Wisconsin State Capitol (Wisconsin Examiner photo)

Gov. Tony Evers vetoed nine bills Friday including a Republican bill that would have barred local and state funds from being used for immigrants without legal status.

Wisconsin already doesn’t allow immigrants without legal status to access BadgerCare, which Evers noted in his veto message. Republicans lawmakers acknowledged that fact as they advocated for AB 308, saying the bill was intended to block future use of health care benefits by immigrants. The bill would have prohibited state, county, village, long-term care district and federal funds from being used to subsidize, reimburse or provide compensation for any health care services for a person not lawfully in the U.S.

“As this bill’s Republican co-author in the Wisconsin State Assembly plainly stated in the public hearing on this proposal, ‘Wisconsin currently doesn’t allow undocumented immigrants to enroll in BadgerCare,’” Evers wrote in his veto message. 

“I object to Republican lawmakers passing legislation they acknowledge is unnecessary to prevent problems they admit do not exist, all for the sake of trying to push polarizing political rhetoric,” Evers added. 

Evers said the bill was “more about being inflammatory, stoking fear, and sowing division than it was about accomplishing any significant policy outcome or being prudent stewards of taxpayer dollars.” 

U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, one of two Republican candidates for governor, criticized the veto in a statement, saying Evers was putting the interests of “illegal aliens” ahead of Wisconsin taxpayers and sought to tie Evers’ action to next year’s high-profile gubernatorial election. Evers is not running for reelection, and there is a crowded Democratic field that is still taking shape.

“If Democrats take the governor’s office in 2026, you can count on them to hand out driver’s licenses, in-state tuition and taxpayer-funded health care to illegal aliens. I will not let that happen,” Tiffany said.

No new cigar bars

Evers also vetoed a bill that would have allowed for more tobacco bars in Wisconsin. 

Wisconsin first enacted its smoke-free air law in 2010 — prohibiting smoking cigars, cigarettes, pipes and other products in public spaces. The law included an exclusion for cigar bars that were in existence before June 4, 2009.

AB 211 would have allowed for more exemptions for tobacco bars if they came into existence on or after June 4, 2009 provided that they allowed only the smoking of cigars and pipes and were not part of a retail food establishment.

Evers, a former smoker and an esophageal cancer survivor, said he objected due to the harm that the bill could have on Wisconsinites public health.

“Secondhand smoke, a known carcinogen, causes serious health problems and is responsible for thousands of deaths on an annual basis,” Evers stated. He said the state’s smoke-free air law was “a critically important step forward for keeping kids, families, and communities healthier and safer, improving public health and, most importantly, saving thousands of lives… I cannot in good conscience reverse course on that important step for public health, safety, and well-being by restoring indoor smoking in certain public spaces.”

Bill to ban guaranteed income

Evers also vetoed AB 165, which would have banned local governments from using tax money to create guaranteed income programs without a work or training requirement. 

Evers wrote in his veto message that he objects to lawmakers’ “continued efforts to arbitrarily restrict and preempt local governments across our state.” He said they should instead focus on finding ways to support local communities and ensure they have the resources they need to “meet basic and unique needs alike.”

Building code delay

Evers vetoed AB 450, which would have put off the effective date of Wisconsin’s updated commercial building code until April 1, 2026, saying he objected to “further unnecessary delay in implementing new building standards that will benefit Wisconsin communities.” 

The new building codes were originally blocked by lawmakers on the Joint Committee on the Review of Administrative Rules for years, but they were reinstated this year by the the Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) after a state Supreme Court decision. Justices ruled in July that state laws allowing the Legislature to block executive branch administrative rules indefinitely were unconstitutional.

The current effective date for the building codes is Nov. 1, 2025.

Republican lawmakers claimed the delay to next year was needed to provide clarity to builders who had been planning projects under the previous code. 

Evers wrote in his veto message that the bill would do the opposite. 

“This bill would not only create confusion for developers with current building projects under review but would also further delay the implementation of new safety and energy efficiency standards that have been already widely adopted,” Evers said. “The department has and will continue to work with building professionals throughout the state to ensure proper understanding and compliance with the new building commercial code.” 

Education bills rejected

A handful of Republican education-related bills were rejected by Evers. 

Currently, teacher preparation programs are required to have a full semester of student teaching during the school year. SB 424 would have allowed for programs to use student teaching during a summer session as an alternative to a full school-year semester.

Lawmakers had said the bill would help with recruitment by allowing for more flexibility to students seeking to become teachers. However, Evers said that the bill would potentially reduce the rigor of the current training that students are required to have, especially given that summer sessions can be shorter than a typical school term and may not allow students to experience the same opportunities available during the school year such as parent-teacher conferences.

“Reducing training, qualifications, experience, and work ages are not real solutions for solving Wisconsin’s generational workforce shortages,” Evers said in his veto message. “Wisconsin’s challenges recruiting, training, and retaining exceptional educators will not be aided by making education professionals less trained, less qualified, and less experienced — nor will our kids.”

Evers also vetoed AB 166, which would have required UW system institutions, technical colleges and private nonprofit colleges to report cost and student outcome data and required the information be provided to high school juniors and seniors in academic and career planning services. 

Evers said in his veto message that he didn’t want to burden the state’s higher education institutions with more administrative requirements, especially without “necessary resources.” He noted that the UW system says that the requirements in the bill “overlap substantially” with existing information that is already available. 

The University of Wisconsin system keeps a public dashboard with some of the information that the bill would have required, including for financial aid, retention and graduation, and time and credits to degree.

Evers also vetoed SB 10, which would have mandated that Wisconsin public school districts provide military recruiters with access to common areas in high schools and access during the school day and during school-sanctioned events. He said that while he supports the troops, he doesn’t support lawmakers’ attempts to “usurp” local control of decisions on when and where military recruiters are given access to schools. 

Bill that would have eliminated requirement for Elections Commission appeal

Voters currently can file a complaint to the Wisconsin Election Commission if they allege an election official serving the voter’s jurisdiction has failed to comply with certain election laws or has abused his or her discretion with respect to the administration of such election laws. A voter who doesn’t agree with a WEC decision can appeal to a court, though currently courts are only allowed to take up an appeal if voters have suffered an injury to a legally recognized interest as a result. That requirement was established in a 2025 state Supreme Court decision.

SB 270 would have eliminated that requirement, and Evers said he objected because it “would open the floodgates to frivolous lawsuits that not only burden our courts, but our election systems as well.” 

Penalties for those who falsely claim a service animal

AB 366, which would have allowed housing providers to require documentation for service animals and created penalties for misrepresentation of an animal. Evers said he objects to “the creation of unnecessary barriers for individuals with legitimate disability-related needs.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 9, 2024. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

The U.S. Supreme Court said Friday justices will hear a case to decide if President Donald Trump’s order to end birthright citizenship is constitutional.

The court agreed to hear a case, before it is decided in a lower court, that deals with the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to almost everyone born in the United States. The amendment’s birthright citizenship clause has been used to give citizenship to the children of immigrants in the country without legal authorization or on a temporary basis.

While a schedule for arguments has not yet been released by the court, it’s likely the case would be heard sometime in early 2026.

The Trump administration argued in its petition to the court that the amendment, which was adopted in 1868, was meant to apply to newly freed slaves. It was not meant to provide citizenship to the children of immigrants without legal status, Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote.

“Long after the Clause’s adoption, the mistaken view that birth on U.S. territory confers citizenship on anyone subject to the regulatory reach of U.S. law became pervasive, with destructive consequences,” Sauer wrote in the September petition.

The petition also sought Supreme Court review of a related challenge to the order by the states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon. Friday’s court order did not grant a hearing on that case.

Trump signed an executive order on Jan. 20 seeking to redefine the birthright citizenship clause to exclude the children of immigrants in the country without legal authority or only temporarily. Democratic-led states and advocacy groups swiftly sued.

Courts have largely blocked enforcement of the order, although the Supreme Court in June allowed it to go into effect in the states that had not sued to preserve the right.

In a Friday afternoon statement, the American Civil Liberties Union, a leading civil rights group, noted that several federal judges had blocked enforcement and predicted the Supreme Court would preserve birthright citizenship.

“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” Cecillia Wang, ACLU’s national legal director, said. “For over 150 years, it has been the law and our national tradition that everyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen from birth. The federal courts have unanimously held that President Trump’s executive order is contrary to the Constitution, a Supreme Court decision from 1898, and a law enacted by Congress. We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”

Members of a key CDC advisory committee, known as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, met in Atlanta on Dec. 4. Maya Homan/Georgia Recorder

ATLANTA — A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention committee voted to eliminate a recommendation that all newborn babies receive a vaccine against hepatitis B, ending a policy that has been in place since 1991 to protect Americans against an incurable liver disease that can lead to cirrhosis, cancer and liver failure. 

The current three-dose series for hepatitis B includes one vaccine administered to infants within 24 hours of birth, and subsequent booster shots given one month and six months after the initial dose. The universal vaccination policy is credited with a 99% drop in serious infections among American children between 1990 and 2019.

In its updated guidelines, the agency will continue to recommend that babies born to mothers who test positive for hepatitis B receive a vaccine at birth. However, in all other cases, the decision will be left to “individual-based decision-making,” a change that experts say will lead to an increase in chronic hepatitis B infections. The new recommendation also suggests that parents delay the first dose of the vaccine until at least two months after birth.

Friday’s decision comes after an 8-3 vote from a key CDC advisory committee, known as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which is charged with setting national guidelines around which people should be vaccinated against a wide range of preventable diseases and when those vaccines should be administered. The recommendations play a key role in determining which vaccines insurance companies are willing to cover and how accessible those immunizations are to the public.

The two-day meeting included several presentations from prominent anti-vaccine activists, including Aaron Siri, a vaccine injury lawyer who has previously represented U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and reportedly helped him vet health officials for President Donald Trump’s administration. At least two of them — Cynthia Nevison, a climate researcher who has ties to anti-vaccine groups, and Mark Blaxill, a former consultant and author — were recently hired by the CDC.

Retsef Levi, an ACIP member and professor of operations management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, called the updated recommendation a “very positive change in policy,” arguing that blanket vaccine recommendations force newborns to serve as “a safety net for adults’ mistakes.”

But Dr. Cody Meissner, another member of the committee who also serves as a professor of pediatrics and medicine at Dartmouth College, argued that the vaccines play a crucial role in protecting infants from the disease, and said there was no valid scientific evidence to support the changes implemented by the panel.

“Thoughtful inquiry is always commendable,” he told the committee. “But that inquiry should not be confused with baseless skepticism, which is what I think we’re encountering here.”

Sandra Fryhofer, a doctor and liaison for the American Medical Association, also criticized the move, arguing that implementing guidelines based on the mother’s hepatitis status will leave babies vulnerable to developing the disease from other sources, such as infected relatives. According to CDC data, roughly half of people with hepatitis B do not know they are infected.

“Are we going to test every patient that has access to or touches that baby?” she asked the committee Thursday. “I mean, that’s not something that’s really doable.”

The updated recommendation for the hepatitis B vaccine mirrors COVID-19 vaccine guidelines passed by the same panel in September, which place new emphasis on the risks of immunizations, though the CDC’s own data shows that the vaccines are safe and effective for most people. 

A second vote, which passed 6-4, encourages parents to discuss using serology testing, a type of blood test that measures antibodies to gauge how well a patient’s immune system has responded to a disease, before allowing their children to receive additional doses of the hepatitis B vaccine.

The changed recommendations will not prevent doctors from administering hepatitis B vaccines to newborns, but critics say they could create additional hurdles for families and healthcare providers.

“Adding excessive or ambiguous language around shared decision-making for routine vaccines muddies the waters, creates a false sense of scientific uncertainty and places unnecessary burden on clinicians and families,” said Dr. Natasha Bagdasarian, who was representing the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials.

Children enrolled in Medicaid or the Vaccines for Children program, which provides free immunizations to children who are uninsured or underinsured, will continue to be eligible for hepatitis B vaccines at birth under the new recommendations, according to program liaisons.

Federal fallout

As with the new COVID-19 vaccine recommendations, the updated hepatitis B guidelines will not take effect until being officially signed off by the acting CDC Director, Jim O’Neill.

But amid shifting federal guidance on public health policies, a growing number of state and federal officials are developing their own policies rather than relying on the agency’s guidelines. In a Dec. 3 letter sent ahead of ACIP’s meeting, more than 30 members of Congress urged O’Neill to maintain the existing recommendations, regardless of what the advisory committee decided.

