC director.

Nine former CDC directors or acting directors who served under both Republicans and Democrats criticized Kennedy in the aftermath of the Monarez firing, saying in an op-ed in The New York Times that the impact on public health is “unacceptable, and it should alarm every American, regardless of political leanings.”

HHS spokesperson Hilliard took exception with this point, listing four covid vaccines that continue to get the nod for use.

However, the Food and Drug Administration last

week approved updated covid mRNA boosters only for people 65 or older and others at high risk of complications. The CDC has also stopped recommending the shots for healthy children and pregnant women. Previously, the shots had been advised for anyone 6 months or older.

As a result, many people who don’t meet the criteria but want the vaccine will have to get prescriptions or consult with their doctors. Insurance may not always cover the shots, which can run around $200. Major drugstores such as Walgreens and CVS have said the shots may not be available at all pharmacies and may require a prescription.

The American Academy of Pediatrics on Aug. 19 broke with the administration, recommending that all young children get the covid vaccine. Insurance still may not cover the cost in some cases and parents could face obstacles in getting the vaccines without a prescription.

Next move: The advisory committee

Kennedy and his team changed official covid vaccine recommendations even though there have been no new safety issues. A dose of the 2023-24 covid mRNA vaccine prevented significant illness and death across all age groups, according to a study published in August led by a University of Michigan researcher. The virus killed about 1,000 people a week in the U.S. in mid-January, and cases are rising again and expected to accelerate this winter.

Kennedy has handpicked a vaccine advisory committee for the CDC that is reviewing mRNA-based covid vaccines, which he falsely claimed in 2021 were “the deadliest vaccine ever made.” The covid vaccine review is being led by Retsef Levi, a professor of operations management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has said without evidence that the shots cause serious harm, including death. If the committee recommends against them, Kennedy and the FDA could then begin the process of removing them from the market.

Taking mRNA-based covid shots off the market would leave consumers with fewer options for protection. Paxlovid, an antiviral medication that treats the infection in high-risk adults, would be available.

The CDC advisory committee reviewing the covid shots is also probing a long-debunked link between aluminum, used in many childhood immunizations such as those for hepatitis A and pneumonia, and autism or allergies.

The group’s findings are expected to support the erroneous link, some public health officials say. HHS could then require drugmakers to undertake costly reformulations of the shots or stop manufacturing them altogether.

“That would set up the elimination of all childhood vaccines,” Besser said.

The advisory group’s next meeting is set for Sept. 18, although Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) has called for the meeting to be indefinitely delayed. Cassidy, a physician who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, voted for Kennedy’s confirmation as HHS secretary after receiving assurances, he said, that the longtime vaccine opponent wouldn’t disrupt the U.S. vaccination system. Kennedy’s promises, Cassidy said, included that he wouldn’t change the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

Kennedy removed all of the panel’s members in June and replaced them with his own appointees, including anti-vaccine activists.

Kennedy’s move to put his stamp on the CDC means states that have long relied on the agency’s expertise and help in crises such as disease outbreaks will largely be left to fend for themselves, said Ashish Jha, who served as President Joe Biden’s covid response coordinator from 2022 to 2023.

“States are going to be left on their own,” Jha said. “States will struggle with the CDC incapable and dysfunctional. Our system is not designed for states to go it alone.”

The CDC typically plays a critical role by assisting states with disease surveillance, public health interventions, and outbreak response, especially when a crisis spills across state lines. An outbreak of measles this year led to more than 1,400 cases nationwide, and states including Texas, where the outbreak was identified, struggled to get help from the CDC.

A CDC program that has long tracked pathogens in food has already reduced the number of hazards it looks for from eight to two, which public health leaders say is making it harder to identify outbreaks. Staff overseeing a CDC program that tracks outdoor pollution that can exacerbate asthma also have been cut.

The agency runs a hotline that doctors around the country can call to get treatment and other types of advice. Under Kennedy’s watch, the CDC has had to pare assistance because of staffing reductions, said Wendy Armstrong, vice president at the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

“Lives are 100% at stake, no question about it,” Armstrong said. “That you can no longer trust the recommendations out of the CDC is just devastating. It’s appalling to think we can’t trust that information is science-based anymore.”

Kennedy wants to shake up CDC leadership because he sees the agency as the heart of corruption and resistance within the federal health bureaucracy, according to people familiar with his planning. Kennedy has said the agency suffers from malaise and bias.

Many public health leaders, however, view the CDC as under siege by an administration they say is corrupting science for its own ends. HHS staffers signed onto a letter that now has more than 6,800 signatures, saying Kennedy is “endangering the nation’s health by repeatedly spreading inaccurate health information.”

Kennedy has also been fending off mounting criticism of his response to the shooting at the CDC’s headquarters. He responded to the attack on social media, hours later, after first posting pictures of himself fly-fishing.

Some younger staffers are considering leaving and some workers feel like the shooting accelerated Kennedy’s overhaul of the agency, the CDC employee said.

With the battle for control of the CDC still raging, public health leaders are now looking to Congress to put the brakes on Kennedy. Some Republican lawmakers have called for a review of Kennedy’s actions.

“These high profile departures will require oversight by the HELP Committee,” Cassidy said Aug. 27 on the social platform X. Cassidy had backed Monarez to lead the agency.

Renuka Rayasam, KFF Health News senior correspondent, and Andy Miller contributed to this article.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) said Wednesday that the Evers administration is “drunk with power” and is upending a process “that has literally worked for generations.” Vos speaks to reporters in Jan. 2024. (Baylor Spears | Wisconsin Examiner)

The Joint Committee on Employment Relations unanimously approved pay raises for state and University of Wisconsin employees Wednesday morning, but not without criticism from the top Assembly Republican of Gov. Tony Evers’ decision to implement them ahead of the committee. 

The budget — passed by the Republican-led Legislature and signed by Evers in early July — included a 3% pay increase in the first year of the budget and a 2% increase in the second year. Evers, seeking to get the pay raises to employees as soon as possible, instructed the Department of Administration (DOA) to implement the raises without getting the additional go-ahead from the committee in mid-August. 

DOA Deputy Secretary Anne Hanson told the committee that the raises should be reflected in paychecks starting this week.

“When the Wisconsin Supreme Court clarified that the state separation of power doctrine in Evers v. Marklein last year, it became clear that the implementation of raises established and funded by the state budget legislation would no longer necessitate separate approval by a legislative committee under the direction of Gov. Evers,” Hanson said. “DOA staff worked quickly to carry out the law.”

The Evers v. Marklein case centered on the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship program and projects being blocked by the Joint Finance Committee. The Court found 6-1 that it was unconstitutional for the committee to withhold already appropriated funds for the program. 

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) complained about Evers’ actions before the committee voted Wednesday, saying the Evers administration is “drunk with power” and is upending a process “that has literally worked for generations.” 

“Really seems like rather than trying to be collaborative and go through the normal process where Republicans, Democrats, legislators, executive branch, all sit down and work out a deal, they’re just going to try to impose their will on the state, which will mean unfortunately that during the next budget discussion, it will be dramatically different,” Vos said. “It’s really a shame that the Evers administration has decided to play politics with it and do something which is clearly outside the scope of norm and what should be outside the scope of the law.” 

The conflict over the powers of the Legislature and of the executive branch goes beyond the implementation of pay raises. Republicans lawmakers are also trying to stop the implementation of administrative rules by the Evers administration, which was seeking to put some in action without going through the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules. Evers in this case cited another recent state Supreme Court decision as clarifying his authority.

Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) and Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine), the Democrats on the committee, did not speak to the issue, though Hesselbein said she is concerned that the pay for employees isn’t enough. 

“I’m glad we’re doing this adjustment, but I would like to note after a conversation with representatives of hard-working men and women throughout the state providing public services… that the compensation for the average state employee does remain 18% below inflation since 2012,” Hesselbein said. “While this is a small step in the right direction, we have a lot more to do.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Prisoners look out of their cell as Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem tours the Terrorist Confinement Center, or CECOT, on March 26, 2025 in Tecoluca, El Salvador. The Trump administration deported 238 alleged members of the Venezuelan criminal organizations 'Tren De Aragua' and Mara Salvatrucha.  (Photo by Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court late Tuesday blocked the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, finding there is no “invasion or predatory incursion” by a foreign government and therefore President Donald Trump cannot invoke the wartime law to quickly expel Venezuelan nationals without due process. 

The 2-1 ruling rejected the administration’s argument that the Venezuelan migrants were part of an “invasion” to the United States and represents a setback for the president, who invoked the wartime law in March as a pillar of his mass deportation campaign to deport people without permanent legal status. 

The decision out of the conservative-leaning 5th Circuit Court of Appeals that covers Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas is likely to head back to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Appeals Court Judges Leslie Harburd Southwick, nominated by former President George W. Bush, and Irma Carrillo Ramirez, nominated by former President Joe Biden, made up the majority in the case. Judge Andrew Oldham, nominated by Trump, dissented.

“A country’s encouraging its residents and citizens to enter this country illegally is not the modern-day equivalent of sending an armed, organized force to occupy, to disrupt, or to otherwise harm the United States,” according to the majority in the175-page opinion. “There is no finding that this mass immigration was an armed, organized force or forces.”

The lead attorney on the case, Lee Gelernt of the American Civil Liberties Union, praised the ruling. 

“This critical decision makes clear that the president cannot invoke whatever powers he wants,” Gelernt said in a statement. “This is a huge victory for the rule of law.”

Oldham dissented with the majority, arguing that a president’s authority to make the “declaration of an invasion, insurrection, or incursion is Conclusive. Final.” 

“And completely beyond the second-guessing powers of unelected federal judges,” Oldham wrote in his dissent.

A U.S. Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said Tuesday’s decision is not final. 

“President Trump and Secretary (Kristi) Noem will not allow criminal gangs to terrorize American citizens,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “Unelected judges are undermining the will of the American people. This ruling will not be the final say on this matter. We are confident in our position, and we have the law, the facts, and common sense on our side.”

Trump’s use of Alien Enemies Act

In March, President Donald Trump applied the Alien Enemies Act to Venezuelan nationals ages 14 and older who were accused of belonging to the Tren de Aragua gang. 

He used the proclamation to send more than 200 Venezuelan men to a notorious prison in El Salvador, where they remained for months before being released to the Venezuelan government in a prison exchange this summer.

Trump also designated the Venezuelan gang as a foreign terrorist group earlier this year. 

Prior to March, the Alien Enemies Act had been invoked only three times – in the War of 1812, World War I and World War II. The Trump administration applied the law to quickly expel Venezuelan nationals and argued the proclamation allowed for the skirting of due process rights, which judges have rejected. 

In April the Supreme Court temporarily allowed the Trump administration to use the wartime law but said those subject to the proclamation needed to have adequate notice to challenge their removal. 

In May, a separate Alien Enemies case was sent to the high court, which instructed the 5th Circuit to determine if the Trump administration’s declaration of the wartime law was legal. Tuesday’s decision stemmed from that case.

The decision only applies to the use of the Alien Enemies Act. The Trump administration can continue to remove people who are not U.S. citizens deemed as foreign threats. 

Sabrina Prochaska, a barista at Anodyne, tells reporters at a news conference Tuesday morning that the wages she and coworkers are paid aren't enough to live on. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

Wisconsin grass-roots advocates called on state lawmakers Tuesday to adopt a platform for workers that would nearly triple the state’s minimum wage, then increase it to keep pace with rising prices.

“The key here is to not leave workers behind with a poverty wage, but instead bring that living wage number up to at least $20 an hour,” said Peter Rickman, president of the Milwaukee Area Service and Hospitality Workers union — MASH — at a press conference Tuesday in the state Capitol.

Wisconsin’s minimum wage is currently $7.25 an hour, the same as the federal minimum, which was last set in 2009.

The timing of Tuesday’s press conference, organized by a coalition that includes MASH, was part of the group’s message to lawmakers and to the public.

Monday was Labor Day, “when politicians issue statements celebrating the American worker, maybe even declaring their support for labor and the working class,” Rickman observed.

“But we’re here the day after Labor Day, calling on political leadership in Wisconsin to make all of those statements real,” he said. “To make work pay, to deliver for the working class majority in our state with a guarantee that no matter where we punch a clock, no matter where we bring our paychecks home, that paycheck has a living wage.”

A hotel worker named Adrienne, who did not give her last name, said the current minimum wage “keeps the pay ceiling embarrassingly low for workers at a time when housing has become less and less secure, health care is being threatened, grocery prices are at an all-time high, and educational expenses are crippling entire generations.”

Rickman told the Wisconsin Examiner Adrienne didn’t further identify herself because she works at a nonunion Milwaukee hotel that is currently being organized by MASH.

“I have to express my disappointment with the way many of our representatives have failed to show up for workers like myself,” Adrienne told reporters. “Twenty-five dollars an hour would be a wage that would allow workers to thrive and build further futures, but today we’re simply asking for a wage that will allow workers to survive.”

Sabrina Prochaska, a barista at Anodyne Coffee in Milwaukee, said her current wage of $15.81 an hour isn’t enough to cover her living expenses, including groceries, rent and health care.

“Every month my partner and I scrape together money to pay rent on our one-bedroom apartment,” Prochaska said. “And I’m stressed out every 30 days because I know half my paycheck is going to go to put a roof over our heads.”

A recent visit to urgent care was billed at more than $3,000, Prochaska said, “and the truth is I don’t know how to pay that off and I don’t know how I’m going to cover it.”

Anodyne employees voted unanimously in June for MASH to represent them. “We’re ready to do whatever it takes to win living wages at the bargaining table,” Prochaska said. “It’s time for these politicians to do what people like me do every day: Show up, do their job and take care of their people. It’s time to make work pay. It’s time for a living wage for all Wisconsin workers like me.”

In addition to MASH the coalition that sponsored Tuesday’s press includes Citizens Action Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Working Families Party/Power, along with Our Wisconsin Revolution and the Fighting Oligarchy Coalition.

Our Wisconsin Revolution grew out of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign. The Fighting Oligarchy Coalition is a new grass-roots organization that formed as Sanders embarked on a “Fighting Oligarchy” tour to oppose the influence of billionaires in the current U.S. political environment.

The proposal outlined Tuesday hasn’t yet found its way into proposed legislation, but organizers of the campaign said they are clear on what it should include.

“We are calling on [state lawmakers] to, in collaboration with the Living Wage Coalition, draft comprehensive living wage legislation, with a $20 minimum, indexed to inflation, reduce the tip penalty, and restore local control,” Rickman said.

The “tip penalty” refers to the lower minimum wage for Wisconsin employees whose jobs make them eligible for tips — $2.33 an hour. The group also wants to repeal state laws that prevent local governments from setting labor standards.

Rickman said recent state and federal measures to abolish the tax on tips for tipped employees should not undermine the effort to stop paying tipped employees much less than the minimum wage.

“Tax policy… in lieu of wages has never done enough to increase working class household income,” he said. “It’s a scam.” All businesses, he added, “no matter what they do, [should] guarantee a living wage, not leave it up to government tax expenditures.”

Simon Rosenblum-Larson, an organizer for the Fighting Oligarchy Coalition, said the campaign to guarantee livable wages would “create real economic growth as workers here in Wisconsin spend their money here in Wisconsin instead of CEOs that take the money out of state [where] they buy houses, they put money in offshore bank accounts and trust funds for their kids.”

The campaign also lays down a marker for the 2026 elections.

In Wisconsin, 800,000 workers would see a raise if the minimum wage were increased to $20 an hour, Rosenblum-Larson said. “And we will be demanding that every legislator, Democrat or Republican, pledge their support in the 2026 election cycle for a $20 an hour minimum wage for every Wisconsinite.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse in Washington, D.C., home of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, pictured on July 14, 2025. (Photo by Jacob Fischler/States Newsroom) 

WASHINGTON — A pair of federal court rulings over the Labor Day weekend invalidated aggressive actions the Trump administration had taken on immigration enforcement.