“There is no data to support delaying the first immunization to one-month, four years, or 12 years of age,” the letter states.

U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican who heads the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, also called for O’Neill to forgo signing the updated recommendations.

“As a liver doctor who has treated patients with hepatitis B for decades, this change to the vaccine schedule is a mistake,” he wrote in a social media post after the vote. “The hepatitis B vaccine is safe and effective. The birth dose is a recommendation, NOT a mandate.”

Cassidy, a doctor, cast the deciding vote to confirm Kennedy as health secretary on the condition that Kennedy “maintain the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices without changes.” Kennedy later backtracked on that promise, firing all 17 previous members of the committee and replacing them with a slate of hand-picked appointees, many of whom are seen as vaccine skeptics.

In a Thursday social media post, Cassidy criticized the committee for its plans to hear testimony from Siri, the vaccine injury lawyer.

“The ACIP is totally discredited,” he added. “They are not protecting children.”

Neubauer said in an interview that Republicans have continued to “ignore” the core challenges facing Wisconsinites, which for the most part center on costs. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine) told the Wisconsin Examiner in a year-end interview that Democrats have spent the past year preparing to lead and she is optimistic about the chances for flipping the Assembly. Neubauer reflected on the current session and previewed what’s ahead.

The effect of smaller margins and the remainder of session

This session has been different from previous ones, said Neubauer, who was first elected to the state Assembly in 2018 and has led Assembly Democrats since 2022. 

“Closer numbers in the state Assembly and state Senate have yielded some more bipartisan work,” Neubauer said. Republicans hold a 54 to 45 majority in the Assembly, and a 18 to 15 majority in the state Senate. 

She felt the difference this year  from her first seven years in the body, she said, when Democrats were “in a position where we really were on defense and having to spend a huge amount of time just trying to prevent the worst policy ideas from going through.”

That work across the aisle, she said, was evident in the state budget, when Senate Democrats had a seat at the negotiating table and were able to secure more money for public schools. She also sees a difference in some of the housing bills that recently passed the Legislature. Neubauer said that Assembly task forces focused on children’s social media use and elder care also allowed for discussion across the aisle and she is hopeful they will yield some bipartisan legislation.

Still, she said, the session hasn’t yielded everything she had hoped for. 

“We have not seen the kind of movement that I would have hoped, especially given that we’re  all up for election next year, and everyone’s going to have to go home and answer to their constituents for what was and was not accomplished.”

Neubauer said Republicans have continued to “ignore” the core challenges facing Wisconsinites, which for the most part center on costs. 

“That’s what we hear over and over from the people that we represent,” Neubauer said, noting several issues where Democratic lawmakers have introduced proposals or advocated for action. “There’s been no interest from our Republican colleagues on addressing the cost of prescription drugs and health care, especially in light of the [Affordable Care Act] premiums going up in a significant way. We have had a bill out for the entire session on Healthy School Meals. This would save the average family with two kids $1,800 a year. People would really appreciate that money right now, especially going into the holiday season, but we’ve had no interest from our Republican colleagues in addressing that issue…. and we do need to see more movement on housing and on child care.” 

Neubauer also noted that a bill to extend postpartum Medicaid remains stuck in the state Assembly due to opposition from Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester). Democratic lawmakers tried to force a vote on the issue during their last scheduled floor session this year, but failed. 

Neubauer said she still hopes that measure could advance next year in the time remaining in the session. 

“We know that people across the state believe that new moms should have access to health care. It’s essential for mom and baby… You do have to ask why [Rep.] Pat Snyder and [Rep.] Jessie Rodriguez, authors on that bill, are not able to get it done when they are governing,” Neubauer said. “They’re in the majority, and they have been for a long time.”

Despite the gridlock on certain issues, Neubauer said Democratic lawmakers have been able to think differently this year. 

“We are able to think about what bills are we going to pass when we’re governing. How can we work across the aisle and use our numbers to get things done and put pressure on Republicans to make the bills better if they need our support,” Neubauer said. “I do think that we are preparing to govern in that way, and we’re really working over the next several months to get more input from our constituents on the things that are important to them to make sure that our agenda and our plan for the first hundred days is really tuned to the particular challenges that people are facing.” 

Democratic lawmakers have spent the session introducing and advocating for bills on a number of issues including K-12 education, higher education, local government and elections. Most haven’t advanced or received a public hearing, but they are laying the groundwork for the future. 

“The bills that we’ve rolled out this fall would be things we would absolutely do when we come into the majority,” Neubauer said. “We also know there are some pretty essential rights and freedoms that we would want, things like enshrining access to abortion in state law, in case there are further court cases that would put that at risk.” 

Neubauer said Democratic lawmakers will have additional bills coming out in the next few weeks and in 2026, addressing public safety, housing and health care. She declined to provide details on what those proposals might do.

Neubauer said her caucus will continue to push for additional education funding in the fall, including general aid. This year the state budget included additional funding for special education, but Republican lawmakers refused to provide an increase in general aid — something that public school leaders and advocates have said will strain their budgets and put pressure on property taxpayers. 

“We have failed to adequately fund our local public schools and what we see from Republicans is [a plan to] consolidate districts and close local schools. No one’s asking us for that,” Neubauer said. “They’re asking us to maintain that essential funding that will allow their kids to attend a grade school where they get a good reading and math education, they’re safe, and they’re prepared for their future career.”

Neubauer also commented on a handful of other issues that the Legislature is grappling with.

• Neubauer called WisconsinEye, the independent, nonprofit service that provides coverage of Wisconsin state government similar to C-Span, “essential.” WisconsinEye has announced it will have to cease operations Dec. 15 if it does not receive more funds. She said she thinks there is a bipartisan understanding of the service the network  provides and is hopeful lawmakers will be able to make changes to the law to allow WisconsinEye to access state funds that were set aside for it. She said Wisconsinites deserved to know what’s going on in the state Capitol. “They deserve to be able to watch testimony on a bill that’s really important to them or their family and to know how their representative is responding on a certain issue or voting on the floor of the Assembly,” she said. “We should have structured their funding a little differently in the state budget, but we have an opportunity to do so now to make sure that they can provide that service.” The state initially set aside $10 million for the nonprofit in the 2023-25 state budget that it could only access if it raised the same amount, but it failed to do so. The opportunity to access the funds for an endowment was extended in the 2025-27 state budget, but the organization has struggled to raise funds for both the endowment and its operational costs.
• Lawmakers have also been discussing, once again, legalizing medical marijuana, though Neubauer said she isn’t sure if Republicans, who are standing in the way, will budge this session. “The reality here is that THC products are available in Wisconsin because of the Farm Bill… so I do think that that’s shifted the conversation. People of Wisconsin have been very clear that they want access to both medical and recreational marijuana, and we should be regulating this market and taxing it, making sure that kids don’t have access to these products,” Neubauer said. “I do think it will be difficult for Republicans to go home and explain why they still have not done anything when we’re an island of prohibition here.” 
• On funds that have not been released to combat PFAS contamination in drinking water, Neubauer said she hopes the Legislature can finally get something done. “There have been some productive conversations on this issue. The central conflict really remains that Democrats believe that polluters should pay for the damage that they have done, and I’m not really sure my Republican colleagues would agree with that, and so that’s been a challenge for us to move through, but we just have to do something,” Neubauer said. “We have communities in Wisconsin that cannot drink the water coming out of their tap, and that’s unacceptable.” 

2026 elections and a potential majority

Neubauer, who confirmed she will be running for another term in the Assembly, said she is optimistic about Democrats’ chances of winning the Assembly majority next year. The 2026 elections will serve as Assembly Democrats’ second opportunity under new legislative maps adopted in 2024 to try to flip the chamber for the first time in 16 years. 

In 2024, Democrats won 10 additional seats. For Democrats to win control in 2026, they’ll need to hold all of their current seats and win five more. 

The seats that they’ll be competing for are very close, Neubauer said, including some that former Vice President Kamala Harris won in 2024, even as she lost the state as a whole.

“There are people who like the vision that we’re putting forward in these districts, so the path is there. We are recruiting great candidates who are very connected to their local community and who are ready to go out and speak directly to the voters of their district from now until election day,” Neubauer said. “That’s how we win. We win by talking about the failures of Republicans and pointing out that they have been in control here for coming up on 15 years, and they have really failed to provide the essential services that people deserve.” 

Neubauer said it helps that Democrats have fewer seats that they need to flip in 2026, so they’ll be able to better focus on tough districts. 

Neubauer said Democrats have candidates from a diverse array of backgrounds including teachers, coaches, small business owners, farmers, public safety employees and union members, who she said are representative of the state.  

“We know that people want to see folks in office that remind them of themselves and of their neighbors and who understand the challenges that they’re going through. We’ve got folks running who get what it’s like to be looking at the budget and worried about how they’re going to make it to the next month or how they’re going to afford those Christmas gifts or special meals for the holidays,” she said. 

She said to look out for more candidate announcements early next year.

Neubauer also said the election results from across the country bode well for Democrats in Wisconsin. She said the results in  New Jersey and Virginia were a “really strong overperformance for Democrats.” She said it’s a sign that people are unhappy with Republican leadership and the direction of the country.

“[President] Donald Trump said that he was going to focus on the economy and making life a little easier for folks, and he has engaged in reckless trade wars, and taking other steps that have made it harder for people to get by — not easier,” Neubauer said. She also said it is “shocking” that Trump would “completely fail” to recognize how cutting SNAP funding would hurt people, and said his comments about running for a third term are “unsettling” and it is “incumbent on all of us who believe in democracy and who believe in fair elections” to push back.

“I think you’re seeing the effects of that on people across the country. Not only the federal Republicans, but their state level Republicans are just not following through on the promises that they made so I think people are looking for something different and that gives us an opportunity here.”

Wisconsinites will also make a choice next year in a high-profile open race for governor, and Neubauer said she’ll do everything she can to elect a Democratic governor. 

“I am looking for someone who understands the necessity of winning in Wisconsin next year and is focused on communicating with the people of this state a vision for how life would be better with Democrats running the state Capitol,” Neubauer said. “It’s really important that we put out a vision, and that we connect directly with the people of Wisconsin and push through the frustration that folks have with politics right now by being really clear about what we’ll do and then winning and then getting those things done.”

Neubauer said she is happy with the field of Democrats running for governor, especially given how many have legislative experience, but won’t be making an endorsement. She noted that Democratic U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan and U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore all spent time serving in the Wisconsin Legislature. 

Two current lawmakers, state Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison), and state Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison), are running along with former lawmakers Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez, Milwaukee Co. Executive David Crowley and former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes.

“We’re excited that so many folks understand what it’s like to be a legislator and who will work well, I think, with our caucus in a governing trifecta,” Neubauer said. 

Former Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation CEO Missy Hughes, another Democratic gubernatorial hopeful, has no legislative experience.

In the event a Republican wins, Neubauer said Democrats in the Legislature will “work with them to the best of our ability to deliver.” 

U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, who is considered the frontrunner in the primary race, and Washington County Executive Josh Schoemann, are the current Republican hopefuls.

“We show up every day remembering that our constituents sent us here to get things done and that has to be our first priority, so we will work with anybody who wants to work with us and that would include a Republican governor if that’s the situation that we’re in,” Neubauer said. “People are struggling, and it is our responsibility to respond to that and to do what we can to help.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Older men play cards in a park in New York City's Chinatown in 2024. Medicare, the public health insurance for older Americans, is piloting a new prior authorization program powered by artificial intelligence that some physicians fear will result in more denials and delays in medical care for patients. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

A Medicare pilot program will allow private companies to use artificial intelligence to review older Americans’ requests for certain medical care — and will reward the companies when they deny it.

In January, the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will launch the Wasteful and Inappropriate Services Reduction (WISeR) Model to test AI-powered prior authorizations on certain health services for Medicare patients in six states: Arizona, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas and Washington. The program is scheduled to last through 2031.

The program effectively inserts one of private insurance’s most unpopular features — prior authorization — into traditional Medicare, the federal health insurance program for people 65 and older and those with certain disabilities. Prior authorization is the process by which patients and doctors must ask health insurers to approve medical procedures or drugs before proceeding.

Adults over 65 generally have two options for health insurance: traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage. Both types of Medicare are funded with public dollars, but Medicare Advantage plans are contracted through private insurance companies. Medicare Advantage plans tend to cost less out of pocket, but patients enrolled in them often must seek prior authorization for care.

AI-powered prior authorization in Medicare Advantage and private insurance has attracted intense criticism, legislative action by state and federal lawmakers, federal investigations and class-action lawsuits. It’s been linked to bad health outcomes. Dozens of states have passed legislation in recent years to regulate the practice.

In June, the Trump administration even extracted a pledge from major health insurers to streamline and reduce prior authorization.

“Americans shouldn’t have to negotiate with their insurer to get the care they need,” U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a June statement announcing the pledge. “Pitting patients and their doctors against massive companies was not good for anyone.”

Four days after the pledge was announced, the administration rolled out the new WISeR program, scheduled to take effect in January. It will require prior authorizations only for certain services and prescriptions that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has identified as “particularly vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse, or inappropriate use.” Those services include, among other things, knee arthroscopy for knee osteoarthritis, skin and tissue substitutes, certain nerve stimulation services and incontinence control devices.

The companies get paid based on how much money they save Medicare by denying approvals for “unnecessary or non-covered services,” CMS said in a statement unveiling the program.

The new program has alarmed many physicians and advocates in the affected states.

“In concept, it makes a lot of sense; you don’t want to pay for care that patients don’t need,” said Jeb Shepard, policy director for the Washington State Medical Association.

“But in practice, [prior authorization] has been hugely problematic because it essentially acts as a barrier. There are a lot of denials and lengthy appeals processes that pull physicians away from providing care to patients. They have to fight with insurance carriers to get their patients the care they believe is appropriate.”

CMS responded to Stateline’s questions by providing additional information about the program, but offered few details on what the agency would do to prevent delays or denials of care. It has said that final decisions on coverage denials will be made by “licensed clinicians, not machines.” In a bid to hold the companies accountable, CMS also incentivizes them for making determinations in a reasonable amount of time, and for making the right determinations according to Medicare rules, without needing appeals.

In the statement announcing the program, Abe Sutton, director of the CMS Innovation Center, said the “low-value services” targeted by WISeR “offer patients minimal benefit and, in some cases, can result in physical harm and psychological stress. They also increase patient costs while inflating health care spending.”

A vulnerable group

Dr. Bindu Nayak is an endocrinologist in Wenatchee, Washington, a city near the center of the state that bills itself as the “Apple Capital of the World.” She mainly treats patients with diabetes and estimates 30-40% of her patients have Medicare.

“Medicare recipients are a vulnerable group,” Nayak told Stateline. “The WISeR program puts more barriers up for them accessing care. And they may have to now deal with prior authorization when they never had to deal with it before.”

Nayak and other physicians worry the same problems with prior authorizations that they’ve seen with their Medicare Advantage patients will plague traditional Medicare patients. Nayak has employees on staff whose only role is to handle prior authorizations.

More than a quarter of physicians nationwide say prior authorization issues led to a serious problem for a patient in their care, including hospitalization or permanent damage, according to the most recent report from the American Medical Association.

And some patients are unfairly denied treatment. Private insurers have denied care for people with Medicare Advantage plans even though their prior authorization requests met Medicare’s requirements, according to an investigation from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published in 2022. Investigators found 13% of prior authorization denials were for requests that should have been granted.

But supporters of the new model say something must be done to reduce costs. Medicare is the largest single purchaser of health care in the nation, with spending expected to double in the next decade, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent federal agency. Medicare spent as much as $5.8 billion in 2022 on services with little or no benefit to patients.

Congress pushes back

In November, congressional representatives from Ohio, Washington and other states introduced a bill to repeal the WISeR model. It’s currently in committee.

“The [Trump] administration has publicly admitted prior authorization is harmful, yet it is moving forward with this misguided effort that would make seniors navigate more red tape to get the care they’re entitled to,” U.S. Rep. Suzan DelBene, a Washington Democrat and a co-sponsor of the bill, said in a November statement.

Physician and hospital groups in many of the affected states have backed the bill, which would halt the program at least temporarily. Shepard, whose medical association supports the bill, said that would give CMS time to get more stakeholder input and give physicians more time to prepare for extra administrative requirements.

“Conventional wisdom would dictate a program of this magnitude that has elicited so much concern from so many corners would at least be delayed while we work through some things,” Shepard said, “but there’s no indication that they’re going to back off this.”

Adding more prior authorization requirements for a new subset of Medicare patients will tack on extra administrative burdens for physicians, especially those in orthopedics, urology and neurology, fields that have a higher share of services that fall under the new rules.

That increased administrative burden “will probably lead to a lot longer wait times for patients,” Nayak said. “It will be important for patients to realize that they may see more barriers in the form of denials, but they should continue to advocate for themselves.”

Dr. Jayesh Shah, president of the Texas Medical Association and a San Antonio-based wound care physician, said WISeR is a well-intentioned program, but that prior authorization hurts patients and physicians.

“Prior authorization delays care and sometimes also denies care to patients who need it, and it increases the hassle factor for all physicians,” he told Stateline.

Shah added that, on the flip side, he’s heard from a few physicians who welcome prior authorization. They’d rather get preapproval for a procedure than perform it and later have Medicare deny reimbursement if the procedure didn’t meet requirements, he said.

Prior authorization has been a bipartisan concern in Congress and statehouses around the country.

Last year, 10 states — Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Vermont, Virginia and Wyoming — passed laws regulating prior authorization, according to the American Medical Association. Legislatures in at least 18 states have addressed prior authorization so far this year, an analysis from health policy publication Health Affairs Forefront found. Bipartisan groups of lawmakers in more than a dozen states have passed laws regulating the use of AI in health care.

But the new effort in the U.S. House to repeal the WISeR program is sponsored by Democrats. Supporters worry it’s unlikely to gain much traction in the Republican-controlled Congress.

Shepard said his organization has talked with state and congressional representatives, met with the regional CMS office twice, and sent a letter to CMS Director Dr. Mehmet Oz.

“We’ve looked at all the levers and we’ve pulled most of them,” Shepard said. “We’re running out of levers to pull.”

Venture capital jumps in

CMS announced in November it has selected six private tech companies to pilot the AI programs.

Some of them are backed by venture capital funds that count larger insurance companies among their key investors.

For example, Oklahoma’s pilot will be run by Humata Health Inc., which is backed by investors that include Blue Venture Fund, the venture capital arm of Blue Cross Blue Shield companies, and Optum Ventures, a venture capital firm connected to UnitedHealth Group, the parent company of UnitedHealthcare. Innovaccer Inc., chosen to run Ohio’s program, counts health care giant Kaiser Permanente as an investor.

Nayak said she knows little about Virtix Health, the Arizona-based private company contracted by the feds to run Washington state’s pilot program.

“Virtix Health would have a financial incentive to deny claims,” Nayak said. “It begs the question, would there be any safeguards to prevent profit-driven denials of care?”

That financial incentive is a concern in Texas too.

“If, financially, the vendor is going to benefit by the denial, it could be a problem for our patients,” Shah said. He said that Oz, in a webinar presentation on the new program, assured physicians that their satisfaction and turnaround times would be metrics that Medicare would factor into the tech companies’ payments.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correct a reference to Medicare Advantage.

Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at avollers@stateline.org.

Christine Neumann Ortiz, executive director of Voces de la Frontera, speaks at a press conference on the Wisconsin Supreme Court case challenging the legality of Wisconsin law enforcement agencies' cooperation agreements with ICE | Photo via Voces de la Frontera Facebook video

In Wisconsin we have been watching in horror as President Donald Trump’s lawless immigration crackdown terrorizes communities in our neighboring states of Minnesota and Illinois. 

Here at home, so far, things are mostly quiet. Farmers in western Wisconsin report no ICE raids on the dairies where 60% to 90% of workers are immigrants without legal status. There have been a few high-profile arrests and deportations in Milwaukee, Madison and Manitowoc, but nothing like the scenes of chaos in the streets of Chicago and Minneapolis, where masked federal agents are aiming guns at civilians, smashing out car windows and dragging parents from their children, hustling them off to detention centers to be fast-tracked out of the country without due process.

One of the most disturbing things about this campaign of terror is that it seems to be directed by the president’s whim. In a Thanksgiving post full of invective and schoolyard insults directed at Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, Trump denounced the Somali community he claimed was “completely taking over the great State of Minnesota.” One week later, CBS News confirmed that ICE operations were underway targeting Somali immigrants in the Twin Cities.

Since we can’t count on the federal government to stay inside the bounds of reason or the law, it is critical that local and state leaders stand up to the racist, unconstitutional and unAmerican assault on immigrants. 

It was good news when, on Wednesday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court accepted a case filed by the state chapter of the ACLU on behalf of the immigrant rights group Voces de la Frontera, contending that Wisconsin law enforcement agencies do not have the authority to make arrests or keep people in jail on detainers based solely on ICE’s administrative warrants.

Tim Muth, the ACLU of Wisconsin’s senior staff attorney, said hundreds of people throughout the state are being illegally held for days.

“It is extremely important for the Wisconsin Supreme Court to determine whether any law enforcement in Wisconsin has the legal authority to put or keep people in jail when they have not committed a crime and when no judge has issued an arrest warrant,” Wisconsin immigration attorney Grant Sovern wrote in an email to the Examiner. “Anyone in Wisconsin would want dangerous people to be kept from the public. But ICE is currently making no determinations about dangerousness or the likelihood to show up for a hearing if a summons is issued. A summons is a perfectly rational and legal way to address a civil legal question like someone’s immigration status. Jailing people before any independent adjudicator determines someone to be dangerous is against the Constitution and not the Wisconsin way.”

At a press conference Wednesday, Christine Neumann-Ortiz, executive director of Voces, told the story of a landscaper in Green Bay who was picked up for driving without a license (immigrants without legal status are barred by a 2007 state law from obtaining driver’s licenses). He was sent to county jail and then handed over to ICE. “He was a grandfather, very active in his church,” Neumann-Ortiz said, describing him as “someone who does not represent any kind of threat to society at all” and who, on the contrary, is a pillar of his community and beloved by his family. 

Voces helped fight the deportation in a case that is still working its way through the courts. “At least he’s out and together with his family,” Neumann-Ortiz said. “But that’s an example of how people can be impacted by this.” 

As it scrambles to meet arbitrary deportation quotas, ICE sends detainers even for people who have never been convicted of a crime and have only minor charges pending in Wisconsin courts. 

Voces has been fighting at the local level since the first Trump administration for local law enforcement to refuse to collaborate with ICE unless there is a judicial warrant for someone, meaning that person is being sought in connection with a serious crime. As a result of Voces’ efforts, that is now the standard in Milwaukee County. The state Supreme Court case is an effort to establish the same standard statewide.

Neumann-Ortiz said she’s grateful the Supreme Court justices recognized the urgency of the issue in agreeing to take the case on an expedited basis, “given the current level of abuse that we’re seeing happen, and which will only escalate.”

And, she added, “We certainly very much anticipate Milwaukee being one of the cities that will be targeted for militarized occupation with these aggressive sweeps.”

Whether or not Wisconsin communities can protect people from the kind of violence we’ve been seeing in other states depends on the courageous actions of state and local officials, advocates and informed community members. It begins with recognizing that the Trump administration’s actions are wrong and then standing up.

At the press conference, a reporter asked about ICE’s assertion that the agency doesn’t have room for everyone in its detention facilities and therefore needs space in county jails. Muth responded: “Detain fewer people.”

Neumann-Ortiz added some clarifying context. “They are profiling people, they are just grabbing people without any probable cause. So it’s a very racist program that is using violence against people and is trying to hijack, through bribery and through threats, local law enforcement to be part of this mass deportation machinery,” she said. 

“We’re seeing, at the local level, community come together,” she added, “to reject these efforts to undermine local law enforcement — which is supposed to play a public safety role — into just this arm of deportation driven by xenophobia and racism. And which is making a lot of money for the for-profit prison industry.”

This year, communities across the state have pushed back on 287g partnership agreements between local law enforcement and ICE that turn sheriff’s departments into an arm of the federal immigration agency. Palmyra, Ozaukee and Kenosha counties rejected ICE’s offers of money to transform their sheriffs into agents of federal immigration enforcement.

The Kenosha sheriff’s office made its decision not to participate after the ACLU and Voces had already named it in the Supreme Court lawsuit, along with Walworth, Brown, Sauk and Marathon counties. Palmyra also reversed a decision to accept a large payment from ICE to participate, responding to public outrage.