Judge Sparkle Sooknanan ordered an unknown number of planes carrying unaccompanied Guatemalan children temporarily halted on Sunday, two days after Judge Jia Cobb struck down a policy used to bypass judicial review in quick removals of migrants far from the southern border. Both judges are of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The rulings are part of an ongoing clash between President Donald Trump and the federal judiciary over the administration’s immigration crackdown. Judges have raised concerns that immigrants’ due process rights are being violated.

On Sunday, Sooknanan voiced concern for unaccompanied children’s due process rights, and temporarily halted planes carrying the minors from taking off. 

The administration had planned to deport 10 children to their home country of Guatemala. 

The case resembled one earlier this year in which a judge ordered planes carrying Venezuelan men removed under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 grounded. Despite the order, multiple planes landed in El Salvador where more than 200 Venezuelans were sent to a notorious mega-prison.

The 10 children, nationals of Guatemala, on the planes ranged in age from 10 to 17 and crossed the southern border alone. Attorneys in court filings stressed that the children had immigration cases pending before a judge and that the children expressed fear of returning to Guatemala. 

‘Everyone would be at risk’

The order followed Cobb’s order Friday granting a request from immigration rights groups to halt the implementation of a new policy that expanded expedited removal.

The administration has expanded the use of expedited removal, which allows for the quick removal of migrants, as a pillar of its aim to carry out mass deportations of people without permanent legal status. 

For decades, administrations have applied expedited removal to immigrants apprehended at the southern border who cannot prove they have been in the United States for more than two years. If they cannot produce that proof, they are subject to a fast-track deportation without appearing before an immigration judge.

The Trump administration in January expanded expedited removal to apply nationwide, rather than only within 100 miles of the southern border.

In Cobb’s Friday opinion, she wrote that the administration likely violated the rights of immigrants and approached a universal violation of the constitutional right to due process. Former President Joe Biden appointed Cobb in 2021.

“In defending this skimpy process, the Government makes a truly startling argument: that those who entered the country illegally are entitled to no process under the Fifth Amendment, but instead must accept whatever grace Congress affords them,” she wrote. “Were that right, not only noncitizens, but everyone would be at risk.” 

Flights of Guatemalan minors grounded

In a flurry of action Sunday, Sooknanan temporarily halted the deportation of the children for 14 days while the case continues after an emergency request from the National Immigration Law Center, an advocacy group.

Attorneys from NILC argued that if the children were returned, they could face violence and the administration’s move to deport them violated immigration procedures for unaccompanied minors.

“Defendants are imminently planning to illegally transfer Plaintiffs to Immigration and Customs Enforcement … custody to put them on flights to Guatemala, where they may face abuse, neglect, persecution, or even torture, against their best interests,” the attorneys wrote in their emergency filing.

The 10 children on the planes were taken off and put back into the custody of  the Office of Refugee Resettlement, according to a status update filed Monday by NILC lawyers.

The Trump administration has identified up to 600 Guatemalan children to be removed under a pilot program created through an agreement with Guatemala, according to the court filings. 

Sooknanan’s order applies to all roughly 2,000 Guatemalan unaccompanied children in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement. Biden also appointed Sooknanan.

Carlos Ramíro Martínez, Guatemala’s minister of foreign affairs, told the New York Times in an interview that the initiative began when Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem visited Guatemala in July. He added there is an agreement for Guatemala to accept more than 600 children. 

DHS did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment.

The State Department’s 2024 report on Guatemala details human rights concerns such as violence, and advises against traveling to the country. 

The case involving the unaccompanied children was reassigned to judge Timothy James Kelly, whom Trump appointed in 2017.

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office at the White House on September 2, 2025 in Washington, DC. At left is U.S. Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala. At right are Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and U.S. Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump announced Tuesday the U.S. Space Command will permanently relocate to Huntsville, Alabama, vacating its temporary headquarters in Colorado.

The move reverts back to Trump’s plans during his first administration to locate the combatant command in Alabama to oversee Space Force, the military branch he created in 2019. 

Space Force headquarters has since operated out of Peterson Space Force Base in Colorado Springs. The command’s location has been a yearslong political fight.

“As you know, this has been going on for a long period of time, and I am thrilled to report that the U.S. Space Command headquarters will move to the beautiful locale of a place called Huntsville, Alabama, forever to be known from this point forward as ‘Rocket City,’” said Trump, flanked by Alabama Republicans in the Oval Office Tuesday afternoon. 

“We love Alabama. I only won it by about 47 points. I don’t think that influenced my decision though,” he said. (Trump won Alabama’s nine Electoral College votes in November by 31 percentage points, according to The Associated Press. Former Vice President Kamala Harris won Colorado’s 10 Electoral College votes by 11 percentage points.)

Trump said his plans to root Space Command at the Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville were “wrongfully obstructed by the Biden administration.”

The Biden administration decided in July 2023 to keep Space Command in Colorado Springs to ensure “peak readiness in the space domain,” according to a Department of Defense Inspector General report released in April 2025. The IG’s report was inconclusive on why the Air Force did not push back on the decision, despite the department’s preference for Alabama.

“Today, we’re moving forward with what we want to do and the place that we want to have this, and this will be there for hopefully hundreds of years,” Trump said. “I will say, I want to thank Colorado. The problem I have with Colorado, one of the big problems, they do mail-in voting. They went to all mail-in voting, so they have automatically crooked elections.”

Since his election loss to Biden in 2020, Trump has repeated unfounded claims about mail-in ballots and their effect on elections.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said the president is “restoring (Space Command) to precisely where it should be.”

“Whoever controls the skies will control the future of warfare, and Mr. President, today you’re ensuring that happens,” Hegseth said.

Alabama Republicans rejoice over Space Command

Alabama’s Republican U.S. Sens. Tommy Tuberville and Katie Britt both praised the president as they stood beside him in the Oval Office.

“Mr. President, we are grateful for your leadership on this and restoring Space Command to its rightful home in Huntsville, Alabama,” Britt said, adding the accusation that “obviously the Biden administration chose to make this political.”

Tuberville said the move will save taxpayers $480 million. States Newsroom has not independently verified that figure, and the April IG report did not cite specific relocation costs. He also highlighted the presence of NASA in Huntsville as an advantage.

“I spoke with the president for the last three or four years about this. If I thought it needed to go somewhere else, because (of) the security of our country, I’d be for that. But the best place for Space Command is Huntsville, Alabama, because what we have and what it means to this country is going to be so important,” Tuberville said.

Lawsuit vowed by Colorado AG

But Colorado elected officials aren’t backing down. Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, described the decision as “deeply disappointing” for his state and “a waste of taxpayer dollars.”

Colorado’s Attorney General Phil Weiser said in a statement Tuesday that he plans to take the administration to court over the “unlawful” relocation, which he described as “political games.”

“Moving Space Command Headquarters to Alabama is not only wrong for our national defense, but it’s harmful to hundreds of Space Command personnel and their families. These El Paso County residents are our neighbors. They relied on the federal government’s decision to keep Space Command HQ in Colorado Springs — they bought homes for their families, selected schools for their children, and have contributed to the local economy.” Weiser said. 

“The Colorado Attorney General’s Office has been preparing in the event the president made such an unlawful decision to move Space Command HQ. If the Trump administration takes this step — I’m prepared to challenge it in court.”

Colorado’s entire bipartisan congressional delegation released a statement Tuesday slamming the relocation announcement.

“Today’s decision to move U.S. Space Command’s headquarters out of Colorado and to Alabama will directly harm our state and the nation. We are united in fighting to reverse this decision. Bottom line—moving Space Command headquarters weakens our national security at the worst possible time,” according to the statement.

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the media in the Oval Office at the White House on Sept. 2, 2025 in Washington, DC. Following days of speculation about his health from users on social media, President Trump made his first public appearance in a week to announce the moving of Space Command headquarters from Colorado to Alabama. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump spoke at length from the Oval Office on Tuesday, proving that he is in fact alive after rumors circulated online over the long holiday weekend that he might have died. 