“Resistance is happening, it’s successful, it’s building community,” Neumann-Ortiz said. “But we do need state protections to uphold our rights.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A Biden-era protection for reproductive and gender affirming health care information was upended by a federal judge in Texas in June. Despite several lawsuits, key privacy rules for medical records remain, but some experts say they aren’t sufficient. (Photo by Dave Whitney / Getty Images)

The four lawsuits at the center of a Republican-led effort to ensure law enforcement can access reproductive health records are now mostly resolved, after attorneys for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton agreed last week to dismiss the last remaining suit challenging the legality of a foundational health privacy rule.

Paxton filed the lawsuit in September 2024 arguing that Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration illegally created a rule under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act barring certain reproductive health care information from being disclosed if a procedure such as abortion was obtained in a state where it is legal.

The federal HIPAA law is meant to protect patient information generally, especially when that information travels between providers. It contains exceptions for information that can be disclosed to investigators, who can subpoena records from other states. 

Ashley Kurzweil, senior policy analyst for reproductive health and rights at the National Partnership for Women & Families, said the dual threat that Paxton’s lawsuit presented was alarming on a much wider scale than just reproductive health care, so it is a relief that the case is dismissed. Overturning key privacy protections from 2000 that formed the basis of the Biden-era rule could have thrown the entire health care system into chaos, she said.

“We are thrilled that the 2000 privacy rule is still in effect. It is hugely important that it is still in place,” Kurzweil said. “However, (it) provides insufficient safeguards for reproductive health care information when it comes to the broader landscape of increased criminalization risk that people are facing.”

The 2024 rule specifically relating to reproductive and gender-affirming health care information was nullified in June by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. His ruling came in a Texas-based case filed by a clinician in a small town who said the rule created a conflict with her responsibility to report child abuse, because she considers abortion and gender-affirming health care to be child abuse.

Without those 2024 protections, doctors can choose whether to report patients to law enforcement, Kurzeil said, and some might also be discouraged from offering reproductive health care altogether to minimize legal risks.  

States Newsroom reported more than 400 people were charged with pregnancy-related crimes in the two years after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, according to data from the nonprofit Pregnancy Justice. 

One of those people was Brittany Watts, an Ohio woman who went to the hospital with miscarriage complications and waited for hours without receiving help. After miscarrying at home and returning to the hospital, staff called the police, accusing her of abuse of a corpse. A grand jury declined to indict her, and Watts is now suing the hospital. 

In nine of the 400 cases, pregnant people were accused of researching or attempting to obtain an abortion.

Advocacy group dropped effort to appeal Texas ruling

The case before Kacsmaryk is the only one of the four that resulted in a ruling. Although it was filed in the last few months of the Biden administration, the bulk of the case was litigated under Republican President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice.

Repealing the rule was a directive in Project 2025, the conservative blueprint published by the Heritage Foundation. Several prominent anti-abortion organizations were part of the panel that drafted Project 2025, and many of the people involved in writing the 900-page document now work for the Trump administration.

Democracy Forward, a nonprofit legal organization, represented Doctors for America and the cities of Columbus, Ohio, and Madison, Wisconsin, in an attempt to intervene in the case because they did not expect the government to defend the rule. If they were allowed to intervene, they could appeal Kacsmaryk’s opinion striking down the rule regardless of the Trump administration’s decision.

Their attempts were denied by Kacsmaryk, and while the organization did initially appeal that decision, the attorneys dropped the effort in September, saying in a court filing that “the resources of the parties and the courts would be best conserved by dismissing this appeal.”

In a statement to States Newsroom, a spokesperson for Democracy Forward said they will continue to pursue every tool available to defend reproductive rights from political interference and anti-abortion extremists.

The other two cases are in Missouri and Tennessee, where Republican attorneys general also challenged the 2024 reproductive health care-specific rule. The Missouri case was dismissed in September, because Kacsmaryk’s decision had a nationwide effect, and the Tennessee attorney general asked the court to dismiss their case for the same reason. The judge in that case has not yet granted the motion.

Shield laws help, but federal backstop would address more situations

Texas and Louisiana have recently launched investigations into out-of-state doctors who, through telehealth, prescribed and mailed abortion medication to patients in their states where abortion is outlawed.

Texas officials have repeatedly investigated and attempted to prosecute people for either leaving the state to seek abortion care or for prescribing abortion medication from a different state. At the end of October, a New York judge dismissed a civil case brought by Paxton seeking $100,000 in damages from a provider the AG said prescribed abortion pills to a woman in the Dallas area, according to The Texas Tribune. Officials in Louisiana attempted to extradite the same New York doctor on criminal charges related to an abortion medication prescription for a pregnant minor. That case was also rejected.

Those attempts were some of the first that tested shield laws implemented by 18 states, including New York. Four others have executive orders from Democratic governors saying they won’t comply with extradition requests for investigations into reproductive health care.

Texas has also passed a law allowing people to seek at least $100,000 in damages if someone they impregnated or someone they’re related to received abortion pills by mail from another state. That law took effect Thursday, Dec. 4.

Kurzweil said those shield laws are a vital help to patients seeking care, but the addition of a federal protective rule would be ideal.

“The two in tandem would be much more fulsome and would address gaps that come up,” she said.

Members of the National Guard stationed outside Union Station in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 18, 2025. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court Thursday paused a lower court’s order to remove the National Guard from the streets of Washington, D.C., eight days after two members were attacked in broad daylight in the district.

The three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted the Trump administration’s request that the Nov. 20 decision finding the Guard presence illegal to be stayed “pending further order of this court.” 

“The purpose of this administrative stay is to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the motion for stay pending appeal and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion,” wrote Judges Patricia Millett, Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao.

Millett was appointed by former President Barack Obama, and Katsas and Rao were appointed during President Donald Trump’s first term.

Roughly 2,000 National Guard troops in D.C. were originally expected to remain in the district through February, according to the lower court’s order.

Appeal considered after shooting

The stay comes just over a week after two West Virginia National Guard members were shot on Nov. 26 just blocks from the White House. U.S. Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, died from her injuries the following day, Thanksgiving. U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24, underwent surgery for critical injuries and remains hospitalized.

The suspected shooter, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, a 29-year-old Afghan national who was living in Washington state, pleaded not guilty from his hospital bed during a virtual hearing in D.C. Superior Court Tuesday. Lakanwal is charged with first-degree murder while armed,  possession of a firearm, and assault with the intent to kill. 

The Trump administration filed the emergency motion to stay the lower judge’s order on the day of the shooting. The administration requested the circuit court issue a decision by Dec. 4.

Judge Jia Cobb, for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, found the administration’s deployment of more than 2,000 guard troops in the city illegal but stayed her Nov. 20 decision until Dec. 11 to give the administration time to appeal and remove the guard members from the district’s streets.

Guard armed

Trump initially mobilized 800 National Guard troops to the nation’s capital in August after claiming a “crime emergency” in the district, despite a documented three-decade low in crime.

Many were instructed they would be carrying service weapons, The Wall Street Journal reported on Aug. 17. The White House effort was accompanied by a heightened U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement presence in the district.

Trump also federalized the district’s police force for 30 days as part of a district-wide crackdown. While the federalization of the police force expired, Trump has kept the National Guard in the district.

Since then, Republican governors from Louisiana, Ohio, South Carolina and West Virginia, among others, have agreed to send their own Guard members to the district. 

The mobilization had been tied up in court for months.

Farm workers harvesting yellow bell peppers near Gilroy, California. (Nnehring/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration Thursday announced new restrictions for immigrants, reducing the work authorization periods from five years to 18 months, the latest crackdown on legal immigration.

The new policy follows the shooting of two West Virginia National Guard members by an Afghan national granted asylum earlier this year. 

The shift will not only affect hundreds of thousands of immigrants, but the shortened period for work authorization could create massive backlogs at the agency responsible for processing legal immigration requests, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. 

“Reducing the maximum validity period for employment authorization will ensure that those seeking to work in the United States do not threaten public safety or promote harmful anti-American ideologies,” USCIS Director Joseph Edlow said in a statement.

“After the attack on National Guard service members in our nation’s capital by an alien who was admitted into this country by the previous administration, it’s even more clear that USCIS must conduct frequent vetting of aliens,” he continued. 

Immigrants affected by the new changes include refugees; those granted asylum; those with a withholding of removal; those with pending applications for asylum or withholding of removal; those adjusting their status, for example by gaining a green card; and those who fall under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997.

That act applies to certain Nicaraguans, Cubans, Salvadorans, Guatemalans, nationals of former Soviet bloc countries and their dependents who in the 1990s had applied for asylum and were systematically denied.

Additionally, USCIS fees for applying for permits and other paperwork increased as a result of the massive tax and spending passage that Republicans passed over the summer and President Donald Trump signed into law. For initial employment authorization, fees are now $550 and $275 to renew. 

Following the shooting, U.S. Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, died. A second guard member, U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24, remains critically wounded but hospitalized in stable condition. 

In response, the Trump administration has ramped up its crackdown on legal immigration and highlighted the need for its mass deportation campaign. The suspect, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, pleaded not guilty to several charges in court on Tuesday. 

This week, all immigration applications from 19 countries listed on Trump’s “high-risk” countries or travel ban from earlier this year, were paused — a move that freezes processing for green card holders and citizenship applications.

Supporters gather for a rally to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program in 2012 in New York City. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images) 

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, a longtime champion of creating legal status for immigrants brought into the country as children who will retire next year, re-introduced his trademark immigration bill for the last time Thursday. 

Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, first introduced the measure now known as the Dream Act in 2001 with Utah Republican Orrin Hatch and has reintroduced it every Congress since. Congress has not passed the bill. 

Durbin, 81, spoke about his legacy on immigration at a Thursday press conference.

“We are a nation of immigrants. I am proud to be the son of an immigrant,” the No. 2 Senate Democrat said. “This is a proud son of an immigrant who’s doing everything he can to help the next generation of immigrants be part of America’s future. The fight has just begun.”

While Congress is again unlikely to approve the measure this year, younger Senate Democrats Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and Alex Padilla of California said Thursday they would carry on the effort.

“The dream is still alive,” Padilla said. “We are committed as ever to get it across the finish line.”

Cortez Masto agreed. 

“Some day, with the hard work of everyone, we (will) get it across the finish line,” she said. 

Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski co-sponsored the latest version of the legislation.

Temporary fix now 13 years old

The Dream Act would create a path to citizenship for immigrant children who came into the country with their parents without legal authorization.

The bill has nicknamed more than 530,000 immigrants in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program as Dreamers. The Obama administration created the program in 2012 as a temporary measure to allow recipients to obtain work permits and drivers licenses while Congress created a pathway to citizenship.

DACA’s legality is tied up in the courts, throwing its recipients into limbo. 

For now, existing DACA recipients can continue to renew, but the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in January upheld deportation protections for recipients, but found the work authorization portion unlawful. The appeals court limited its ruling to Texas, which spearheaded the suit, meaning that DACA remains in full effect in every state and U.S. territory except Texas.

Many immigration policy experts have called DACA outdated because there are now thousands of undocumented youth who are not eligible for the program because they were not even born by 2007, the year a recipient must have started residence in the United States. 

A federal judge in 2021 blocked new applicants from being accepted.

Trump crackdown adds urgency

Many DACA recipients have been caught up in President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign. 

Dozens of recipients have been detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, despite their legal status, according to immigrant advocacy groups tracking the issue. 

“This moment in the history of our nation is a terrible, challenging moment for so many people, not just the Dreamers, but immigrants in general,” Durbin said. 

“I’ve been both angry and heartbroken to watch masked federal agents parading in their combat uniforms with automatic weapons in the city of Chicago,” he continued. “I’ve seen them wreak havoc in these communities and sow fear among people who are afraid to even go outside, to go to church or to go shopping.”

The executive director of the immigrant advocacy group United We Dream, Greisa Martinez Rosas, said that while DACA has allowed some immigrant youth to obtain work authorization and deportation protections, more needs to be done, especially under a second Trump administration.

“We are currently facing unprecedented attacks that pose the greatest threat to… the future of the DACA program, and in doing so, the future of this country and those millions of people who would make our country stronger every single day,” she said.

Immigration reform elusive

Durbin said the Dream Act would be a “key step toward true, positive, bipartisan change” in immigration policy.  

​​The last time Congress came close to bipartisan immigration reform was in 2013. 

That year, the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” senators, including Durbin, crafted a bill to create a pathway to citizenship for millions of undocumented people who had resided in the country for years. 

The Senate passed the measure, but then-House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, never brought the bill to the floor for a vote.

U.S. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., points to text messages by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during an annual worldwide threats assessment hearing at the Longworth House Office Building on March 26, 2025 in Washington, DC. The hearing held by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence addressed top aides inadvertently including Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief for The Atlantic magazine, on a high level Trump administration Signal group chat discussing plans to bomb Houthi targets in Yemen. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth violated official policy when he used the publicly available Signal app to message about military plans from his personal cell phone, including imminent bombings in Yemen, according to a report released Thursday by the Pentagon’s own watchdog. 

The Defense Department Inspector General’s 84-page report concluded Hegseth sent information about the “strike times of manned U.S. aircraft over hostile territory over an unapproved, unsecure network approximately 2 to 4 hours before the execution of those strikes.” 

“Although the Secretary wrote in his July 25 statement to the DoD OIG that ‘there were no details that would endanger our troops or the mission,’ if this information had fallen into the hands of U.S. adversaries, Houthi forces might have been able to counter U.S. forces or reposition personnel and assets to avoid planned U.S. strikes,” the report states. “Even though these events did not ultimately occur, the Secretary’s actions created a risk to operational security that could have resulted in failed U.S. mission objectives and potential harm to U.S. pilots.”

Members of Congress from both political parties requested the Defense Department Inspector General look into Hegseth’s use of Signal after a journalist at The Atlantic was inadvertently added to a group chat of national security officials planning the bombing in Yemen. Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg later published a series of stories detailing the messages. 

Acting Defense Department Inspector General Steven A. Stebbins released a memo in April announcing he had opened an investigation into the matter. 

GOP wants more Pentagon tech, Dems want Hegseth gone

Members of Congress’ reaction to the report was mixed, with Republicans suggesting more technology is needed for the Pentagon, while Democrats called for Hegseth to resign. 

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., issued a statement saying the report shows Hegseth “acted within his authority to communicate the information in question to other cabinet level officials.” 

“It is also clear to me that our senior leaders need more tools available to them to communicate classified information in real time and a variety of environments,” Wicker added. “I think we have some work to do in providing those tools to our national security leaders.”

Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member Jack Reed, D-R.I., said in a statement the report confirms “that Secretary Hegseth violated military regulations and continues to show reckless disregard for the safety of American servicemembers.”

“For months, Secretary Hegseth has attempted to mislead Congress and the American people, claiming repeatedly that no classified information was involved,” Reed said. “The Inspector General has now definitively cast doubt on those false assurances.”

Reed added that Hegseth should “explain himself to Congress, the public, and the servicemembers he leads. The men and women of our armed forces deserve leadership they can trust with their lives.”

Hegseth refuses to give cell phone to investigators

The Inspector General report said Hegseth declined to sit for an interview with the Defense Department’s oversight agency, that he refused to hand over his personal cell phone to investigators and that he didn’t retain some of the messages in accordance with federal recordkeeping requirements. 

Officials working for Hegseth shared copies of the Signal chat with the inspector general, but those were incomplete since the app’s auto-delete feature was on at the time. Signal users can adjust that for different lengths of time or turn it off completely.

Hegseth was in the Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, or SCIF, in his home the morning and early afternoon of March 15 to monitor “the operation against the Houthis,” according to the report. 

Two aides who were with Hegseth at the time told investigators he used “secure, classified” systems to communicate with United States Central Command officials “during the planning and execution of the strikes against Houthi targets that day and reviewed information related to the strikes.” 

“In the SCIF, the Secretary had access to multiple means of secure communication that allowed him to provide the necessary operational details and updates to non-DoD government officials on the Signal group chat,” the report states. 

The group chat about the Yemen bombing that accidentally included a journalist wasn’t the only one Hegseth used to communicate about official Pentagon business from his personal phone. 

Eight officials within the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Office of the Chief Information Officer told investigators that Hegseth created “multiple Signal group chats in which the Secretary and others allegedly discussed official DoD business and nonpublic information.” 

“One of the officials we spoke with stated that the Secretary posted the same sensitive operational information concerning the Houthi attack plans on the ‘Defense Team Huddle’ group chat,” the report states, later adding Hegseth declined to provide any information about that chat. 

The Inspector General opted not to make any recommendations about the use of Signal in the report, since “records management issues arising from the use of Signal and other commercially available messaging applications are a DoD-wide issue.”

A previous inspector general report also called on the department to “improve training for DoD senior officials on compliance with records retention laws and policies.”

Alabama’s Rogers says mission not compromised

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala., wrote in a statement that it is “important to remember that this was a successful operation that took out a dangerous target with no harm to U.S. troops. It’s clear that the discussion on Signal didn’t compromise the mission.”

“During the past few administrations, the use of Signal for communication between government officials has grown, so I appreciate the comprehensive work by the IG to develop recommendations on how to improve and secure communications,” Rogers said. “I encourage the Administration to follow these recommendations, and I look forward to discussions with the Pentagon on how to implement them.”

House Armed Services Committee ranking member Adam Smith, D-Wash., called the report “a damning review of an incompetent secretary of defense who is profoundly incapable of the job and clearly has no respect for or comprehension of what is required to safeguard our service members.”

“It confirms staggering violations of policy – namely that unsecured platforms were used by the secretary to boast about sensitive operational details that could have jeopardized both the mission and, more importantly, the lives of American service members tasked with carrying out Operation Rough Rider,” Smith said.

‘A fireable offense for anyone else in the Department of Defense’

Senate Defense Appropriations subcommittee ranking member Chris Coons, D-Del., said in a statement the report “concluded that Secretary Hegseth violated DOD procedure and put service members’ lives at risk with his reckless mishandling of sensitive information.” 

“In March, I led a group of senators in pressing the Trump administration to investigate this blatant misconduct. Any service member who acted with such disregard for our national security would be dismissed, at the very least,” Coons said. “Our nation’s highest ranking defense official should not be held to a lower standard than the men and women he oversees. For the good of our nation, I once again call on Secretary Hegseth to resign.”

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence ranking member Jim Himes, D-Conn., said in a statement the report “confirms what I feared when this Signal thread became public: We are fortunate that the mission was not compromised and that servicemembers were not put at needless risk thanks to Secretary Hegseth’s reckless treatment of classified information.”

“Pete Hegseth’s behavior and lack of judgment would be a fireable offense for anyone else in the Department of Defense,” Himes said. “What’s more, his refusal to sit for an interview with the Inspector General or submit his device for examination is yet another example of his failure to take responsibility for his actions.”

Gov. Tony Evers joined teachers and students from across Wisconsin to light the Wisconsin Holiday Tree in the Capitol Thursday. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Gov. Tony Evers joined teachers and students from across Wisconsin to light the Wisconsin Holiday Tree in the Capitol Thursday. Evers, who previously worked as a science teacher and principal and served as state schools superintendent before he was elected governor, said the tree this year is special because of students’ participation. 

The theme for this year is “the Learning Tree,” with ornaments made by students at public and private schools across the state. 

“We encouraged them to think about what learning means to them, and we encouraged them to reflect on all the people who made learning possible and fun,” Evers said. “The librarian who helped them find a new favorite book. The school nurse who helped them when they weren’t feeling well. The school bus driver who gets them [to school] and gets them home safely. The teacher who helped them learn something they really didn’t think they could learn, and so many others who played a role in helping our kids bring the best and fullest selves to the classroom every day.”

The students’ handmade ornaments decorate a 30-foot balsam fir donated by Dave and Mary Vander Velden, the retired owners of Whispering Pines Tree Farm in Oconto County. It was harvested by Henry Schienebeck and members of the Great Lakes Timber Professionals Association. 

Ellie Mason, an eighth-grader from John Muir Middle School in Wausau, spoke about what the Learning Tree means to her and helped Evers flip the switch to turn the tree lights on. 

“I picture a tree with many branches reaching out in every direction, each one helping me climb a little higher. The tree is strong with many branches, each one supporting the others,” Mason said. “That’s what school feels like to me.” 

Mason said her mom and other members of her family are teachers, and they have shown her that being a teacher “means caring about people so much that you believe in what they become.” She thanked Wisconsin teachers, custodians, principals, nurses, cafeteria workers and office staff for all their hard work. 

“You are the branches of the Learning Tree, lifting us up into helping us reach our whole potential,” Mason said.

Other speakers at the lighting included Rodney Esser, also known as “Mr. Peanuts,” who is the head custodian at Park Elementary School and has spent 60 years with the Middleton-Cross Plains Area School District, Green Bay West High School Teacher Ellie Hinz-Radue, and CEO and Executive Director of the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority Elmer Moore Jr. The lighting also featured performances by the La Crosse Central High School band and four members of the Kids From Wisconsin, an audition show choir group made up of students from across the state. 

Not everyone had a positive reaction to the “Learning Tree.” Republican gubernatorial hopefuls criticized Evers for not calling it a “Christmas tree.”

“They won’t even call it a “Christmas” tree. Time to replace woke nonsense with Wisconsin common sense in 2026,” U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany said on social media. He tagged Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez, one of the Democratic gubernatorial hopefuls, in his post.

Washington County Executive Josh Schoemann wrote about the announcement of the tree theme on social media, saying “it’s a Christmas tree, Tony. I look forward to highlighting all our wonderful Wisconsin Christmas traditions as Governor, and having the best, biggest, most impressive CHRISTMAS TREE in the Capitol!” 

Evers is not running for reelection next year. 

The state under Evers’ leadership started referring to the tree in the Capitol as a holiday tree in 2019 to avoid perceptions that it was endorsing any religion. Each winter season since then has been marked by complaints from Republicans about ecumenical terminology for the time of year and traditions. In 2020, a pair of Republican lawmakers went so far as to set up their own tree in the Capitol rotunda in protest.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., speak with reporters during a press conference in the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, Dec. 3, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer announced Thursday the chamber will vote next week to extend enhanced tax credits for three years for people who purchase their health insurance from the Affordable Care Act marketplace, though the plan seems unlikely to get the bipartisan support needed to advance. 

While it would typically be difficult for the minority leader to schedule a floor vote, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., agreed that Democrats could bring up a health care bill of their choosing in exchange for voting to end the government shutdown.

Schumer told reporters in recent days to “stay tuned” for details about the legislation while maintaining all Senate Democrats were united around the proposal. The three-year plan he previewed during his floor speech appears identical to one House Democratic leaders have been pressing for in that chamber. 

“Any Republican who claims to care about premium increases on January 1 has only one realistic path, and that’s to support our bill for a simple, clean, three-year extension,” Schumer said. “If Republicans block our bill, there’s no going back. We won’t get another chance to halt these premium spikes before they kick in at the start of the new year.” 

The vote will take place next Thursday, Schumer said. 

Clock ticking on solution

Health care costs have surged to the forefront of the national conversation in recent months, with both Democrats and Republicans in Congress pledging to find solutions. Both agree much more time is needed to make larger, structural changes. 

The Senate committee in charge of health care policy held a hearing Wednesday where senators began to coalesce around extending the enhanced tax credits beyond the end-of-December sunset date. But a bipartisan bill has not yet been introduced in that chamber on that subject. 

Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Bill Cassidy, R-La., said just after the hearing wrapped up there will likely be a GOP bill, or even a bipartisan one, to counter Schumer’s bill. 

“Yeah, absolutely,” Cassidy said. “I’d like to have a plan that both sides can vote for. But there will be a Republican plan if I have anything to do with it.”

Congress has an especially brief time frame to find a short-term resolution on the expiring tax credits, which would lead the cost of ACA marketplace plans to rise by hundreds or thousands of dollars. 

Open enrollment for ACA marketplace plans ends at different times throughout the country, with some states finishing on Dec. 15. Residents of other states are able to sign up through varying dates in January, but with their coverage starting later in the year. Lawmakers are set to leave Capitol Hill on Dec. 19 for their winter holiday break. 

A poll released Thursday by the nonpartisan health organization KFF showed nearly 60% of ACA marketplace enrollees could not cover the costs of a $300 annual increase in their premiums, while an additional 20% said they couldn’t afford a $1,000 jump in prices per year. 

Gottheimer, Kiggans unveil House bipartisan bill

At the same time Schumer was speaking on the Senate floor, a bipartisan group of House lawmakers, led by New Jersey Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer and Virginia Republican Rep. Jen Kiggans, introduced a bill they said could address some of the short-term issues facing ACA enrollees. 

“Although we may have different opinions over the long-term solutions for reforming marketplace health care or if there are even better and cheaper options for publicly available health insurance, we agree on the many aspects of the short-term solutions,” Kiggans said. 