Trump initially said he wasn’t aware of the speculation when asked about his “demise” by a Fox News reporter after the president announced he would move U.S. Space Command headquarters from Colorado to Alabama. 

“Really, I didn’t see that,” Trump said. “You know, I have heard, it’s sort of crazy but last week I did numerous news conferences. All successful. They went very well, like this is going very well. And then I didn’t do any for two days, and they said, ‘There must be something wrong with him.’ Biden wouldn’t do them for months. You wouldn’t see him.”

Trump then said that he had heard about the online speculation of his death, but that he didn’t realize how extensive the rumors were.

“No, I heard that. I get reports,” Trump said. “Now you knew I did an interview that lasted for about an hour and a half with somebody, and everybody saw. That was on one of your competitors. I did numerous shows, and also did a number of truths, long truths. I think, pretty poignant truths. No, I was very active over the weekend.”

Trump added a few moments later: “I didn’t hear that one. That’s pretty serious stuff.”

The rumors that Trump had potentially died began circulating online Friday but began dissipating on Saturday, Sunday and Monday after the group of reporters that follows the president around saw him walk into his golf club in Virginia each of those three days. 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency building is seen on May 15, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Democratic attorneys general have updated their complaint against the Trump administration in a lawsuit over whether the Federal Emergency Management Agency can refuse to spend pre-disaster mitigation grants approved by Congress.

The attorneys general wrote in the new filing that FEMA hadn’t made a single award to the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program between April 2 and Aug. 25.

“The BRIC program is critically important nationwide. Over the past four years, FEMA has selected nearly 2,000 projects from every corner of the country to receive roughly $4.5 billion in funding,” they wrote. “Due to the unique threats they face, coastal communities have received the largest allocations over the past four years, with California, Louisiana, Texas, New York, New Jersey, Florida, North Carolina, and Washington leading the way. 

“But interior communities rely on BRIC too: Pennsylvania and Utah have received the next largest allocations, and Ohio is not far behind.”

FEMA announced in April that it was “ending” the program and “canceling all BRIC applications from Fiscal Years 2020-2023.” 

Members of Congress from both political parties brought up their disagreement with that decision in May during a hearing on FEMA’s budget request and by sending a letter signed by more than 80 lawmakers.

But that didn’t appear to sway the Trump administration to reverse course and allocate the funding that had been approved by Congress. 

‘Devastating’ delays in FEMA funding

Democratic attorneys general, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro filed their lawsuit in July and later called on the judge to block the Trump administration from moving money out of the pre-disaster mitigation account. 

U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts Judge Richard G. Stearns, who was nominated by President Bill Clinton, issued a preliminary ruling in early August preventing FEMA “from spending the funds allocated to BRIC for non-BRIC purposes until the court is able to render a final judgment on the merits.”

The updated 83-page complaint filed Friday argues the two people President Donald Trump has installed as acting FEMA administrator did so unlawfully because they were never formally nominated to run the agency, didn’t receive Senate confirmation and didn’t meet the qualifications laid out in federal law.  

It also alleges that unilaterally canceling funding approved by Congress, which holds the power of the purse, violated the separation of powers laid out in the Constitution. 

“The impact of the shutdown has been devastating. Communities across the country are being forced to delay, scale back, or cancel hundreds of mitigation projects depending on this funding,” they wrote. “Projects that have been in development for years, and in which communities have invested millions of dollars for planning, permitting, and environmental review are now threatened. And in the meantime, Americans across the country face a higher risk of harm from natural disasters.”

Each BRIC grant, the updated complaint notes, “can cover up to 75% of a project’s costs, and the federal share can rise to 90% for small rural communities.” 

Attorneys general from Arizona, California, Colorado. Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin filed the suit, along with the Pennsylvania and Kentucky governors.  

California National Guard members stand guard at an entrance to the Wilshire Federal Building on June 13, 2025 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump’s move to send National Guard troops and U.S. Marines to quell immigration protests in Los Angeles this summer violated a federal law against military members conducting domestic law enforcement, a federal judge in California ruled early Tuesday.

The ruling from Senior U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer represents an obstacle to any further use of National Guard troops to assist local police in more cities. Following deployments to LA and Washington, D.C., Trump has openly mused about federalizing other state National Guard troops and sending them to major cities like Chicago and Baltimore he says are overwhelmed with crime.

Breyer, whom Democratic President Bill Clinton appointed in 1997, said Trump could not use the National Guard for a wide array of police activities in California. His order goes into effect Sept. 12.

Breyer said the roughly 4,700 Guard members and Marines engaged in police activity in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which he said built on the constitutional framers’ wariness of a centralized military force conducting police work.

“Contrary to Congress’s explicit instruction, federal troops executed the laws,” Breyer wrote in a 52-page opinion. “Defendants systematically used armed soldiers (whose identity was often obscured by protective armor) and military vehicles to set up protective perimeters and traffic blockades, engage in crowd control, and otherwise demonstrate a military presence in and around Los Angeles. In short, Defendants violated the Posse Comitatus Act.”

National Guard expanded

The judge expressed concern about Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s statements they wanted to expand the role of National Guard troops for law enforcement.

“President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have stated their intention to call National Guard troops into federal service in other cities across the country… thus creating a national police force with the President as its chief,” he wrote.

The issue itself dates much further back in U.S. history, forming part of the basis for the country’s break from the English monarchy, Breyer noted.

“Indeed, resentment of Britain’s use of military troops as a police force was manifested in the Declaration of Independence, where one of the American colonists’ grievances was that the King had ‘affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power,’” he wrote.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who sued to block Trump’s federalization of the state’s National Guard, said the ruling “sided with democracy and the Constitution” and echoed Breyer’s warning about Trump leading a national police force.

“No president is a king — not even Trump — and no president can trample a state’s power to protect its people,” Newsom said. “Trump’s attempt to use federal troops as his personal police force is illegal, authoritarian, and must be stopped in every courtroom across this country.”

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass also cheered the decision.

“The White House tried to invade the second largest city in the country,” she wrote. “That’s illegal. Los Angeles will not buckle and we will not break. We will not be divided and we will not be defeated.”

Spokespeople for the White House did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

Return to appeals court likely

Trump is likely to appeal the ruling to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where he won a victory early in the case.

After Breyer issued a temporary restraining order in June calling on Trump to return control of the state’s National Guard to Newsom, a 9th Circuit panel unanimously blocked it from going into effect, ruling that U.S. Supreme Court precedent allowed Trump to make the determination that the proper circumstances existed to federalize National Guard troops.

That appeals ruling dealt with Breyer’s finding that Trump likely violated the president’s legal authority to federalize National Guard troops.

The appeal did not consider potential Posse Comitatus Act violations, Breyer said Tuesday. 

People in New York City look at a sign informing them that the Statue of Liberty is closed on Oct. 1, 2013 due to a government shutdown. Tensions among lawmakers and President Donald Trump, combined with party leaders’ increasing focus on next year’s midterm elections, makes the possibility of a shutdown next month higher than it has been for years. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Congress returns to Washington, D.C., this week following an uneventful August recess where little to no progress was made on government funding, even though lawmakers have just weeks left until their shutdown deadline.

Republican leaders will need the support of several Democratic senators to approve a stopgap spending bill before Oct. 1, since lawmakers have once again failed to complete the dozen full-year bills on time. 

But what was once a routine bipartisan exercise has taken on heightened stakes, with Democrats and some Republicans increasingly frustrated by the Trump administration’s unilateral spending decisions.

The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office has issued several reports faulting the Trump administration for impounding, or refusing to spend funds approved by Congress, in violation of the law. And dozens of lawsuits have been filed, alleging the administration has acted to supersede Congress’ power of the purse. 

The ongoing tension, combined with party leaders’ increasing focus on next year’s midterm elections, makes the possibility of a shutdown higher than it has been for years. 