The legislation — which needs to pass a floor vote, make it through the Senate and garner President Donald Trump’s signature — would extend the enhanced ACA marketplace tax credits with new income caps, “guardrails for waste, fraud and abuse” and an overhaul of the pharmacy benefit manager, or PBM, system, Kiggans said. 

The bipartisan group of representatives would then move on to the second part of their plan, not included in the bill, where they would try to make more structural changes to the entire country’s health care system. 

Those bills, Kiggans said, would address hospital billing transparency, implement Health Savings Accounts and advance the Give Kids a Chance Act “to accelerate pediatric cancer treatments and expand access to life-saving therapies for children battling rare diseases.”

Gottheimer said the group wants House leaders to put their bill up for a vote before members leave town for the two-week, end-of-year break. 

“In the last month, families have seen their health insurance premiums surge as they’ve shopped for insurance during open enrollment because enhanced premium tax credits are set to expire, as we all know, at the end of the year,” Gottheimer said. “In fact, because of this, for millions of families on the ACA, their health premiums will rise an average of 26% next year. 

“In Jersey, where we live, it could be even rougher with a 175% increase. That’s $20,000 for a family of four. And that’s why we’re all here together to try to solve this problem, do something about it, and avoid a massive new tax on hard-working families,” he said.

Senators don’t see future in bipartisan House bill

Schumer and other Senate Democrats didn’t appear to take the bipartisan House plan seriously when pressed about it during an early afternoon press conference, asking reporters in the room whether Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., would actually put it on the floor for a vote. 

“As for whatever House proposals there are, we’ll always look at something, but I don’t even see 15 Republicans supporting it right now,” Schumer said. “Sure an individual or two or three people can say this or that. It’s not going to solve the problem.”

Schumer maintained Senate Democrats’ three-year extension, which does not come with income caps or other changes to the tax credits proposed by centrist Republicans, is the best path forward.

He appeared frustrated when reporters asked him why he didn’t include changes that could have swayed at least some GOP senators to vote for the bill. 

Schumer said it wasn’t worth it for Democrats to put together a bill that a few Republicans might support when he doesn’t expect Speaker Johnson to put the bill on the floor in that chamber given strong opposition to the enhanced tax credits by “half his caucus.”

“Come on,” he said. “The fault is there, not with us.”

Washington state Democratic Sen. Patty Murray speaks to reporters at the U.S. Capitol on Feb. 25, 2025. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Tammy Baldwin, Democrat of Wisconsin, stand behind her. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — More than 30 members of the U.S. Senate Democratic caucus slammed the U.S. Education Department’s plans to shift several responsibilities to other Cabinet-level agencies in a letter to Secretary Linda McMahon. 

The senators blasted the move as “outrageous,” and “illegal,” saying it circumvented appropriations law — which is how Congress exercises its power of the purse — and would “jeopardize the funding and support that tens of millions of students, teachers, and families across the country rely on.”

Sens. Patty Murray of Washington state, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer led the letter, dated Wednesday. 

Murray is the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, Baldwin is the top Democrat on the Appropriations subcommittee overseeing Education Department funding and Sanders is the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

“This is the latest example of this administration’s complete lack of regard for our laws and its failure to provide the certainty, clarity, and stability that students and schools deserve when it comes to the federal government’s approach and commitment to properly implementing federal education laws and appropriations,” the senators wrote. 

Department dismantling

The Education Department outlined six agreements signed with the departments of Labor, Interior, Health and Human Services and State. The move drew swift backlash from Democratic officials, labor unions and advocacy groups. 

The plan, announced Nov. 18, is part of a larger effort from President Donald Trump’s administration to dismantle the 46-year-old Education Department as the president seeks to send education “back to the states.” Much of the funding and oversight of schools already occurs at the state and local levels.

McMahon has defended the move as an effort to cut “bureaucratic bloat.”

But the senators’ letter said the plan will “create even more bureaucracy that states, school districts, and educational institutions across America will have to expend time and resources navigating at the expense of students and families.” 

The lawmakers urged McMahon to “immediately reverse course” and focus her time and attention on “actions that actually help states, school districts and educational institutions improve educational outcomes and support for students.” 

Appropriators object

The senators also pointed out that Congress has not provided the Education Department with the authority to transfer the programs and their associated funding to other agencies. 

They noted that “appropriations law prohibits the transfer of funds to another federal agency unless expressly authorized in appropriations law, which it has not done in this case.” 

The senators also expressed concerns over the loss of expertise from the transfer of services, highlighting the Department of Labor’s greater role in managing the Education Department’s elementary and secondary education programs and higher education grant programs. 

“The Department also provides deep policy expertise to ensure programs support improved student outcomes, such as through expert guidance to colleges and universities to improve college access, retention, and completion through programs like TRIO, GEAR UP, the Postsecondary Student Success Grant Program, and others,” they wrote.

The Federal TRIO Programs include federal outreach and student services programs to help students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, while the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, or GEAR UP, aim to prepare low-income students for college.

“Now, DOL, who lacks the necessary expertise, is tasked with managing these programs and students will suffer as a result.” 

The lawmakers also criticized the lack of detail the administration has provided about the implementation of the transfers.

“The other federal agencies that will suddenly have significant responsibilities in administering billions in education funding — have provided no information about their roles or their capacity to carry out these programs and activities,” they wrote. 

The department did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday. 

Attorney General Pam Bondi spoke on the arrest of Brian J. Cole Jr. from Department of Justice headquarters in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, Dec. 4, 2025. Standing behind Bondi, from left to right, Metropolitan Police Department Chief Pamela Smith, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Washington Field Office Special Agent in Charge Anthony Spotswood, FBI Director Kash Patel and FBI Washington Field Office Assistant Director in Charge Darren Cox. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Federal authorities arrested a Virginia man Thursday morning who they say was involved in planting pipe bombs outside the Democratic and Republican national committee offices on the eve of the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot, according to the Department of Justice.

FBI agents took Brian J. Cole Jr., 30, into custody “safely and successfully,” in Woodbridge, Virginia, Attorney General Pam Bondi said at an afternoon press conference at DOJ headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Cole is a resident of Woodbridge, a distant suburb of Washington, according to charging documents.

Bondi would not comment on a motive.

The arrest marked a breakthrough in the five-year-old case. Bondi claimed Thursday it could have been solved earlier as “evidence has been sitting there collecting dust.”

Officials did not offer details about which piece or pieces of evidence led them to the suspect, but said the FBI scoured 3 million lines of data and sifted through 233,000 sale records of black caps the suspect used on the ends of the pipe bombs he created.

“Let me be clear: There was no new tip, there was no new witness, just good, diligent police work and prosecutorial work, working as a team along with ATF, Capitol Police, Metropolitan Police Department, and, of course the FBI,” Bondi said.

FBI Director Kash Patel said the operation Thursday morning was “flawless.”

“I’m proud to stand here before you and say, we solved it. He will have his day in court,” Patel said. 

Cole is charged with transporting explosive devices across state lines and attempting malicious destruction by means of explosive materials, according to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro.

Pirro said pinpointing the suspect was “like finding a needle in a haystack.”

Bondi said additional charges could be forthcoming but declined to provide details. The investigation is “very active and very ongoing” and search warrants were being executed Thursday, she said. 

Purchases at Home Depot, Lowe’s

According to the FBI, Cole placed pipe bombs near the offices of the Democratic and Republican national committees between 7:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. Eastern on Jan. 5, 2021. 

Charging documents filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia detail Cole’s purchases in 2019 and 2020 at Home Depot and Lowe’s of materials to produce the pipe bombs.

Investigators also obtained cell phone provider records that revealed Cole’s phone connected to multiple cell towers in the vicinity of the DNC and RNC on the night of Jan. 5, 2021, according to the court filings.

Additionally, investigators say they tracked a transaction Cole made at a restaurant within steps of the RNC less than a month before he allegedly planted the bombs.

Authorities had publicized several video clips of a masked individual in a gray hooded sweatshirt carrying a backpack to transport the pipe bombs. The FBI increased its reward to $500,000 in January 2023, up from $100,000, for information leading to an arrest.

Reports of explosives on Jan. 6

The bombs did not detonate. Police received reports of an explosive device near the RNC headquarters around 1 p.m. Eastern on Jan. 6, 2021. Roughly 15 minutes later, authorities were alerted to another explosive device a few blocks away in the vicinity of the DNC, according to the charging documents.

The national party headquarters are within a five-minute walk of each other and within close proximity to the U.S. Capitol. Then Vice President-elect Kamala Harris was inside the DNC when the pipe bomb was discovered, Politico reported in 2022.

The FBI’s Darren Cox, assistant director in charge of the Washington, D.C., field office, said “Fortunately, these bombs did not explode, although they certainly could have.” 

DNC Chair Ken Martin said in a statement Thursday that the committee is “grateful to the law enforcement officers who have dedicated years to investigating the pipe bombs planted at the Democratic and Republican National Committee headquarters on the eve of the January 6th insurrection.” 

“Those responsible for this horrific act must be brought to justice, and political violence should never be accepted in America,” Martin said.

RNC Chair Joe Gruters issued a statement Thursday blaming the administration of former President Joe Biden for not finding and arresting the suspect, and credited current administration officials “who prioritized this case and delivered long-overdue answers to the American people.”

“For four years, the Biden administration allowed a terrorist to walk the streets while DOJ leadership was busy targeting parents at school board meetings, Catholics at church, and enforcing their DEI agenda instead of getting a potential mass murderer off the streets,” Gruters said. 

Bongino role

Several conspiracy theories swirled for years on far-right internet spaces about the pipe bomb case.

FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino, who previously accused the FBI of covering up the pipe bomb investigation, thanked President Donald Trump and Bondi at the Thursday press conference for giving him “latitude” to solve the case.

“I spoke with Ms. Bondi very early, maybe day two, and I said, ‘We’re going to get this guy.’ She said, ‘Yes, you are.’ And we did,” said Bongino, who until early 2025 hosted the podcast “The Dan Bongino Show.”

The website of Connect for Health Colorado, the state's health insurance marketplace, is pictured on Aug. 27, 2025. (Photo by Chase Woodruff/Colorado Newsline)

WASHINGTON — Americans who purchase their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act marketplace are bracing for a steep rise in costs next year that many say they will not be able to afford, according to a poll released Thursday by the nonpartisan health organization KFF.

Nearly 60% of enrollees surveyed could not cover the costs of a $300 annual increase in their premiums, while an additional 20% said they couldn’t afford a $1,000 jump in prices per year. 

About 90% of those polled said it would be somewhat or very difficult to afford health insurance within their budget if they could no longer purchase a plan through the ACA marketplace.

The spike in prices is predominantly due to the end-of-year expiration date for enhanced tax credits for ACA marketplace plans. Republicans in Congress have so far declined to extend the subsidies, while Democrats shut down the government in an unsuccessful attempt to continue the credits.

While increases would vary considerably based on location, income and plan type, a Sept. 30 KFF analysis projected individuals’ annual premiums would rise between around $350 and more than $1,800.

Open enrollment for ACA marketplace plans ends at different times throughout the country, with some states finishing on Dec. 15. Residents of other states are able to sign up through varying dates in January, but with their coverage starting later in the year. That doesn’t give Congress much time to broker a deal before the ability to purchase a plan for next year closes.

No progress on negotiations

The Senate is expected to vote next week on a Democratic bill to extend the subsidies, though that legislation appears unlikely to get the 60 votes needed to advance in the Republican-controlled chamber. 

The Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee held a hearing this week to explore short- and long-term options to bring down health care costs, but senators on that panel didn’t reach a clear consensus. 

KFF President and CEO Drew Altman said in a statement the “poll shows the range of problems Marketplace enrollees will face if the enhanced tax credits are not extended in some form, and those problems will be the poster child of the struggles Americans are having with health care costs in the midterms if Republicans and Democrats cannot resolve their differences.”

The KFF poll showed only 9% of marketplace enrollees have a lot of confidence that Republicans in Congress will address rising health insurance costs, with 24% saying they had some confidence, 25% saying they didn’t have much confidence and 42% responding they had no confidence in GOP lawmakers on that particular issue.

Blame falls to Trump

ACA marketplace enrollees would predominantly fault President Donald Trump if their overall health care costs, including premiums, co-pays and deductibles, were to increase by $1,000 next year, though Republicans and Democrats in Congress would share nearly as much blame, the survey found.

Thirty-seven percent would place the responsibility with Trump, while 33% would cite GOP lawmakers and 29% would fault Democrats with the rising costs.

Those numbers fluctuate significantly depending on a person’s political affiliation, with 65% of Republicans saying they would blame Democrats, while 20% would credit Republicans in Congress and 14% would fault Trump.

Forty-four percent of people who identified as independents said they would blame Trump, while 32% said they would cite Republicans in Congress and 23% said they would fault Democrats.

Among Democrats, 49% would blame Trump, 46% would credit congressional Republicans, with the remainder would fault members of their own party.

KFF conducted the survey of 1,350 people between Nov. 7-15. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points for the full sample, with a plus or minus 6 percentage points margin of error for political party affiliation questions.

A bill in the Wisconsin Legislature would make youth who received life without parole eligible to appeal to shorten their sentences; currently 28 states ban life without parole for juveniles offenders | Getty Images

Since the 2022-23 session of the Wisconsin Legislature, a bill (SB-801/AB-845) has been discussed that would eliminate the court-imposed sentence of life without parole for a juvenile (under 18 years of age) and require the court to consider specific factors when sentencing youth, namely their level of maturity.

The bill would also allow those already sentenced to life as a juvenile the opportunity to appeal and adjust their sentences after serving 15 years for crimes that didn’t involve murder and at 20 years for those who were convicted of homicide.

Two U.S. Supreme Court rulings (Miller v. Alabama, 2012, and Montgomery versus Louisiana, 2016) have held that life without parole for a juvenile comes under the category of cruel and unusual punishment. The Court has found that youth shouldn’t be held to the same level of accountability as adults because they are not psychologically or emotionally as mature and their brains are not fully developed.

According to an April 2024 report by the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth, “Unusual & Unequal: The unfinished business of ending life without parole for children in the United States,” 28 states have banned juvenile sentences of life without parole (JLWOP):

“The scientific understanding that young people have limited decision-making abilities and impulse control informed widespread, rapid rejection of JLWOP in state legislatures, the Supreme Court, state courts, and the court of public opinion. Declaring that youth is ‘a mitigating factor’ that must be considered by sentencing judges in Miller v. Alabama (2012), the U.S. Supreme Court held that life without parole is disproportionate for the vast majority of youth.”

Nikki Olson, founder and executive director of Wisconsin Alliance for Youth Justice, is one of the advocates pursuing the legislation in Wisconsin.

“Their liberty was taken away before they even had full rights because they were kids,” she said of juveniles sentenced to life. “We are talking about people who weren’t even 18, who couldn’t legally smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol or couldn’t even drive without their parents’ permission. They couldn’t sign contracts or be on a jury or vote in society. We understand that kids are fundamentally different. The science says kids are fundamentally different. The Supreme Court says they are fundamentally different. We would like Wisconsin law to reflect that as well.”

Two past Republican sponsors of the proposed Wisconsin legislation are Rep. Todd Novak and Sen. Jesse James.

“Ending juvenile life without parole in Wisconsin is not just about reforming our justice system; it’s about restoring hope, potential and the promise of a future for our youth,” Novak has said. “This would also ensure that Wisconsin remains in compliance with the United States Supreme Court precedent.”

Sen. James has also gone on the record endorsing the bill. “The science is clear: brains are still developing. They cannot fully comprehend the extent of their actions,” James said. “For example, how is a 15-year-old supposed to understand life without parole when that sentence is literally quadruple the entire time they’ve been alive. People can grow; people can change, especially when their brains are still forming. Juveniles deserve a second chance.”

According to Sen. James’ office, the bill will be reintroduced as soon as the Department of Corrections (DOC) provides data on how many people currently incarcerated in Wisconsin  would be eligible to apply for a sentence adjustment if the bill is passed. The advocacy group Kids Forward puts the number somewhere north of 100.

Sen. James was asked whether his Republican colleagues known for supporting tough-on-crime legislation would also back the bill.

“As legislators, we introduce legislation with the hope that it’ll pass,” he said. “It is a part of our job to advocate for our bills and highlight the potential benefits and positive impact of the legislation with supportive research. Last session was my first time authoring this bill, and I’m still learning new information about this issue myself. We unfortunately didn’t get the opportunity to have a public hearing on this bill in the Senate last year, so myself and other advocates have not had the chance to testify in support and provide that background and context to members of the Senate.”

Convicted as a juvenile, serving life as an adult

Zachary Reid, 33, incarcerated at the New Lisbon Correctional Institution, has been in prison for 17 years. He is serving a life sentence, but he can apply for extended supervision after serving 40 years. If there isn’t a change in the law or Gov. Tony Evers doesn’t offer him a commutation or pardon, Reid is looking at another 23 years of incarceration.

If the bill does become law, Reid said he would apply at his 20-year mark, and he would be granted a hearing for a sentence adjustment.

The current language of the bill says the hearing should consider “relevant information” including “expert testimony and other information about the youthful offender’s participation in any available educational, vocational, community service, or other programs, the youthful offender’s work reports and psychological evaluations, evidence of the youthful offender’s remorse and the youthful offender’s major violation of institutional rules, if any.”

In 2008, when Reid was 16, he was charged with killing his father. Then, in 2009, a Winnebago County trial jury convicted him of first degree  intentional homicide, and he was given a life sentence which he began to serve in Waupun Correctional Institution when he turned 17.

Reid continues to contend that the death of his father was not intentional but an accident and that  Reid was defending himself from his alcoholic, abusive father, who was wielding a knife and making threatening gestures. Reid claims he choked his father with the intention that his father would pass out, not die.

But Reid also admits he did some things after his father’s death that he shouldn’t have, such as placing the body in the trunk of his father’s car instead of reporting the death immediately to the police.

 At 16, Reid said, he was a very immature young person, often in trouble, using drugs, not attending school, and stealing, making many poor decisions.

“At that age, you think you’re an adult; you think you know everything,” he said. “Those things adults tell you to do, some certain things, and you think you know better. And I was guilty of all the same types of thoughts like that, of just thinking that I really knew what was best for my life.”

When Reid was arrested in October of his junior year of high school, he had not attended very many days of class, a trend of skipping school he had started as a sophomore.

“And I just thought I didn’t have to prove anything to anybody, like, I know this stuff,” he said. “Why do I have to prove to a teacher that I know? Just an ignorant way of thinking and really low maturity level compared to how I am now. I look back, and I just kind of shake my head a lot of the time. There’s just a lot of the stuff that I did, and on top of it, I was doing drugs and drinking. At the time, I was already binge drinking. I started drinking really bad when I was 15, and it really picked up even more when I was 16, because my grandmother passed, and I used it as basically a reason to implode. And so the combination of being immature and the drugs and drinking, I was making a lot of really poor decisions.”

At Waupun, Reid could have been a prison statistic with an attitude and gotten into drugs and gangs and trouble, but instead he decided to take a different path by learning to weld and machining and later to crochet and donate items to charities. He was transferred to New Lisbon, where he continued to work as a welder and machinist, and then five years ago, he began training dogs that assist the blind.

“We do basically high-level obedience training, preparing the dogs to be able to go to harness school, where they learn the actual skills of working with a blind person or visually impaired person, to basically give them back their life, to be able to get them out of their house and be able not to be stuck there,” he said.

In prison, Reid said, he’s applied himself to learn new skills and gain an education.

“I have valuable skills that Wisconsin needs right now, you know, like welding and fabricating is a really in-demand training, even the machining,” he said. “Like I can run a mill, a lathe, you know, that type of stuff. I’ve gotten two vocational certificates since I’ve been here. I got an electromechanical service technician certificate. It’s also part of a pre-apprenticeship program through the Department of Workforce Development. I’m actually a certified professional dog trainer, like I got that through Chippewa Valley Technical College. I just finished my associate’s degree earlier this year, so I have an Associate of Science through Milwaukee Area Technical College.”

Reid also intends to pursue a bachelor’s degree from Marquette University in peace studies.

“I contribute to society right now in the environment I’m in, so I have no doubt that I can contribute in a meaningful way out there,” said Reid.

Since he has been in prison, Reid claims he has only received two conduct reports or complaints, one in 2010, his first year in prison, and another in 2016 for a tattoo.

Not many 33-year-old men have to wake up every day and live with the consequences of an action they took as a 16-year-old.

“Most of the time I try to just, kind of like, live in the right now,” he said. “I know it’s kind of like, you hear that phrase a lot, like live in the now type of stuff. I try to do that to the best of my ability as a coping mechanism, because, dwelling, obviously, on what happened and everything like that, like it was my dad, you know, so to me, I think it’s even a little bit more burdensome than for most of these people in that, I mean, my intent wasn’t to kill him. I was trying to just get him to stop attacking me in the situation we were in, and he passed away. So it’s like it’s not only just the guilt of taking a life, but it’s like I was so drug-addled or whatever it was, but it’s like I failed in that moment, like that was my failure.”

In-prison testimonies

At a future hearing to have his sentence adjusted, Reid would likely hear from others who would offer endorsements.

Patricia Muraczewski provided the dog training for the residents in New Lisbon and worked with Reid for two years. She was impressed by his work ethic and character and believes Reid should be considered for an early release.

“He was a member of the Paw Forward team of inmates who train dogs for the visually impaired,” she said.  “Mr. Reid was extremely diligent in class attendance and was very serious in acquiring and understanding the methods needed to train each dog that he was partnered with.  He had a very relaxed demeanor and got along with all of the other teams.  Even though there were frustrations at times with new instructors and conflicting material, he never expressed any anger.”

She added, “Over the course of my time in New Lisbon, never was Mr. Reid disrespectful and he never broke any rules or overstepped his position.” 

“Of all of the inmates I had worked with during that time, in my opinion, he was the inmate most likely to be successful when released and least likely to reoffend,” she said, adding,“During the four years this program has been in existence at New Lisbon none of the men that have been released have reoffended.” 

Brandon Horak knew Reid as a fellow resident at Waupun and later at New Lisbon. Horak had been sentenced to 10 years of incarceration for felony murder in the commission of an armed robbery after he set up a drug dealer for a robbery that resulted in the murder of the dealer.

“I wasn’t in a good state of mind,” he said when he first entered Waupun and met Reid.  “I had just been sentenced to 10 years in prison, so I met him in Waupun and he ended up encouraging me to get a job, so we worked in the laundry room together for a year and a half or two years. He encouraged me to get into school, and I didn’t want to do any of this stuff, so he was a really big influence on my life.”

Both Reid and Horak left Waupun and then later met up again in New Lisbon, where Reid had begun training dogs, and Horak said he noticed that Reid had lost a defensive, protective shield that many residents carry in amaximum security prisons like Waupun.

“I asked him why he didn’t care if someone stole something from him, which is obviously a big no-no in prison, and he said the dog program had changed his life and he had something to live for,” said Horak.

Even though Horak wasn’t officially in the dog program, Reid taught Horak what he had learned, and after he left prison, Horak set up his own dog training business based on Reid’s mentoring, a business called EDU Training.

“We train dogs in people’s homes, and to be honest, it was all thanks to Zach,” he said.

Out of prison, Horak often reaches back to Reid and his cellmate for advice on working with client pets.

“I’ve never been back to jail,” Horak said “I have a full-time job. I own a business. I do all this stuff, and I honestly do not believe I would have been able to do it without his (Reid’s) help. I just talked to him last week and he always tells me, ‘You better be doing good out there.’”

In prison, Horak said, he saw many people released and then come right back. Because of that, he doesn’t automatically believe everyone deserves leniency. Still, he says, Reid isn’t one of those who should be in prison and he believes he could do more good on the outside.

Engaged to be married 

Reid and his fiancée Samantha, got to know each other as pen pals in 2013, and that developed into a relationship in 2018. In 2019, they became engaged. In 2024, she moved from Florida to Wisconsin to be closer to Reid.

“The only reason we’re not married right now is that we’re hoping to get him out one day,” said Samantha, “so we can have just a normal marriage out here, versus having a marriage done or a wedding ceremony done inside the prison.”

Samantha said she has been communicating with Reid since they were both in their early 20s, and she’s seen him mature over the years.

“But just even in the last maybe five years, it’s just blown up like he has just matured and wants to do so much good,” she said. “ … He loves that he can actually make a difference, and he’s done other charity programs that even the prison doesn’t offer. He crochets hearts for suicide prevention.”

She said it recently occurred to her how much Reid is trying to do good for others and also maintain a relationship with her from prison.