President Donald Trump said in mid-August he was open to meeting with Democratic leaders once they were back in town to negotiate a government funding deal but minimized the importance of talks. 

“Well, I will, I guess, but it’s almost a waste of time to meet because they never approve anything,” Trump said.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries released a letter last week urging Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune to quickly begin negotiating a bipartisan stopgap bill. 

“The government funding issue must be resolved in a bipartisan way,” they wrote. “That is the only viable path forward.”

Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, said last week that she wants to keep advancing the full-year spending bills, but that a short-term stopgap would be necessary to give lawmakers enough time. 

“We need to avoid a government shutdown, which would be horrendous if that were to occur on October 1,” Collins said, according to remarks provided by her office. “And we also need to avoid having a continuing resolution, by that I mean a stopgap bill that just puts government on automatic pilot for the whole year. 

“We’re going to have to have a short-term continuing resolution, but we’re making really good progress with overwhelming bipartisan support, and I hope that will continue.”

Another failure

Congress is supposed to complete work on the dozen annual appropriations bills before the start of the new fiscal year but has failed to do so for decades. This year is no different. 

The House and Senate are nowhere near finishing their work on the bills, which provide funding for dozens of departments, including Agriculture, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Justice, State, Transportation and Veterans Affairs.

The bills, which make up about one-third of federal spending, also fund smaller agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation and the National Weather Service.

The House has approved two of the dozen bills — Defense and Military Construction-VA. The Senate has passed its Agriculture, Legislative Branch and Military Construction-VA bills.

The House bills have only been supported by GOP lawmakers, while the Senate’s bills are broadly bipartisan, giving that chamber an upper hand if the two chambers begin conferencing full-year bills later this year. 

Without a bipartisan, bicameral agreement on how much to spend on all of the bills, it’s highly unlikely Congress will be able to complete its work before the Oct. 1 deadline.

Leaders will instead need to reach agreement on a stopgap spending bill that essentially keeps government funding on autopilot until lawmakers can work out a final deal on the full-year bills. 

The calendar doesn’t give Speaker Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader Thune, R-S.D., much time to find compromise with their Democratic counterparts. 

Both chambers are in session for three weeks at the beginning of September before breaking for Rosh Hashanah. They’ll return to Capitol Hill on Sept. 29 with less than two days to fund the government or begin a partial shutdown.

Thune said in mid-August at the Greater Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce Inside Washington luncheon that he expects lawmakers will “have a big fight at the end of September.”

Last shutdown stretched 35 days

It’s been almost seven years since some federal departments and agencies had to navigate a shutdown, when Congress and the first Trump administration were unable to broker a funding deal before a deadline.

A shutdown this year would have substantially more impact than that 35-day debacle since, when that funding lapse began, Congress had approved the Defense, Energy-Water, Labor-HHS-Education, Legislative Branch and Military Construction-VA spending bills.

The departments and agencies funded by those laws, including Congress, weren’t affected by the shutdown.

Lawmakers have failed to send any of the full-year bills to Trump so far this year, so every department and agency would need to implement a shutdown plan if Congress doesn’t approve a stopgap spending bill before Oct. 1.

Federal employees who deal with the preservation of life and property as well as national security will likely be deemed exempt and work without pay until the shutdown ends.

Workers who are not considered essential to the federal government’s operations would be furloughed until Congress and the president broker some sort of funding deal.

Both categories of employees receive back pay once the lapse ends, though that doesn’t extend to federal contractors.

On to the stopgap

Congress regularly approves a stopgap spending bill in September to gain more time to complete negotiations on the full-year appropriations bills.

That continuing resolution, as it’s sometimes called, usually lasts until the last Friday in December when both chambers of Congress are scheduled to be in Washington, D.C.

So a September stopgap would likely last until Friday, Dec. 19, assuming the House and Senate can reach an agreement and hold floor votes in the weeks ahead.

Last year, in the lead-up to the presidential election, lawmakers approved a stopgap bill in September that funded the government through mid-December.

Following the Republican sweep of the November elections, GOP leaders opted not to negotiate the full-year bills and used a second stopgap bill to fund the government until March after a raucous 48 hours on Capitol Hill.

Speaker Johnson took a go-it-alone approach on a third stopgap spending bill, leaving Democrats completely out of the negotiations and jamming the Senate with the legislation.

Schumer and several Democrats ultimately helped Republicans get past the 60-vote legislative filibuster, but most voted against actually passing the stopgap.

The dilemma over forcing a shutdown or helping Republicans pass a stopgap bill will resurface for Schumer in the weeks ahead as he tries to navigate another shutdown deadline amid unified GOP control of Washington.

A child gets an MMR vaccine at a clinic put on by Lubbock Public Health Department in Lubbock, Texas, in March. States have been reporting steady increases in vaccination exemption requests for kids. (Photo by Jan Sonnenmair/Getty Images)

Dr. Rana Alissa hears it daily in the clinic.

“It’s better for my kid to get the virus than get the vaccine.”

“The more you [doctors] vaccinate, the more money you get.”

“I did not vaccinate any of my kids, and I’m not going to vaccinate this one. So, please, don’t waste your time.”

The Jacksonville, Florida, pediatrician said on average, she’d hear vaccine skepticism from a couple of parents a month, at most, before the COVID-19 pandemic. “Now, it’s every day,” said Alissa, who is also president of the Florida Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Medical experts say hesitancy is likely to increase further as a result of misinformation pouring from the Trump administration — and turmoil at the federal agency largely responsible for setting vaccine policy.

On Thursday, three top officials were escorted out of the Atlanta headquarters of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

All three officials resigned to protest the effort by Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to dismiss CDC Director Susan Monarez for pushing back against Kennedy’s vaccine policies.

One of the officials, Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, posted on X that he’s resigning because “the intentional eroding of trust in low-risk vaccines” will cause the nation to suffer.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration restricted access to updated COVID-19 shots. The new rules include limitations for young children that the American Academy of Pediatrics called “deeply troubling.” The FDA only approved COVID-19 vaccines for people who are 65 and older and those who are known to be at risk for a severe case. Consultation with a medical provider will be required before the shot is given to healthy children under 18, meaning parents can’t simply take their kids to a vaccination clinic or pharmacy.

In June, Kennedy ousted all 17 members of the vaccine advisory committee at the CDC, replacing them with some members who are vaccine skeptics. Many states use the committee’s recommendations to develop their vaccine requirements. And in May, Kennedy rescinded recommendations for kids to get vaccinated against COVID-19.

In his books, experts say, Kennedy appears to promote his own version of miasma theory, an obsolete belief dating back to ancient times that diseases are caused by vapors from rotting organic matter. Scientists have since proven that microbes, not bad air, cause infectious diseases.

Experts say Kennedy’s actions are likely to make vaccination rates worse, paving the way for more outbreaks.

“Every vaccine that we give prevents a serious and life-threatening disease,” New York pediatrician Dr. Jesse Hackell, chair of the Committee on Pediatric Workforce at the American Academy of Pediatrics, told Stateline. “I don’t want to force anybody, but I do want to make sure that the information they’re getting is quality information — and that’s not what is coming from HHS.”

Nonmedical exemptions

Every state requires kids to get certain shots to attend school. All states exempt children who can’t be immunized for medical reasons, but nonmedical exemptions for religious or personal reasons vary from state to state.

Vaccination rates among kids are declining. Flu vaccinations, for example, hit their lowest rate since 2019. And since the beginning of the pandemic, exemption requests have increased across the country.

Among kindergarteners, nonmedical exemptions have increased each year since 2020, from 1.9% in the first year of the pandemic to 3.4% in the 2024-25 school year, according to the latest data from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Exemptions increased in 36 states and Washington, D.C. Seventeen states reported exemption rates over 5%.

The changes may seem small. But experts say even slight increases in exemptions and decreases in vaccinations make a big difference.

“With a disease that’s as infectious as measles … small increases in vaccination rates could really go a long way,” epidemiologist Sophia Newcomer, a University of Montana associate professor, said in a recent panel discussion hosted by Montana Families for Vaccines.

Alissa and other experts say rampant confusion around the shots, including federal officials casting doubt, is exacerbating the problem. Often, parents aren’t sure whom they can trust, finding conflicting information and unreliable sources, she said.

“[Parents] come to our clinic and the hospitals and they say, ‘We looked it up, and we just don’t want it,’” she said. “There’s different kinds of reasoning: the ingredients of the vaccine, the side effects of the vaccine, ‘vaccines don’t work.’”

But research consistently shows vaccines protect children from serious illness. Shots also protect the most vulnerable who can’t get vaccinated, such as babies who are too young, or children and adults who are immunocompromised. Babies up to age 2 are more likely to get very sick from COVID-19, making up the most hospitalizations among kids.

Ultimately, Alissa said, “We are endangering each other.”

In Florida, where Alissa practices, religious exemptions have increased monthly, according to a state report that tracked the numbers through April. Some counties have higher rates of children with religious exemptions than others, ranging from about 1.5% to 15%, the state department of health reported. Among kindergarteners in the state, the rate of nonmedical exemptions rose from 2.7% in the 2020-21 school year to 4.8% in the 2024-25 school year, CDC data shows.

Five states — California, Connecticut, Maine, New York and West Virginia — don’t allow nonmedical exemptions, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Two West Virginia families with immunocompromised kids brought lawsuits over Republican Gov. Patrick Morrisey’s January executive order mandating religious exemptions despite state law.

Kennedy defended religious exemptions and endorsed the governor’s order in a post on X. His agency also sent letters to West Virginia health departments warning of civil rights violations if they don’t allow such exemptions.

“There’s a ton of variability across states in how easy it is to not get vaccinated,” Newcomer, of the University of Montana, said. Some states require parental vaccine education as part of the exemption request while others don’t.

“Increased exemptions needs to be fought at every level — working to make sure there’s access, to make sure that there’s good information, and to make sure that there’s strong policy at the state level, so that people aren’t exploiting exemption loopholes,” Northe Saunders, American Families for Vaccines president, said during the panel discussion.

Other vaccines

Doctors are worried that other vaccines will be targeted by the Trump administration, such as those for whooping cough. By April, preliminary CDC data showed more than 9,000 cases this year, about twice as many compared with the same time last year and more than there were right before the pandemic. Whooping cough, or pertussis, can be deadly for babies. Vaccines help prevent severe whooping cough illness.

Hackell said that when he was training in the 1970s, there were no pneumococcal and haemophilus vaccines. Babies would come in with 104-degree fevers and they were immediately tested for the infections, he recalled. For babies under age 2, those bacterial infections can show up as only a high fever, but the infection can rapidly turn fatal without treatment, he told Stateline.

“When I trained, we didn’t have these vaccines, and these kids kept us up at night,” Hackell said. “I never want to practice in those days. I never want to go back to that. … To me, that is unacceptable to submit my patients to those risks that we’ve been able to reduce.”

This week the FDA removed one of the available COVID-19 vaccines for young children, limiting the Spikevax vaccine to only kids with at least one serious health issue. Moderna’s shot is still available for children 6 months and older. Pfizer’s shot is no longer available for kids under 5, as the FDA is ending its emergency use authorization for the age group.

But the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends COVID-19 shots for children 6 months to 2 years. It also recommends them for older children with underlying health issues. Healthy children whose parents want them to get the shot should also be offered them, the AAP says.

Hackell is concerned by the FDA’s new limitations on the shot.

“As a parent, as a grandparent and as a physician who takes care of vulnerable kids, it disgusts me,” Hackell said.

He’s also concerned about vulnerable kids who get their shots through the federal Vaccines for Children (VFC) Program, which covers shots if parents can’t afford them and follows federal vaccine advisory recommendations.

“If you’re covered by VFC, which is basically kids on Medicaid and a few other populations, then you’re out of luck,” Hackell said. “To me, that’s a huge inequity in access to care, which is indefensible.”

He added that the move breaks with the administration’s emphasis on individual decision-making, saying the new restrictions limit parental decisions.

‘Normalization’ of outbreaks

During the Montana panel discussion, Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, pointed to CDC data showing that over the past year alone, about 1 in 5 children and adolescents hospitalized with COVID-19 were put in the ICU. And between September 2023 and last August, 152 children died of COVID-19 and 213 children died of the flu.

While Texas officially declared its measles outbreak over — which means the state hasn’t reported a new case in six weeks — neighboring New Mexico continues to see new cases.

“What we’re going to see is, you know, sadly, a normalization of these outbreaks,” said Rekha Lakshmanan, chief strategy officer at The Immunization Partnership, a Texas-based vaccine education organization. “We need to make sure that kids are protected against the diseases that they can be protected against, because we truly are in a vulnerable state right now.”

Newcomer, the Montana epidemiologist, said that under-vaccination trends are usually due to disparities in access, such as challenges in reaching vaccine providers in rural communities. At rural health care centers lacking staff and technology, it’s harder to automate vaccination reminders for patients — which can increase the likelihood patients show up for appointments but require technical infrastructure, she explained.

Adding misinformation to the mix only makes matters worse, experts say.

“Parents are confused and understandably concerned,” Offit told Stateline. “It’s the most vulnerable among us that will suffer, and that will be our children.”

He added that he’s also wary about the federal administration’s removal of data, concerned that vaccination figures will be next.

“It’s nightmarish,” he said. “What worries me the most is we’re not going to know the degree that we’re suffering. We’re not, because the CDC is losing its capacity to do adequate surveillance across the country.”

Stateline reporter Nada Hassanein can be reached at nhassanein@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.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrest two people from Guatemala in Florida in August. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has threatened states, cities and counties that choose not to assist or cooperate with immigration arrests. (Photo courtesy of ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations, Miami Field Office)

More cities and states have responded to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s threat to prosecute them over so-called sanctuary policies limiting law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration enforcement — some by thumbing their noses, at least one by acquiescing.

Written responses defending sanctuary policies have been sent to Bondi from cities including Albuquerque, New Mexico; Boston; Hoboken, New Jersey; Portland, Oregon; and Seattle, along with the states of California, Connecticut, Minnesota, Oregon and Washington. Many noted that courts so far have upheld their right to limit cooperation with deportations.

“Pam Bondi seeks to have Washington state bend the knee to a Trump administration that, day by day, drags us closer to authoritarianism. That’s not going to happen,” Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson, a Democrat, said in an Aug. 19 news conference.

Louisville, Kentucky, is one city that agreed to more cooperation after a confrontation over the issue — before Bondi threatened prosecution in August, but after the attorney general said she had issued a “strong written warning” to the city.

The city had stopped complying in 2017 with so-called detainer requests to hold jailed residents for immigration authorities, but leaders resumed cooperation to avoid being targeted for more raids.

“Cities on the sanctuary city list right now are experiencing a terrifying increase in raids by ICE, including mass raids,” Louisville Mayor Craig Greenberg, a Democrat, said in a July 22 statement. “I’ve talked with leaders within our immigrant community before I made this decision. I heard their fears loud and clear about current federal policies and ICE actions. I also heard that they want Louisville off the federal sanctuary city list.”

Bondi issued a revised list of sanctuary cities, counties and states in August.

Rochester, New York, meanwhile, in August amended its municipal code to strengthen its policies against cooperation by adding disciplinary measures for personnel who violate the policy. State Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, had earlier supported the city’s existing policies in court, saying in a statement that they “keep communities safe and allow local law enforcement to use resources to address local public safety priorities.”

In Boston, Democratic Mayor Michelle Wu’s response letter accused the Trump administration of “false and continuous attacks” as part of a campaign to “divide, isolate, and intimidate our cities, and make Americans fearful of one another.”

U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick issued a new order Aug. 22 extending a preliminary injunction to more cities, counties and states that had asked for protection against President Donald Trump’s executive orders and agency directives. Trump sought to withhold unrelated federal funding based on similar sanctuary policies.

Orrick’s ruling found the orders and directives are likely to be unconstitutional violations of local rights to set limits on immigration enforcement cooperation.

The injunction covers 50 areas in 14 states: California, Connecticut, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin.

Trump administration lawyers asked Aug. 26 to dismiss the case, arguing that the administration’s actions so far “merely instruct agencies to assess federal grant programs to determine where they can lawfully add immigration related conditions.”

A hearing is scheduled Oct.22.

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@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.

With a new law cutting Medicaid funding to certain clinics, Planned Parenthood estimates 200 of its clinics in 24 states are at risk of closure with the cuts, and nearly all of those clinics — 90% — are in states where abortion is legal. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

A federal judge ruled Friday against the Trump administration’s efforts to strip Medicaid funds from primarily Planned Parenthood-affiliated abortion providers.

Massachusetts U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani denied the federal government’s motion to lift a block on a new law, rejecting the U.S. Department of Justice’s argument that allowing Planned Parenthood to continue to bill for Medicaid while their lawsuit plays out would cause the government “irreparable injury.” She said the plaintiffs were more likely to suffer injury if the provision went into effect, such as having to close clinics and reduce services.

“Here, Defendants suffer no irreparable harm where Plaintiffs are substantially likely to succeed in establishing that Section 71113 violates several constitutional provisions,” Talwani wrote in an order, denying the federal government’s request to stay two preliminary injunctions. “[I]t is precisely because Congress targeted only a ‘certain’ group of entities for exclusion from Medicaid programs — all but two of which are Planned Parenthood Federation Members — that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in establishing that Section 71113 is unconstitutional.”

Late last month Talwani ordered a partial and then a full preliminary injunction after Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its Massachusetts and Utah affiliates sued in early July over the new federal reproductive health restriction. After unsuccessfully asking the district court to lift the block, the federal government appealed the preliminary injunctions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Shortly after, the DOJ filed a motion asking the district court to reconsider the preliminary injunctions. Last week, the appellate court declined the government’s request, pending the district court’s decision. Defendants are now expected to re-appeal the injunction to the First Circuit. 

The provision, set to expire July 4, 2026, would primarily affect health clinics affiliated with Planned Parenthood, which has estimated it could lose 200 of its 600 clinics, many of which are in rural areas and others that are critical abortion-access points. 

But two other affected organizations are Health Imperatives in Massachusetts, which according to WBUR, operates seven clinics and serves about 10,000 patients, and Maine Family Planning, which has also sued over the provision. On Monday, U.S. District Judge Lance Walker in Maine, an appointee of President Donald Trump, denied Maine Family Planning’s motion for a preliminary injunction, despite the organization facing losses up to nearly $2 million, potential layoffs, and disruption of care for about 8,000 patients.

“This ruling is a devastating setback for Mainers who depend on us for basic primary care,” said George Hill, president and CEO of Maine Family Planning, according to Maine Morning Star. “The loss of Medicaid funds — which nearly half our patients rely on — threatens our ability to provide life-saving services to communities across the state. Mainers’ health should never be jeopardized by political decisions, and we will continue to fight for them.”

Does the new federal Medicaid rule unlawfully target Planned Parenthood?

Federal funding of abortion is already prohibited in most cases under the Hyde Amendment. But the new funding rule would bar from the Medicaid program reproductive health clinics that provide abortions and received more than $800,000 in federal and state Medicaid funding in fiscal year 2023 for health services like birth control, cancer and gender-affirming care. 

The legislation has caused confusion throughout the Planned Parenthood network because its definition of “prohibited entity” includes a barred organization’s “affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, and clinics.”

The nonprofit health network comprises its national membership and advocacy organization, PPFA, and nearly 50 independently structured and operated affiliates, some of which do not offer abortion, such as co-plaintiff Planned Parenthood Association of Utah. These organizations are reimbursed after the fact for specific health services covered by Medicaid. 

Even though the provision is currently blocked, several Planned Parenthood clinics around the country have already closed, both because of the new rule and the Trump administration’s other restrictions stripping abortion providers of federal family planning grants. 

Many of the recently shuttered clinics did not provide abortion, like in Ohio, and some are in states where abortion is illegal, like in Louisiana. 

Planned Parenthood’s attorneys have argued that the new federal Medicaid rule violates their equal protection, speech and association rights, because it excludes their clinics from the Medicaid program on the basis of their association to other organizations — in this case organizations that provide abortions and advocate for abortion rights.

“[S]ince this Court issued its decision, the government has now admitted that Section 71113 (the “Defund Provision”) was intended to punish Planned Parenthood for its ‘political advocacy,’” the plaintiffs wrote in a recent brief opposing defendants’ motion to lift the injunction. 

Plaintiffs referred to a recent public statement made by Andrew G. Nixon, a spokesperson for co-defendant U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

“States should not be forced to fund organizations that have chosen political advocacy over patient care,” Nixon said, after the district court’s initial preliminary injunction on July 22. 

But in court, the federal government argued the tax and spending cuts law excludes large abortion providers only because they provide abortions. They say they are also excluding smaller or non-abortion-providing affiliates, not because of their speech or advocacy, but because of their “non-expressive activities of corporate control and financing.” Their basic argument is that money to any Planned Parenthood clinic — even for health services unrelated to abortion — is money for abortion. 

“[B]ecause money is fungible, extending the funding restriction to affiliates prevents an organization from undermining federal policy not to subsidize abortion providers by shifting funds between entities that do not perform abortions and entities that do,” defendants wrote.  

The DOJ has also rejected plaintiffs’ claim that the federal legislation is a bill of attainder, which refers to legislation that unconstitutionally imposes punishment on a specific person or group of people without a judicial trial. 

“Halting the flow of federal Medicaid funds to those entities bears no resemblance to the forms of punishment that implicate the Bill of Attainder Clause,” reads the DOJ’s motion. “Historically, bills of attainder involved punishments such as ‘death,’ ‘banishment,’ and ‘imprisonment.’”

But Talwani disagrees with the DOJ’s reasoning.

“[T]here is no indication in the record that Planned Parenthood Members share revenues from Medicaid reimbursements,” she wrote. “The result is a restriction on associational freedom that is in no way ‘essential to the furtherance of [Defendants’] interest’ in withholding funds from certain abortion providers … and instead imposes a wholly unwarranted burden.”

While the new federal tax and spending cuts law does not mention Planned Parenthood by name, a bill introduced this year with similar language is explicitly titled, “Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2025.” Meanwhile, several state legislatures have successfully stripped funding from the organization. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed South Carolina to exclude Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program in late June after a long legal fight, but the state’s affiliate just sued again over Medicaid eligibility.

“You have to be living in a cave to believe this isn’t about Planned Parenthood,” said abortion law expert Mary Ziegler. “The reason Planned Parenthood is a target is because it’s a twofer. It’s both the nation’s largest abortion provider and also the nation’s best advocate for abortion rights. … But I think the problem for Planned Parenthood is that disaggregating the two is hard, and proving congressional intent to target one rather than the other is challenging.”

Anti-abortion activists and conservative commentators have accused Talwani, an Obama appointee, of judicial activism.

“Now the abortion industry is suing to block the will of the voters, duly passed by Congress,” wrote Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, in a recent op-ed for National Review. “They argue they’re constitutionally entitled to our tax dollars in perpetuity, and they’ve found a single activist judge willing to take their side and impose that view on the entire nation — for now.”

Ziegler said the bill of attainder argument is rarely used, but is plausible in this case. 

“Generally, with a bill of attainder, you have to show that there’s no other kind of valid legislative purpose, and that it’s selectively targeting the person who’s suing,” she said. “In this case, it seems pretty clear that there’s some targeting of Planned Parenthood happening. … But I think there being no other purpose is more complicated.”

Ziegler said the case will likely be hard to win if it gets to the majority conservative Supreme Court. But if the injunction holds, Planned Parenthood could run out the clock on the one-year Medicaid restriction. She thinks it might seem too politically risky to renew this provision right before the 2026 midterm elections to more moderate Republicans in the House, like Rep. Mike Lawler of New York, who told NOTUS in May, “from the standpoint of providing health care to women, you know, I’m not for taking away people’s health care.”

“They’ll either have to say, ‘All our boasts about defunding Planned Parenthood were not real, because Planned Parenthood is going to get funded again,’ or they’re going to have to make the funding prohibition permanent, which could have the consequences that people like Lawler were afraid of.”

A firefighter moves hazard fuel while working on the Bear Gulch fire this summer. Many in the wildland fire community believe the leadership team managing the fire sent crews into an ambush by federal immigration agents. (Facebook/Bear Gulch Fire 2025)

Wildland firefighters were stunned when federal immigration authorities last week raided an active wildfire response in Washington state, arresting two firefighters and sidelining crews for hours.

Wildfire veterans say the operation was nearly unprecedented, a breach in longstanding protocol that federal agents don’t disrupt emergency responders to check immigration status.

Worse, many wildfire veterans believe the management team overseeing the fire crews played a key role in handing over the firefighters to immigration authorities.

Stateline spoke to nearly a dozen firefighters, agency staffers and contractors familiar with the incident, who shared their belief that the top officials assigned to the fire deployed the crews to a remote location under false pretenses so federal agents could check their immigration status. Most of them spoke privately for fear of retaliation.

The raid has reverberated among fire crews, agency leaders and contractors. Wildfire veterans say the arrests have stoked fear and distrust among firefighters on the ground. They worry that crews may be scared to deploy if they may become a target for immigration raids.

“There’s really no way [the wildfire management team] could not have been involved,” said Riva Duncan, a former wildland fire chief who served more than 30 years with the U.S. Forest Service. “We’re all talking about it. People are wondering if they go on a fire with this team, if that could happen to them.”

Since the incident became public, the wildfire world has been abuzz with anger at that team — California Interagency Incident Management Team 7. Made up of federal, state and local fire professionals, the team was assigned to oversee the response to the Bear Gulch fire, which has burned 9,000 acres in and around Olympic National Park in Washington state.

One firefighter who was present at the raid said he is convinced that Team 7 leaders sent their crews into a trap.

“I felt beyond betrayed,” said the firefighter, who requested anonymity to protect his career. “What they did was messed up. They’d been talking in their briefings about building relationships and trust. For them to say that and then go do this is mind-boggling. It boiled my blood.”

Team 7 Incident Commander Tom Clemo, in an email, declined to comment, citing an active investigation. Tom Stokesberry, the team’s public information officer, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

According to daily Incident Action Plans filed by Team 7 and posted online, the crews had previously been digging holding lines, working to protect structures and conducting mop-up work. The two crews targeted by federal agents had not been assigned to work together in the days leading up to the raid.

Then, on Aug. 27, both crews — workers from private companies contracted to help fight the fire — were told to deploy to a staging area where they would cut firewood for the local community. The firefighter who was present at the raid told Stateline that a division supervisor told the crews he would meet them at the site, but never showed up.

After arriving at the site, the firefighter said, the crews found piles of logs, seemingly from a timber operation. Not wanting to damage a logging company’s property, they waited for a management team leader to show up with further instructions.

After an hour, unmarked law enforcement vehicles pulled up to the site and federal officials began questioning the firefighters. Duncan, the former Forest Service firefighter, said immigration agents would not have been able to access the site without help from Team 7 leaders.

“Fire areas are officially closed, very secure and there are roadblocks,” she said. “Somebody would have had to tell these agents how to get there.”

In a news release, U.S. Customs and Border Protection said its agents assisted with an investigation led by the federal Bureau of Land Management. While the agency’s release did not mention the nature of the investigation, multiple wildfire sources said the feds claimed they had uncovered fraud on time cards submitted by the crews.

Table Rock Forestry Inc., an Oregon-based company whose crew was one of the two at the scene, was allegedly subjected to the raid due to a half-hour discrepancy on a time sheet, said Scott Polhamus, secretary of the Organization of Fire Contractors and Affiliates. Table Rock Forestry is a member of the fire contractors’ group.

Multiple wildfire veterans said that time card discrepancies are not uncommon at wildfires, where crews work long days and it’s not always clear if lunch breaks or errands in town count toward working hours. Such mix-ups are typically sorted out between organizational leaders. Calling law enforcement in such a scenario is almost unheard of.

“This is not the first time a crew has been called on the carpet for maybe padding their time a bit,” Duncan said. “You deal directly with the company. It’s just absolutely mind-boggling to treat it as a criminal issue.”

After about five minutes discussing the time card issue, according to the firefighter who was present at the raid, federal agents spent the next three hours checking each firefighter’s immigration status.

The Customs and Border Protection news release announcing the immigration arrests made no mention of time sheets or any evidence that the investigation had turned up fraud. It did state that the two companies whose crews were raided had their contracts terminated by the government.

Polhamus, with the fire contractors’ group, said that claim is false. While the crews were demobilized and sent home, the feds have not actually ended the companies’ contracts or ability to accept future deployments.

A Customs and Border Protection public affairs specialist did not immediately respond to questions about the investigation, the alleged fraud or federal agents’ coordination with Team 7.

The Washington State Department of Natural Resources, the state’s lead wildfire response agency, said federal officials did not notify their state counterparts about the investigation.

“DNR was not informed of the incident until well after the fact,” said Ryan Rodruck, wildfire on-call public information officer with the agency.

Rodruck noted that the fire response was under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service. Press officers with the Forest Service did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Multiple wildfire sources said the crews would not have been sent to the staging area where they were ambushed without the knowledge of top leaders on the fire’s management team.

The two crews that were raided have a diverse mix of firefighters, many of them Hispanic. One of the crews has many foreign workers who are legally in the country on H-2B visas. Duncan, the former Forest Service firefighter, said it was likely not a coincidence that two crews with many brown-skinned members were targeted in the raid.

Two of the firefighters were arrested, federal officials said, for being in the country illegally.

One of the firefighters who was arrested is represented by Innovation Law Lab, an Oregon-based legal group that defends refugees and immigrants. Isa Peña, the group’s director of strategy, said the Department of Homeland Security has not revealed the whereabouts of their client.

The firefighter, who Peña declined to name, has been in the U.S. since he was four years old and served as a firefighter for the past three years. Immigration advocates are alarmed that the raid was potentially arranged by California Interagency Incident Management Team 7, the leaders charged with overseeing the wildfire response.

“There certainly is concern if that is the case that individuals are being handed over to immigration as they’re trying to keep our communities safe,” Peña said. “Conducting immigration enforcement while brave members of our community are risking their lives to protect us is really disgusting.”

Several wildland fire veterans also noted that the raid took place on Team 7’s final day in charge of the fire response, hours before a Washington team rotated in to take command. The California team headed home and left the new team to face the media scrutiny and angry firefighters in camp.

“If you’ve got ICE teams pulling your contractors out, you’d want to cut and run as soon as you can,” Polhamus said.

On a forum for wildland fire professionals on the social media platform Reddit, many expressed anger at Team 7. Firefighters also took issue with the assertion, shared by federal immigration officials, that the raid did not disrupt firefighting operations.

“It’s total bulls***,” said Duncan, the former Forest Service firefighter. “Whoever made that statement doesn’t understand the work. To take two crews off of a fire that’s only 13% contained, that seems ridiculous at that point in a fire. That does seem very unusual.”

Many wildfire veterans said that conducting a raid at the site of an active wildfire was reckless and irresponsible.

“Having people on the line that you don’t expect to be there is an issue,” said Polhamus, with the fire contractors’ group. “When you need crews and you are taking resources to check them for immigration status, we can all think of better ways to address that.”

Duncan said she’s spoken with firefighters still assigned to the Bear Gulch fire who are disgusted with the situation and want to leave.

“The three principal wildland fire values are duty, respect, integrity,” she said. “Utmost in that is taking care of your people. If you can’t trust the people you’re working with when things get hairy, that’s a concern.”

In Washington and Oregon, elected leaders have decried the raids and are pushing for more information on the status of the firefighters who were arrested. Federal immigration officials have said little since the news release announcing the arrests.

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.