“That is work, too, to just step up and almost religiously call somebody regularly, and never let me down, and to take care of me with all this distance,” she said.

If the legislation is passed, Samantha says that Reid would be the “poster child for this bill.”

“It’s like he went out of his way to get welding experience,” she said. “He went out of his way to do charity work. He went out of his way to do all these wonderful things over the years. And I mean, just since I’ve known him, he’s grown and matured. He’s checking off every box he can possibly check off, and could prove that over the course of 17 years, like he is not that person [that he was at 16], and look at all these good things he is doing and all the things he could contribute to society, and right now we’re just warehousing him. We’re wasting all these taxpayer dollars housing somebody that is very clearly not a threat.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Construction on a new city hall in Raleigh, N.C., was at a standstill Nov. 18 as word of immigration raids kept away most workers. Industries with large immigrant workforces, such as construction, are asking for federal relief as they combat labor shortages and raids. (Photo by Clayton Henkel/NC Newsline)

As food prices remain high, the Trump administration has made it easier for farmers to hire foreign guest workers and to pay them less. Now, other industries with large immigrant workforces also are asking for relief as they combat labor shortages and raids.

Visas for temporary foreign workers are a quick fix with bipartisan support in Congress. And Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins’ office told Stateline that “streamlining” visas for both agricultural and other jobs is a priority for the Trump administration.

But some experts warn that such visas can be harmful if they postpone immigration overhauls that would give immigrant workers a path to green cards and citizenship.

“Lack of permanent status is costly to migrants, employers, and the broader economy,” wrote Pia Orrenius, a labor economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, in a report published in June. Workers are “vulnerable to policy changes triggered by a change in administration, most recently the threat of mass deportations.”

In a Nov. 25 interview with Stateline, Orrenius said the crackdown on illegal immigration could be a good thing if it leads to permanent solutions.

“If you can stop undocumented immigration, then great. This is a great time to work on comprehensive immigration reform,” Orrenius said. “Where is there a scarcity of workers and how do we address those legally instead of illegally?”

Restaurants, construction and landscaping businesses have lost a combined 315,000 immigrant workers through August this year, more than any other industries, according to a Stateline analysis of Current Population Survey data provided by the University of Minnesota at ipums.org.

The construction industry needs more foreign worker visas like those already being provided for agriculture to prevent more delays in building everything from homes to highways, business owners say.

The industry needs help to “provide lawful workers while working to prepare more Americans for permanent careers in construction,” said Jaime Andress, testifying at a congressional hearing last month on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of America trade group. About 92% of contractors with open positions are having trouble finding enough skilled labor, whether it’s for construction of buildings, highways or utility infrastructure, she testified.

There are about 145,000 fewer immigrants working in restaurants, on average, through August of this year compared with the same period in 2024, the Stateline analysis found. There are about 127,000 fewer in construction and 43,000 fewer in landscaping.

One landscaping firm, which did not agree to an interview, lost $50,000 in contracts this year when workers stopped showing up because of rumored immigration raids, said Rebecca Shi, chief executive officer of the Chicago-based American Business Immigration Coalition, which advocates for employers seeking immigration changes.

“He had 75 workers and 50 of them didn’t show up one day because there were rumors ICE was going to be in the area,” Shi said. “Many of them were citizens and legal workers, but they were worried about family members and neighbors, so they didn’t show up either. It’s bad for the economy when you lose a worker, but it’s also the fear and uncertainty. We know restaurants that have lost 50% of staff and are at risk of closing because people just aren’t showing up.”

The coalition organized a “fly-in” in October to Washington, D.C., to ask members of Congress for more help to legalize immigrant workers through work permits in hospitality, agriculture, construction, elder care, health care and manufacturing.

In a letter dated Dec. 2, thousands of businesses in all 50 states asked the administration for an additional 64,716 H-2B visas, saying they rely on them for seasonal surges in hospitality, tourism, landscaping, forestry, seafood production and other industries.

And a bipartisan group of 33 U.S. senators from 22 states signed a letter Nov. 13 by Maine Independent Sen. Angus King and South Dakota Republican Sen. Mike Rounds asking for more H-2B seasonal employment visas.

“Employers’ workforce needs cannot be met with American workers alone,” the letter said.

Construction contractors say they need visas that are similar to the H-2A visas for agriculture that the Trump administration streamlined in October to make them easier and cheaper for farmers to hire temporary foreign workers.

The Associated General Contractors of America wants visas like the proposed new H-2C visas floated by Pennsylvania Republican U.S. Rep. Lloyd Smucker. Those would allow up to 85,000 less-skilled temporary workers in construction, hospitality and other fields to stay in this country up to nine years. The bill, introduced in September, has not advanced.

The association also supports a pathway to legal status for some workers already in the country, as proposed by Florida Republican U.S. Rep. María Elvira Salazar and Texas Democratic U.S. Rep. Veronica Escobar. The bill, introduced in July, also has not advanced.

“Workforce shortages are the leading cause of construction project delays,” said Brian Turmail, a vice president at the association. “Nearly 1 out of 3 contractors have been impacted in one way or another by enhanced ICE enforcement activities. That number is almost certain to increase now that ICE has received significant boosts to its budget as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”

Those industries are asking for more help as the latest federal immigration raids further affect workforces in Illinois, Maryland and North Carolina, with more raids planned in Louisiana. Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a data research organization at Syracuse University, reported a “massive redeployment of government military and civilian personnel to immigration enforcement” in recent months, with total detentions reaching more than 65,000, according to a Nov. 24 report. Nearly three-quarters of those arrested have no criminal convictions.

Construction, landscaping and other industries are already heavy users of H-2B visas for temporary non-agricultural foreign workers, according to government figures reviewed by Stateline.

In fiscal year 2025, which ended in September, there were about 209,000 H-2B visas, with Texas (20,051), Florida (18,515), North Carolina (8,634), Colorado (7,723) and Louisiana (7,234) getting the most. The most common occupations were building and grounds (94,152); food service (31,403); construction (16,729); farming, fishing and forestry (15,665); and personal care (12,170).

Some of the largest users of the visas last year were Core Tech Construction of New York City, a concrete coring and cutting firm (2,619 visas); ABC Professional Tree Services of Texas, which provides land clearance services (1,913); and Progressive Solutions LLC of Arkansas, which provides herbicide application to utilities (1,882).

The H-2B visa program needs to be streamlined and expanded to be useful for employers and workers, said David Bier, director of immigration studies at the libertarian CATO Institute, who has written about the visas.

Employers don’t always get the workers they want because the United States limits H-2B visas to 33,000 twice a year. Requests for the visas have already surpassed the 33,000 cap for the first half of fiscal 2026.

“The paperwork is a nightmare for employers and there are a lot of steps for workers also,” said Bier. “And there are so few visas available that your chance of getting all you need is almost nil.”

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

A drone watching a protest. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

“It is a unique bill that has a lot of emotion and nuances to it,” said Rep. Chuck Wichgers (R-Muskego), describing a bill to give local law enforcement the power to disable or destroy drones. Speaking to the Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety on Wednesday, Wichgers said that the bill would give “the bare minimum protection” for both the public and police as global drone technology continues to rapidly evolve.

Although current state law prohibits the use of weaponized drones, the devices are not actually defined in statute. Wichgers’ bill would define a weaponized drone as one which “is equipped with a taster, firearm, flamethrower, chemical, or explosive device.” 

Wichgers cautioned that “we can easily complicate this bill,” especially given the growth of drone technology around the world. Over the last two decades, drones have gone from being scarcely heard of outside military settings to becoming household objects. The U.S. military’s infamous Reaper and Predator drones, some of which are the size of small planes, have long been used in combat for reconnaissance and lethal strikes. Today, however, the same small and cheap quad-copter drones used by photographers, landscapers and children are being outfitted with explosives for kamikaze-style attacks on armored vehicles on Russian and Ukrainian battlefields, where an estimated 70-80% of casualties are caused by drones.

“It’s beyond fascinating,” Wichgers  said of “this is a big and global issue.” Wichgers told committee members that “we need to start getting language in statute,” since only certain federal agencies currently have the authority to down weaponized drones. “This bill allows Wisconsin law enforcement to mitigate a threat posed by a weaponized drone by detecting, tracking and identifying the drone and then intercepting, disabling, or in a worst case scenario, destroying the drone.” 

In order to protect public safety,  Wichgers said  that “these powers should be extended to local law enforcement.” He added that the federal government provides grants to help mitigate drone threats, as well as $500 million set aside for fiscal year 2026-27, as part of the Trump administration’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” “The difficulty is that law enforcement should not have to waiver if there is an immediate threat for a drone that is weaponized or carrying a load that is harmful to the public,” said Wichgers. “Our airspace needs to be safe, just like we’re safe on our roads.” 

A quickly moving goalpost 

The bill was requested by the Police Chief Association of Waukesha County, Wichgers said. “State law must be enacted that is responsive to current and future needs as best as we can determine them in order to prevent harm and protect our communities,” he added. 

Committee members chimed in with a variety of questions. Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) joked about farmers using weaponized drones to eliminate sandhill cranes consuming crops. Wichgers brought up  his own examples, including nervous neighbors calling the police to check out roofers who might be using drones for survey work, or a drone being used at a concert to drop fentanyl on people who then overdose in the crowd. “Right now the police would say, ‘Sorry, the Wisconsin Legislature is dragging their feet on passing a law that gives me permission to disarm that drone that’s a threat, we’ll have to wait till next session,” said Wichgers. 

Dan Thompson, chief of the Waukesha Police Department, told the committee,  that “drones carry contraband, surveillance equipment or worse, weaponized payloads” and that the technology can “present a unique danger that demands an immediate intervention.” 

The chief’s comments prompted Rep. David Steffen (R-Howard) to seek clarification that under the proposed bill a drone does not, in fact, need to be weaponized, and that law enforcement only need to “reasonably suspect” that it could pose a public safety threat in order to shoot it down. Sortwell said that the bill’s language seemed broad. 

Sortwell questioned whether as the bill is written, shooting down a drone could be justified at any time. Legislative counsel said, “I don’t know that I can really answer that.” Sortwell shot back, “The fact that you can’t say ‘no’ is troubling.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Gov. Tony Evers appointed John W. Miller, a venture capitalist, to serve as the next secretary and CEO of the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation. (Photo courtesy Evers' office)

Gov. Tony Evers appointed John W. Miller, a venture capitalist who previously served on the University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents, to serve as the next secretary and CEO of the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation.

Miller will fill the spot left vacant by Missy Hughes, who had served in the position since 2019 but stepped down from it in September just ahead of launching her campaign for governor. She joined a crowded field of candidates seeking Democratic nomination in 2026.

Evers said in a statement that Miller has a “proven track record of helping spearhead business growth and success in Wisconsin and around the Midwest, which makes him uniquely qualified to lead the exceptional team at WEDC.” 

“Under my administration, WEDC has entered a new era, focused on helping build an economy that works for everyone from the ground up. From investing in our workforce and higher education to bolstering entrepreneurs and budding businesses to leveraging public and private partnerships, John understands what it takes to build the 21st-century economy Wisconsinites need and deserve, and I have no doubt that his leadership will help us continue our work toward a stronger future for our state and communities across Wisconsin,” Evers said. 

Miller, who currently lives in Fox Point with his family, started his career as a congressional staffer for former U.S. Rep. Jerry Kleczka, a Democrat who represented Wisconsin’s 4th Congressional District (now represented by U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore). He went on to attend the University of Wisconsin Law School, graduating in 2006.

Miller then worked at Miller-St. Nazianz Inc., his family’s agricultural equipment manufacturing business, including as president and CEO for several years. He founded a venture capital fund called Arenberg Holdings LLC. in 2015 in Milwaukee; the firm works to mentor and invest in early-stage companies in the Midwest. 

Miller said in a statement that he is “honored” that Evers selected him for the position.

“WEDC celebrated a record year of investments in 2025, and I have every intention of using my experience in the business community to continue that success into 2026 and beyond,” Miller said. 

Evers previously appointed Miller to serve on the UW Board of Regents in 2021, though the state Senate fired him from the position in 2024 after he rejected a deal reached between Republican lawmakers and the UW System that traded concessions on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) for funding for employee raises and capital projects.

Miller was also previously appointed to and served on the Library of Congress Trust Fund Board of Directors under President Barack Obama and on the United States Trade Representative Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations under President Joe Biden. 

His appointment takes effect Dec. 15.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE