Gov. Tony Evers signed “Bradyn’s Law,” which creates a new crime for sexual extortion and the “Swenson Starkie Act,” which extends the statute of limitations for hiding a corpse. Evers addresses the Legislature in his 2024 State of the State message. (Baylor Spears | Wisconsin Examiner)

Gov. Tony Evers signed two bills this week introduced in response to crimes, including “Bradyn’s Law,” which creates a new crime for sexual extortion and the “Swenson Starkie Act,” which extends the statute of limitations for hiding a corpse. 

AB 201, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 48, was introduced by Rep. Patrick Snyder and Sen. Jesse James after the death of 15-year-old Bradyn Bohn from Kronenwetter, a village outside of Wausau. Bohn died by suicide in March after being targeted online by a perpetrator who convinced him to send photos of himself and told him that he needed to send money or face major consequences. He suffered through hours of threats and was coerced into sending money before his death.

“Today is an important day to remember Bradyn as we honor him and his memory, because now, moving forward, we will be able to hold bad actors responsible for reprehensible behavior, especially when they prey on our kids, and that is so important,” Evers said in a statement. “We wouldn’t be here today without Bradyn’s family and their relentless advocacy to keep kids safe online and hold predators accountable. We will be able to protect more of Wisconsin’s kids because of Bradyn’s family’s efforts to fight back.”

Sexual extortion, or “sextortion” is defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a crime in which “an offender coerces a minor to create and send sexually explicit images or video and then uses that material to extort the victim by threatening to release it.” 

2025 Wisconsin Act 48 makes it a Class I felony to coerce someone to engage in sexual conduct or to produce “an intimate representation” by threatening to injure someone’s property or representation, by threatening to commit violence or by threatening to distribute intimate photos of another person. The crime would be a Class H felony if the victim does any of those acts or is under the age of 18, and a Class G felony if the defendant was previously convicted of a sexually violent offense, the violation was committed during the course of a child abduction or the victim is under age 18 and the defendant is more than four years older than the victim. 

A person can also be prosecuted for felony murder if the person commits extortion and it causes the death of the victim. 

Sexual extortion has become a growing threat in the U.S. in recent years. The FBI observed from October 2022 to March 2023 an increase of more than 20% in reports of financially motivated sextortion incidents involving minor victims. 

From October 2021 to March 2023, the FBI and Homeland Security Investigations received over 13,000 reports of online financial sextortion of minors that included at least 12,600 victims, mostly boys, and led to at least 20 suicides.

Rep. Brent Jacobson (R-Mosinee) said in a statement that the bill is the first step towards “protecting vulnerable Wisconsinites from exploitation.” 

“As technology creates new avenues for exploitation, my colleagues and I have an obligation to make sure our laws protect our constituents, and that Wisconsin parents have the resources and awareness to keep their children safe from harm,” Jacobson said. “We must continue to come together to prevent these heinous crimes from claiming children in our state.”

Statute of limitations for hiding a corpse

SB 423, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 59, extends the statute of limitations for prosecuting the crime of hiding or burying a corpse by specifying that it only begins “once the victim’s remains are found and identified or when the crime occurs, whichever is later.” The current statute of limitations is six years in Wisconsin.

The legislation was introduced by Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine) and Rep. Ron Tusler (R-Harrison) after the case of Starkie Swenson. Swenson disappeared in 1983 but his remains weren’t found until 2021, 38 years later. 

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, John C. Andrews accepted a plea in the case and was convicted on a charge of homicide by negligent use of a vehicle in 1994 and served 16 months in prison. He refused to reveal where Swenson’s body was. 

Police charged him with hiding a corpse after identifying the remains in 2021, but the charges were dismissed due to the statute of limitations. 

“The killer should’ve faced justice for hiding the remains in an attempt to conceal his crime. However, because of a loophole in Wisconsin law, Starkie’s killer was able to avoid charges,” Tusler said in a statement. “Although we cannot heal the wounds caused by the murder of Starkie Swenson, 2025 Wisconsin Act 59 ensures that no violent criminal will be able to exploit the corpse-hiding loophole again,” Tusler said in a statement.

Notifying parents of sex offenses

AB 74, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 57, requires Wisconsin schools to notify a pupil’s parent or guardian if the pupil is an alleged victim, target or recipient of alleged sex offenses while at school. The law also requires school boards to provide parents and guardians each year with information on their rights to access records regarding school employee discipline.

“Doing everything we can to keep our kids safe at school, at home, and in our communities is a top priority for me, as well as our schools and education professionals, who are frontlines of doing what’s best for our kids every day,” Evers said in a statement. “This bill will strengthen transparency by making sure parents and family members are notified if any misconduct at school affects their kids’ safety or well-being and bolster accountability by ensuring they know what their rights are and what their kids’ rights are.”

Evers signs several other bills this week

Under AB 136, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 55, the penalty for impersonating a peace officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical services practitioner or an emergency medical responder is increased from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class I felony. Sen. Jesse James (R-Thorp) and Rep. Chuck Wichgers (R-Muskego) introduced the legislation this year following an incident in New Berlin.

AB 388, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 75, creates a legal framework to establish a behavioral health hospital in Chippewa Falls using $10 million, which was set aside in the state budget this year to be used for Rogers Behavioral Health. Sen. Jesse James, who coauthored the bill, said in a statement that it “is extremely monumental for the people of northwestern Wisconsin” and provides “a renewed sense of optimism” to the community as it will provide mental health support for children and adults in the area.

Under SB 11, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 79, principals will now be required to allow youth membership organizations, including the Girl Scouts and the Boy Scouts, to schedule at minimum one time to visit their school to encourage students to join their organization. The visit can consist of both spoken and written information on how the organization helps students with educational interests and civic engagement. 

Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara (R-Appleton) celebrated Evers signing the bill, saying that the organizations “create more engaged, confident, and community-minded citizens” and the law “ensures the next generation of Wisconsin children will continue to benefit from these life-changing experiences.” She also criticized Evers for vetoing another bill that would have added new requirements on schools related to military recruiters, saying the state should “proudly support our military, not slam the door shut when they’re offering students legitimate career options, which is precisely what the governor did with this veto.”

SB 310, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 61, limits the amount of time covered by an emergency power proclamation by a local government’s chief executive officer to 60 days, unless extended by a local governing body. The bill was part of a controversy surrounding Rep. Sylvia Ortiz-Velez earlier this year who claimed that Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, who is running for governor, abused his power during the COVID-19 pandemic when he issued emergency orders in 2021.

AB 265, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 56, requires judges to sentence offenders to a minimum of 10 years in prison if convicted of a human trafficking crime and 15 years for a child trafficking crime.

A 2026 America the Beautiful Annual Pass to gain entry to U.S. national parks. (Photo from federal court documents)

WASHINGTON — A public lands advocacy group sued the Trump administration in federal court Wednesday over the inclusion of President Donald Trump’s face on the forthcoming National Park annual pass.

The Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that alleges the Department of the Interior and Department of Agriculture violated the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, which requires department officials to feature an image on the annual pass chosen from a public photo contest.

The 16-page complaint alleges the administration has replaced a contest-winning photo of Montana’s Glacier National Park on the annual pass for U.S. residents with a graphic featuring the images of George Washington and Trump commemorating the 250th anniversary of the United States.

The photo of Glacier National Park will still be featured on the administration’s newly created, more expensive non-resident pass, according to the lawsuit.

“The Interior Department’s bait-and-switch betrays the expectations of the thousands of people who participate in the contest and is directly at odds with the public participation mandates of the statute,” according to the complaint. “It also undermines the stability of this well-established program and the conservation, recreational, and educational outcomes (the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act) provides.”

The White House and the Department of Interior did not immediately respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment.

‘Treasured’ national parks

In a statement, the center’s Executive Director Kierán Suckling said, “Blotting out the majesty of America’s national parks with a closeup of his own face is Trump’s crassest, most ego-driven action yet.” 

“The national parks are treasured by Americans of every stripe. Their timeless power and magnificence rise above even the most bitter political differences to quietly bring all Americans together. It’s disgusting of Trump to politicize America’s most sacred refuge by pasting his face over the national parks in the same way he slaps his corporate name on buildings, restaurants, and golf courses. The national parks are not a personal branding opportunity,” Suckling said.

Passes in recent years have featured photos of Everglades National Park, Wupatki National Monument, Sequoia & Kings Range National Park, San Juan National Forest, Redwood National Forest, Bridger-Teton National Forest, Acadia National Park, Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, and Nantahala National Forest. 

Passes for non-residents to be $250

The America the Beautiful annual pass is $80 for U.S. residents and provides entry to every national park and special fee areas of national forests, wildlife refuges and other national lands. 

The new nonresident annual pass is priced at $250.

Sales of the pass generated $119.4 million in revenue in 2023 that went back into the care and maintenance of the parks, according to data included in the court filing.

Democratic U.S. Rep Jared Golden of Maine announces plans for a discharge petition to force a vote on his bill to overturn an executive order restricting collective bargaining for federal workers Washington, D.C., on July 17, 2025. (Photo via Rep. Jared Golden)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House agreed Wednesday to consider a bill that would void President Donald Trump’s executive order that strips collective bargaining rights for roughly 1 million federal workers.

The 222-200 vote was a rare bipartisan agreement from the lower chamber to rebuke a policy decision from the president. Thirteen Republicans joined all Democrats voting for the resolution. 

Maine’s Jared Golden, a Democrat, and Pennsylvania’s Brian Fitzpatrick, a Republican, forced the vote by garnering enough signatures from lawmakers under a legislative move known as a discharge petition. The procedure allows rank-and-file members to compel the chamber to vote on measures that are not brought up by the leadership of the majority party, which is how bills typically reach the floor.

Wednesday’s vote was to discharge the bill out of committee and bring it to the floor for a vote. A vote on the bill itself is expected Thursday. 

The discharge petition gained the 218 signatures needed from 213 Democrats and five Republicans: Fitzpatrick, Don Bacon of Nebraska, Rob Bresnahan of Pennsylvania, and Nick LaLota and Mike Lawler of New York. 

In March, Trump signed an executive order that banned collective bargaining agreements for federal agencies dealing with national security. 

Those agencies include the departments of Defense, Veteran Affairs, Homeland Security, State and Energy, along with the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Coast Guard, most entities within the Department of Justice and several pandemic response and refugee resettlement agencies within the Health and Human Services Department, among others. 

“Protecting America’s national security is a core constitutional duty, and President Trump refuses to let union obstruction interfere with his efforts to protect Americans and our national interests,” according to the executive order.

Federal law enforcement and firefighters are exempt from the order.

Bargaining agreements for federal employees are somewhat limited. Workers cannot strike or bargain for wages or benefits, but they can push for better working conditions, such as protection from retaliation, discrimination, and illegal firings. 

Cows graze at Nice Farms Creamery in Federalsburg, Maryland.  (Photo by Preston Keres/USDA)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Agriculture will spend $700 million to support regenerative agriculture as part of the Make America Healthy Again agenda, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced Wednesday. 

The USDA pilot program for regenerative agriculture — a conservation management approach centered on improving the health of soil and increasing biodiversity — enacts part of President Donald Trump’s administration’s September “Make Our Children Healthy Again Strategy,” which offered more than 120 recommendations for addressing childhood chronic diseases.  

The pilot program will take funding from existing USDA conservation programs, which provide financial and technical assistance to farmers, with the aim of improving soil health.

“Protecting and improving the health of our soil is critical, not only for the future viability of farmland, but to the future success of American farmers,” Rollins said at a press conference alongside Kennedy and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz. 

“In order to continue to be the most productive and most efficient growers in the world, we must protect our topsoil from unnecessary erosion and boost the microbiome of the soil,” Rollins said.

Kennedy said a September report from the administration’s Make America Healthy Again Commission, which the health secretary chairs, included “the promise to make it easier for farmers in this country, to give them an off-ramp — farmers who are dependent on … chemical and fertilizer inputs — to give them an off-ramp where they can transition to a model that emphasizes soil health.” 

Kennedy has long advocated against use of chemicals in farming.

Repurposing funding

The department will dedicate $400 million to the initiative through the department’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program and $300 million from its Conservation Stewardship Program, according to a USDA press release.

“It’s baseline funding that we received through our budget, so we have the ability to tag that funding specifically for this pilot, and that’s what we’re doing,” Aubrey J.D. Bettencourt, chief of USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, or NRCS, said.

Rollins also said she would seek corporate partners for the program using a 2022 law that authorizes USDA to channel private contributions to conservation programs. 

The move “will bring corporate label and supply chain partners directly into partnership” with NRCS, Rollins said.

The pilot program “connects the producer and the work that they’re doing on the farm, granting them the credit for that voluntary action of change in practice on their farm that then can transition into the supply chain, into the marketplace and directly back to the consumer,” Bettencourt said. 

SNAP waivers 

Meanwhile, Rollins and Kennedy also announced Wednesday six more states whose waivers were approved to prohibit Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, benefits from being used to purchase certain non-nutritious items beginning in 2026. 

The effort, also part of the Make America Healthy Again agenda, adds Hawaii, Missouri, North Dakota, South Carolina, Virginia and Tennessee to the list of states that will have such bans. 

The bans restrict which items recipients of the federal food assistance program that helps 42 million Americans afford groceries can buy with their SNAP benefits.

Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and West Virginia already have similar incoming bans.

U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., talks to reporters at the U.S. Capitol on Saturday, June 28, 2025. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Missouri U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley is ratcheting up pressure on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to finish a study into medication abortion and to change its prescribing guidelines, sending a letter to Commissioner Marty Makary on Wednesday that the pace of the review is “totally unacceptable.”

The letter came just one day after leading anti-abortion groups called on President Donald Trump to fire Makary, following a report from Bloomberg Law that he planned to delay the agency’s review into mifepristone until past the November midterm elections. 

Hawley wrote in the two-page letter he posted to social media that it was “unclear” whether the FDA was actually conducting a review of the current prescribing guidelines and the safety of medication abortion. 

“There are more abortions in America now than when Roe was still law,” Hawley wrote, referring to the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling from the Supreme Court, which established the constitutional right to an abortion. “And this is largely because of the chemical abortion drug and its generics, like the one you approved.”

Hawley asked Makary to reply to three questions before Dec. 15, including whether the FDA is “conducting a comprehensive safety review of mifepristone separate from the (Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies) process,” if Makary delayed any safety reviews of mifepristone and if the FDA has plans to revert prescribing guidelines to require in-person dispensing. 

President Donald Trump, asked about the timeline during a roundtable at the White House, said he would find out whether the FDA was stalling. 

“I’ll find out. I’ll ask them,” Trump said. “I don’t think they’re slow walking anything, but I’ll find out.”

A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the FDA, said that “FDA’s comprehensive scientific reviews take the time necessary to get the science right, and that is what Dr. Makary is ensuring as part of the Department’s commitment to gold-standard science and evidence-based reviews.”

Second day of pressure on Makary

Hawley’s letter continued the public pressure campaign from anti-abortion organizations and lawmakers that began Tuesday when leaders at Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America and Live Action called for Makary to be fired over the Bloomberg Law news story reporting he had delayed the review of mifepristone over political considerations related to the midterm elections.

Americans United for Life CEO John Mize released a statement after meeting with Makary, saying it “is glaringly obvious that flawed political calculations” have stalled the FDA’s review of mifepristone, but not calling for him to lose his job over it. 

Access to mifepristone

Mifepristone is one of two pharmaceuticals used in medication abortion. It is approved for up to 10 weeks gestation and can be prescribed via telehealth and shipped to patients. 

Reducing or eliminating access to mifepristone has become a linchpin of the anti-abortion movement since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the nationwide right to an abortion in 2022. 

Anti-abortion medical organizations, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Erin Morrow Hawley, tried unsuccessfully to have the Supreme Court revert the prescribing guidelines for mifepristone in 2024. 

Josh Hawley and Erin Morrow Hawley are married. 

Numerous medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Medical Association, filed briefs to the justices in that case attesting to the safety and efficacy of medication abortion. 

“The scientific evidence is overwhelming: major adverse events occur in less than 0.32% of patients,” the groups wrote. “The risk of death is almost non-existent.”

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., talks with reporters during a press conference on Wednesday, Dec. 10, 2025. Also pictured from left are Republican Conference Chairwoman Lisa McClain of Michigan, Majority Whip Tom Emmer of Minnesota and Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson committed Wednesday to hold a vote next week on a package of bills that he said would lower health insurance premiums for hundreds of millions of Americans, not just those enrolled in Affordable Care Act plans. 

But the Louisiana Republican’s promise didn’t come with any details about which bills would be included in the package or whether the legislation will have the GOP votes needed to pass, amid vastly different views among his members about the federal government’s role in health care. 

“You’re going to see a package come together that will be on the floor next week that will actually reduce premiums for 100% of Americans who are on health insurance,” Johnson said. 

That will be a challenging task for Johnson and other House Republican leaders since they hold an especially narrow 220-213 majority. Democrats are unlikely to support GOP bills that don’t extend the enhanced tax credits for people who buy their health insurance through the ACA marketplace. Without the tax credit subsidies, costs are expected to rise sharply.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., said just after a closed-door meeting of House GOP lawmakers on health care that leaders were still finalizing which bills would go into the package. 

“We showed a list of what the three committees of jurisdiction have been working on for months today. And then encouraged all the members to give their feedback. And they did,” Scalise said. “A lot of members spoke today at the mic, which we want. They gave their feedback. And frankly, a lot of it was very positive about those bills.”

Senate votes Thursday

The House bills are part of a larger debate in Congress and at the White House about the rising cost of living, including health care affordability, that surged to the forefront in October and November after Democrats shut down the government. 

Senate Democrats throughout the six-week shutdown demanded a vote to extend the enhanced ACA marketplace tax credits, which are set to expire at the end of the year.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., promised Democrats a floor vote on a health care bill of their choosing in exchange for votes to end the shutdown. 

The Senate is expected to vote Thursday on a Democratic bill that would extend enhanced ACA marketplace tax credits for three years.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that proposal would increase the federal deficit by $83 billion during the next decade. 

That three-year extension would boost the number of people with health insurance by 400,000 in 2026, 3 million in 2027, 4 million in 2028, and 1.1 million in 2029, compared to current law. 

Senators will also vote Thursday on legislation from Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy and Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo, both Republicans, that would provide up to $1,500 annually for people who buy either bronze or catastrophic health insurance plans from the ACA marketplace.

The funding would go directly into a Health Savings Account for people between the ages of 18 and 64 who make up to 700% of the federal poverty level. That would be about $109,550 for one person or $225,050 for a family of four. The funding would last for 2026 and 2027 but end after that. 

Neither proposal is expected to get the 60 votes needed to advance under the Senate’s legislative filibuster rule. Even if a bill moved through the Senate, it would still need to get a House vote, a prospect that seemed like a long shot now that House GOP leaders are putting out a package of their own. 

Abortion coverage

South Carolina Republican Rep. Ralph Norman said after the conference meeting that “the devil’s in the details” of exactly which bills go to the floor but added GOP lawmakers had begun to form a “consensus.”

Maryland Republican Rep. Andy Harris said he doesn’t believe GOP lawmakers are responsible for addressing any aspect of the Affordable Care Act, including the expiring tax credits. 

“It’s not our responsibility to fix Obamacare,” Harris said. “They broke it. They should fix it.”

Harris, chairman of the far-right Freedom Caucus, said he wouldn’t support any bill to extend the enhanced ACA marketplace tax credits unless it restricted abortion access in those health insurance plans to only cases of rape, incest, or the life of the pregnant patient. 

That issue has become a central negotiating point for many GOP lawmakers, even those who are open to extending the tax credits a little while longer. 

‘Moment of truth’

Democrats argue adding those constraints, often referred to as the Hyde Amendment, is unacceptable and would represent a new restriction on abortion access. 

“I don’t understand when you’ve had a number of Republicans in the House and the Senate say they get it, this is a disaster to have these premiums double and triple, why they want to mess around right now and put abortion politics into the middle of this,” Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar said. “They know that that’s not going to work.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said the only proposal on the table to extend the enhanced ACA marketplace tax credits, avoiding a surge in premiums next year, is the Democratic bill. 

“Tomorrow is a moment of truth for the Republicans here in the Senate,” Schumer said. “Are they going to bring health care costs down, or will they sit by and let premiums explode for millions of Americans?”

Discharge petition on bipartisan bill

Later in the day a potential solution emerged when a bipartisan group of House lawmakers filed a discharge petition that would force a floor vote on their compromise bill if they can get at least 218 signatures. 

Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick wrote in a statement the legislation represents a “solution that can actually pass—not a political messaging exercise.”

“This bill delivers the urgent help families need now, while giving Congress the runway to keep improving our healthcare system for the long term,” Fitzpatrick wrote. “Responsible governance means securing 80 percent of what families need today, rather than risking 100 percent of nothing tomorrow.”

The 79-page bill, formally titled the Bipartisan Health Insurance Affordability Act, is co-sponsored by Nebraska Republican Rep. Don Bacon, Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Rob Bresnahan, North Carolina Democratic Rep. Donald Davis, Washington state Democratic Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, Maine Democratic Rep. Jared Golden, New York Republican Rep. Nicole Malliotakis and New York Democratic Rep. Tom Suozzi. 

The legislation would extend enhanced ACA marketplace tax credits through 2027 and expand access to Health Savings Accounts, among several other changes.

Golden wrote in a statement announcing the bill’s introduction Tuesday that it “implements sensible income caps” on who can receive the ACA marketplace tax credits.

“This moment requires leaders to abandon their partisan corners and govern,” Golden wrote. “Our bill provides a path out of gridlock and toward solutions.”

Gluesenkamp Perez wrote that no one “wants to shell out more cash to insurance companies or (pharmacy benefit manager) middlemen.”

“At the same time, we can’t lose sight of the fact that national health doesn’t come from insurance coverage — it hinges on people having good jobs, being able to sleep 8 hours a night, cook real food and see their kids at night,” she added. “Affordable healthcare and medicine are imperative and worth the fight, but a strong nation is longer work.”

Jacob Fischler contributed to this report.

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

Midwest Environmental Advocates filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the Wisconsin Public Service Commission seeking to force the release of unredacted documents showing how much electricity will be used at Meta’s planned data center in Beaver Dam. 

In a news release, MEA said it had sought electrical load projections for data center projects in Beaver Dam and Port Washington in an October open records request. The PSC initially provided the firm with versions that redacted the electrical load information. MEA sent a follow-up request seeking unredacted versions of the document. 

The PSC sent the unredacted version of the Port Washington project but denied the request for the Beaver Dam project, claiming it contained trade secrets. 

Wisconsin’s open records law allows government agencies to deny records requests if the information within the document is a trade secret, however MEA disputes that the amount of energy Meta plans to request for its data center counts. 

“It appears the PSC is unlawfully withholding this information because either Meta or a public utility is claiming the electricity demand for the data center is a trade secret,” MEA legal fellow Michael Greif said in a statement. “We call on Alliant Energy, American Transmission Company and Meta to be forthright with the public about their plans. These companies are asking a lot of the public and the public deserves, at least the very least, basic information about the data center’s massive energy needs.” 

Data center projects across the country are often shrouded in secrecy. A study in Virginia found that at least 80% of local governments involved with data center proposals had signed non-disclosure agreements with the data center companies — though it’s unclear how an NDA would be enforceable against Wisconsin’s public records laws. 

Earlier this year, MEA filed a separate lawsuit to force the city of Racine to release records related to the projected water use at Microsoft’s planned data center in Mount Pleasant.

A new report urges federal policy makers to reverse the decline in resources and staff for federal statistics agencies. (J Studios/Getty Images)

Federal agencies that count jobs, measure incomes, track health information and provide countless other forms of data are under unprecedented strain, according to a new report — compounding years of neglect by Congress and the federal government.

The report, released Wednesday by the American Statistical Association, calls on the federal government to reverse course, bolstering support for the national statistics infrastructure with staff, expertise and resources. It’s part of an ongoing project by the association to monitor the work of federal statistics agencies.

“In combination, we are seeing the system approach a crisis point unless immediate action is taken by Congress and the Executive Branch to reform the current trajectory,” the report states.

It’s a call that state and local officials say matters to them as well.

“It  might make people’s eyes glaze over, but for 235 years, we’ve understood the value of using federal data in particular,” said Zach Brandon, president of the Greater Madison Chamber of Commerce. “This has been an underpinning of how this country has been built and the resources we use to understand not only where we’ve been but where we’re headed.”

Federal data informed a 2019 think tank report that found Wisconsin was uniquely poised to become a national hub for biomedical research and development, Brandon said. That conclusion culminated in the state’s selection for a biohealth technology hub under a program included in the 2022 federal CHIPS and Science Act.

He considers accurate data not just a record of the past, but an assist to forecasting the future — “a flashlight that helps you see the challenges and the opportunities before they just become anecdotes.”

Brandon is skeptical that the private sector can provide an adequate substitute. “Even if it could be as robust, we likely couldn’t afford it,” he said.

Resources needed, report finds

The statistical association’s report states that for federal agencies to produce accurate data promptly that can be trusted, they need expert staff and enough resources for now and the future.

Instead, however, federal budgets have shortchanged them for years, it states. The Trump administration is proposing more of the same in its 2026 budget, with cuts to all 13 of the federal statistical agencies, the report warns.

“Immediate action must be taken to halt the severe decline in the federal statistical agencies’ ability to meet their basic mission and be positioned to keep up with increasing information needs and to address uncertainty in the trustworthiness of federal statistics,” the report states.

The 43-day federal shutdown that began Oct. 1 and ended Nov. 12 was an especially dramatic gap in data collection — among other things, for the monthly national and state jobs reports.

“People rely on reliable, consistent and timely data from the federal government when they make decisions,” said Haley McCoy, communications director for the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, which produces Wisconsin’s reports drawing on surveys conducted by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Whether a business owner is considering opening a new plant or shutting one down, “they need to have the most robust information that they can have to make a solid decision,” McCoy said. “It’s like taking the boat out on the water without looking at the weather forecast.”

That data was missing for the month of September because the shutdown began before the federal report could be completed, and the October data was never collected. DWD will post the state’s September numbers Wednesday — two months behind schedule.

“Those are the last statewide numbers that will come out this year,” McCoy said. “The most recent data we have are three months old.”

The next releases will come in January — November jobs numbers early in the month and December numbers later. But the October numbers are unlikely to be produced or posted ever, she said.

Long funding decline

The statistical association report documents declining fiscal support for federal statistical agencies over the last 15 years — suffering losses of 16% or more in real dollars since 2009, while facing new mandates from Congress.

Most agencies have also lost 20% to 30% of their staff, the report finds — from senior managers with important statistical knowledge to specialized data scientists and experts in methods that ensure greater accuracy.

The report finds that the Trump administration’s actions that have weakened the statistical agencies outweigh actions that would support them.

The administration has left leadership positions vacant, disrupted operations by relocating or attempting to relocate agencies, and eliminated some data collection projects unilaterally without consulting Congress, the public or stakeholders.

That’s coupled with deteriorating safeguards for the integrity of federal data. “In several cases, delays in releasing key data and administration officials’ statements questioning agencies’ neutrality have raised concerns about the protections for credible, objective statistics,” the report states.

Public trust of federal statistics has plummeted, according to the report. A University of Chicago survey found that among U.S. adults, trust in federal statistics fell from 57% in June to 52% in September.

Increased support recommended

The report makes a series of recommendations — for increased staffing, support for innovation, stable and sufficient funding for statistical agencies to fulfill their mission under federal law and systematic management of the agencies and their work, as well as other changes.

It also calls on the administration and Congress to strengthen public trust, including ensuring the data collected for statistical purposes isn’t used for law enforcement or to impose regulations.

At DWD, according to McCoy, there have not yet been concerns about the accuracy or reliability of the federal data it relies on, such as for state job reports.

“We trust how the data is collected,” she said. “It goes through rigorous checks for accuracy.”

But concerns remain about gaps in the data as some collection projects — such as  a report on food security — get turned off, McCoy said.

Steve Pierson, the statistical association’s director of science policy, told the Wisconsin Examiner Tuesday that so far data from the government has continued to be trustworthy.

“We believe that the federal statistics being issued are absolutely still objective and credible,” Pierson said. “What would really help, though, is comments to that effect from the administration.”

Pierson said he believes there are reasons for hope even in the face of grave concerns about the nation’s statistical resources.

Congressional budget writers have rejected the Trump administration’s proposals to cut budgets for the BLS and the National Center for Education Statistics — the latter of which the administration proposed virtually eliminating, he observed.

Key staffers in Congress “hear our concerns, and they share that they’re also concerned,” Pierson said. “That is encouraging.”

The roof of the Hotel Verdant in Downtown Racine is topped with a green roof planted with sedum and covered with solar panels. (Wisconsin Examiner photo)

A Wisconsin Senate Committee held a public hearing Tuesday on a bill that would allow private companies to construct small solar projects on underutilized farmland and commercial rooftops across the state. 

The bill, which would encroach on the monopoly the state’s existing utility companies are allowed to maintain under state law, is being considered while people across the country worry about rising energy costs amid a boom in the construction of data centers and the increased use of electric vehicles and appliances. 

Environmental groups in the state have also regularly complained that the utility companies aren’t constructing enough renewable energy projects or sunsetting existing coal and natural gas power plants quickly enough. 

The bill, authored by Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point) and Rep. Scott Krug (R-Nekoosa), would allow people in Wisconsin to subscribe to get some of their power from a local “community solar” installation. The subscribers would receive credits they can put toward their utility bill. Because the power developed at the local solar installation will still need to travel through the utility company’s infrastructure, the bill includes a provision that all subscribers to the program would have to pay at least $20 per month on their electric bill. 

In the hearing of the Senate Committee on Transportation and Local Government, the bill’s authors said allowing community solar projects would increase people’s energy choices while allowing the expansion of solar power in the state that avoids the objections from local residents that often come with large, utility-scale solar projects. 

“This change will open a new market sector in a high energy industry, attract economic investments in Wisconsin, create local jobs, drive innovation and competition, and ultimately save consumers and small businesses money on their energy bills,” Testin said. 

But the authors also acknowledged there is still a lot of disagreement over the details and the bill is not yet in its final form. 

“We’re not exactly there yet. We’re not all agreeing on this being the best way forward just yet, but this public hearing is a really important step to vet that out a little bit more to get us closer to that answer,” Krug said. “So yes, there are still some kinks to work out between the utilities and individuals who want a more market-based approach to solar. I hope we can work through those issues here.”

Over the hearing’s three and a half hours, the testimony split among two groups — the utility companies who are opposed to the bill and a coalition of solar companies, economists, farmers and employers who are in favor. 

The utility companies accused the bill of creating a “shell game” that would lower the costs for the subscribers of a given project while raising electric bills for everyone else. Zack Hill, testifying on behalf of Alliant Energy, said the utility estimated that community solar would result in an additional $8.75 billion in costs for ratepayers over the next 25 years. 

“How does [the bill] pay for subscribers 10 to 20% energy savings? The short answer: It will shift costs to your other constituents,” Hill said. “Some have said this sounds like community solar voodoo economics, but all you have to remember is this, when a company promises you a discount, someone else has to pay for it.”

People in favor of the bill argued that the generation of more energy could only help lower energy costs while disputing the utility companies’ claims. Will Flanders, the research director at the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, also said the utilities’ estimates undervalue the benefits that community solar can add. 

“This is a model that expands energy choice without large subsidies, without mandates, without turning more power over to monopoly utilities,” Flanders said. “In fact, it introduces competition at a time when Wisconsin needs it the most.” 

“We argue that community solar can deliver net savings to the entire system,” he continued. “When we talk about a shell game, what we’re really saying is there’s no real additional resources being put into the system, but obviously there is additional resources being put in when we have these with these programs in place.” 

Karl Rabago, a Denver-based energy consultant who testified with Flanders, said that the Alliant $8.75 billion estimate amounted to a threat that if the utilities don’t get to sell the energy, they’ll charge consumers for that loss. 

“No one knows where this number comes from, but having seen how utilities make their case in other states, I am 99.9% confident they are basically saying, ‘If we don’t get to make the electricity and sell it, we could potentially lose $8.75 billion and and if we don’t make that money, we’re going to charge you for it anyway,’ and that’s how customer costs could go up,” Rabago said. “That’s the most likely explanation for a histrionic number. The utility position, to summarize, seems to sound a bit like ‘let us do it all and no one gets hurt.’ We’ve heard those kinds of exhortations. Monopolies do it particularly well.” 

Toward the end of the hearing, a number of Wisconsin property owners testified, touting the benefits they’ll receive if they’re able to allow solar projects to be constructed on their land. 

Duane Hinchley, a Cambridge dairy farmer, said community solar is an “innovative solution” that can give farmers a stable income to hedge against the risks in the agriculture business. Plus, he said, allowing farmers to participate will prevent land that has been farmed for generations from being developed into subdivisions. 

“With the right policies in place, our state’s proud agricultural heritage can be a cornerstone of Wisconsin’s clean energy future,” Hinchley said. 

But throughout the day, lawmakers from both parties appeared skeptical of the bill’s benefits. 

Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine) said repeatedly he didn’t understand how the program would work for the utility companies. 

“It sounds like a shell game to me,” he said. “I just, I’m really having a challenge with trying to figure out how that would work, because it would seem to me that the energy company, the regulated company, is the one that’s going to be footing the bill for this.” 

Sen. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit) questioned how the program wouldn’t eventually raise energy costs for non-participants, but said one selling point for the bill was that it would encourage the increased development of renewable energy. 

“I heard you say this is going to force more solar to be built, whether or not you need it,” Spreitzer said to a utility company representative. “And I guess that, to me, is the one selling point of the bill. Is that I look at where we’ve been in the landscape lately, where we have, unfortunately, federal incentives for solar that are going away. We have increasing demand for power from data centers. We’re seeing new natural gas plants get built. We’re seeing coal plants not being retired, when we hoped they would. To me, there’s plenty of need for solar.” 

If the utility companies won’t support a community solar proposal, Spreitzer wondered, what do they need from the Legislature to encourage more solar development? 

“And so if we’re not going to go down this route, what are the incentives that you all need to make sure that we can continue to drive solar development without increasing rates for customers and without saying, ‘let’s go build a natural gas plant instead?” he asked. 

Anti-rights of nature bill 

Also on Tuesday, the committee heard testimony on a bill from Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) that would prohibit local governments in Wisconsin from enacting “rights of nature” ordinances, which grant natural elements legal rights that can be protected in court. 

Nass said in his testimony that the idea is anti-American and is contrary to the values of the U.S. Constitution.

“This is a radical departure from our current law. Rights are something that human beings have,” Nass said. “This concept of granting nature rights is something that has been done primarily in foreign countries … and many of these countries lean dramatically towards socialism and communism, and their attitude is not compatible with private property rights in our country.”

But proponents of rights of nature resolutions frequently point to the fact that corporations are granted rights under U.S. law. Communities including Green Bay and Milwaukee have passed or begun drafting rights of nature ordinances and some Democratic lawmakers have introduced a bill that would grant Devil’s Lake State Park some rights that can be protected in court. 

In a statement after the hearing, Rep. Vincent Miresse (D-Stevens Point), one of the co-authors of the Democratic proposal, wrote, “As we heard from advocates today, Rights of Nature is one of the strongest tools local governments have to protect clean air, clean water and healthy soil for future generations — so that our grandchildren, and their children after them, can drink our waters, eat food grown in our soils, and hunt in our forests.”

Milwaukee County Sheriff Denita Ball (right) sits beside Chief Deputy Brian Barkow (left) during a meeting of the Milwaukee County Board. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Dozens of people filled a room in Milwaukee’s courthouse complex Tuesday morning, listening as representatives from the sheriff’s office pushed for adopting facial recognition technology and answered questions about the Flock camera system. The Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office hopes to equip its booking room cameras with facial recognition software from the company Biometrica, a move that was not well received by some county residents.

For over an hour, Chief Deputy Brian Barkow and other sheriff’s office staff attempted to quell residents’ fears. During the Tuesday meeting of the Committee on Judiciary, Law Enforcement and General Services, board members listened to a lengthy presentation from the sheriff’s office differentiating various camera systems, and highlighting aspects of a proposed policy governing facial recognition technology. 

In June, the county board unanimously voted to call on the sheriff’s office  to work with community members to create such a policy. Residents had increasingly expressed concern after the Milwaukee Police Department signaled that it was exploring an agreement with Biomentrica to provide 2.5 million images, booking records and other information in exchange for access to facial recognition software. As concerns mounted about  the police department contract, the public learned that the county sheriff’s office  was also exploring a similar agreement with Biometrica. 

During the Tuesday committee meeting, Barkow ran through the various camera systems the sheriff’s office uses. From Genetec, a video management platform that can detect motion and loitering, to general purpose security cameras used from the zoo to the courthouse, cameras installed in police vehicles, camera trailers, body cameras, and AI-powered Flock cameras used to identify vehicle license plates. 

A sprawling network of Flock cameras has been erected by over 5,000 law enforcement agencies nationwide, including at least 221 in Wisconsin. The cameras perpetually photograph and identify vehicles using license plates, storing that data for a period of time and allowing law enforcement to search Flock’s network for that data. The cameras can be set up to notify officers of when specific vehicles are spotted, sending more notifications as they pass Flock cameras installed in one neighborhood or another.

Barkow and Sheriff Denita Ball said that saying that this practice amounts to “tracking” is a misrepresentation. “When you say ‘tracking’,” Barkow told the Wisconsin Examiner, “most people think of I’m like, live tracking you. And so an alert occurs, right, but it occurs after that vehicle has already been someplace.” Ball underscored the point. “What it says is the car is here at this time,” said Ball. “Now because it has alerted the police officer, the deputy sheriff, what they’re going to do now is follow that car.” Barkow added in such situations a deputy could “respond to that area to attempt to locate the vehicle.” It may then pass in front of another Flock camera at some point, or it may not, Barkow added. 

None of these systems use facial recognition software, Barkow and other sheriff’s office  staff said. Rather, the sheriff’s office sees its booking room cameras — used to photograph people during the intake process at the jail — as good candidates for Biometrica’s software. A PowerPoint presentation produced by the sheriff’s office states that these cameras can capture high-quality images of scars, marks, tattoos, and other distinctive characteristics. 

The presentation states that the sheriff’s office  is evaluating how facial recognition could be used to compare booking images against law enforcement databases. No biometric information or data would be accessed, stored, or transmitted, the PowerPoint stated, and all searches would be both private and logged, nor would the data be sold to third parties. 

Facial recognition software could be used to identify people linked to active investigations, missing persons, witnesses, victims, mitigating “imminent threats” like terrorism and violence, and assisting forensic processes. Sheriff’s office staff would be prohibited from using it for mass surveillance or indiscriminate tracking, automated real-time identification without human oversight, targeting people based on race, gender, religion, or other protected traits, or relying on facial recognition as the sole reason for an arrest or for pursuing a search warrant. 

Committee members peppered Barkow and company with a variety of questions. They raised concerns about the adoption of surveillance technologies in the current political climate, particularly when it comes to actions by the Trump administration. There were questions about whether agencies like immigration enforcement could access the accumulated data of Flock or facial recognition cameras, and who exactly in the sheriff’s  chain of command would be making decisions about how the technology is used and who accesses it. Some expressed concerns that facial recognition has been shown to have higher failure rates for non-white faces. Sheriff’s office staff  and representatives from Biometrica countered that although early models of the technology did have those issues, advancements have all but eliminated those concerns, though no specific improved detection rates were provided. 

Sup. Justin Bielinski, who chairs the committee, set a strict two-minute limit on speaking time because of the large volume of people waiting to comment

Calling Sheriff Ball a “liar” who had failed to respond to community concerns about the jail, Ron Jansen, the first member of the public to speak, said, “this department cannot be given additional power, period.” Jansen said that sheriff’s office  staff could run screenshots through facial recognition software applications, or request other law enforcement agencies to do it for them. Jansen pushed back against the sheriff’s claims that running a photo through facial recognition technology is similar to putting a picture out in the news. “Great!” Said Jansen. “I would encourage them not to waste our money on [facial recognition] technology and instead to continue running photos in the news, and asking for public support. It’s cheaper and probably a lot more effective.” 

One person after another  expressed doubts about the Milwaukee sheriff’s  push to adopt facial recognition technology, and also questioned the use of Flock cameras. Several referred to a recent scandal involving the Greenfield police chief, who is facing felony charges after having a department-owned pole camera installed at his home to monitor his wife during a messy divorce. Others compared the capabilities of Flock and facial recognition technology to World War II-era European countries where secret police photographed and identified targeted individuals. 

Many, including members of the committee, echoed fears about federal agencies accessing the data collected by the Milwaukee sheriff’s tools. “I haven’t heard one community member today say that they support this,” said Angela Lang, executive director of Black Leaders Organizing Communities (BLOC). “All of the folks that we have been talking to in the community say if we actually want to get to the root causes of crime, we invest in things like mental health and health care and affordable housing.”

U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany has said his campaign is aiming to raise $40 million for the 2026 gubernatorial race. Tiffany delivers a speech at his launch event in Wausau in September. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, the current frontrunner in the GOP gubernatorial primary, criticized the “billionaire loophole” that has led to record spending in statewide races in Wisconsin, even though he voted for the legislation that helped expand spending in 2015.

Tiffany has said his campaign is aiming to raise $40 million for the 2026 gubernatorial race. “We’ll see if we get there,” Tiffany said in an interview with PBS Wisconsin last week. “But, you know, Wisconsin, because of that pass-through loophole, I call it the billionaire loophole, there’s just so much money that comes into Wisconsin. But, you know, you can cry about it or you can compete. We choose to compete… We’re hoping to raise $40 million.”

Spending on Wisconsin statewide elections has grown substantially over the last decade in part because of an overhaul of the state’s campaign finance laws adopted in 2015 under the leadership of former Gov. Scott Walker and the Republican-led Legislature. 

Republican lawmakers at the time argued that the changes to the campaign finance laws were necessary to align state law with U.S. Supreme Court decisions, including Citizens United v. FEC, which in 2010 struck down a nationwide ban on political donations from corporations, and McCutcheon v. FEC, which in 2014 found that annual caps on total political donations from one person are unconstitutional.

Under 2015 Wisconsin Act 117, Wisconsin lawmakers eliminated a state law that capped individual donations to all candidates and political committees in a single year at $10,000. Limits on contributions for each state and local office were increased and limits on contributions to party and legislative campaign committees were eliminated, creating a loophole that allowed unlimited money to flow through parties and committees into individual campaigns. The law eliminated restrictions on coordination between political parties and candidates and allowed for political parties and legislative campaign committees to make unlimited contributions to candidate committees.

The state law has become a topic of conversation again as the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case Tuesday challenging a federal law limiting the amount of money that political parties can spend in coordination with a candidate for office.

Tiffany has represented Wisconsin’s 7th Congressional District since 2020, but prior to that he served in the state Senate. As a state senator, Tiffany voted for AB 387, which later became Act 117, along with the other Senate Republicans. Only one Republican, former state Sen. Rob Cowles, voted against the measure.

Tiffany’s campaign has not responded to a request for comment about the vote and whether he wants to see changes to state campaign finance law.

At the time, advocacy groups and Democratic lawmakers warned the legislation would lead to obscene spending in Wisconsin elections. The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign warned in written testimony that the legislation would mean “billionaires and multimillionaires will have an outsized influence over who gets elected” and that political contests would “be less between candidates and more between tycoons.”

Spending in governors’ races was already growing following the U.S. Supreme Court decision and before the state law was adopted. In 2010, $37.37 million was spent on the governor’s race; in 2014, spending increased to $81.78 million. The increase in spending ballooned dramatically  after the passage of the 2015 law.

A record-breaking $164 million was spent in 2022 on Wisconsin’s gubernatorial race. According to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, the cost represented a 77% increase from the previous $93.06 million record that was set in the 2018 governor’s race.

Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Mandela Barnes, who served in the Assembly in 2015, did not vote on the campaign spending bill, joining the rest of his Democratic Assembly colleagues who said it was a conflict of interest for lawmakers to rewrite the laws that govern their campaigns. He is the only Democratic candidate in the current crowded primary field who was in the Legislature at the time.

Barnes said in a press release in 2015 that he opposed the bill because Republicans rejected an amendment that would have delayed implementation until after the 2016 election cycle. He said Republicans “acted in blatant self-interest for their campaign committees by voting down my effort,” so he “recused myself from voting on ultimate passage of this outrageous proposal.” 

Barnes also said then that with the legislation Republicans had “fully embraced the darkness of corruption by voting to rig the rules to line their own campaign pockets with shady special interest money and allow for more corruption to go undetected and unprosecuted.”

Barnes, a former lieutenant governor and U.S. Senate candidate, recently said he is aiming to raise $50 million over the course of the race, but at the same time criticized the escalation in campaign spending.

“It’s not a good sign for things. I wish that were not the case,” Barnes told reporters Monday. “The goal is to get big money out of politics. The goal is for campaign and ethics reform… We should be taking more steps to reduce the impact of money in politics.”

Other Democratic candidates include Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez, Milwaukee Co. Exec. David Crowley, state Sen. Kelda Roys, state Rep. Francesca Hong, Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. CEO Missy Hughes and former state Rep. Brett Hulsey.

Washington County Executive Josh Schoemann is the only other Republican candidate currently in the race.

Barnes and Tiffany have not had to file campaign finance reports yet as they entered after the last deadline. Candidates’ next campaign finance filing deadline is Jan. 15, 2026. Those reports will cover July 1, 2025 through Dec. 31, 2025.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers announced Tuesday that he has signed 34 bills into law, including a bill requiring judges to sentence offenders to at least 10 years in prison if convicted of a human trafficking crime and 15 years for a child trafficking crime. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers announced Tuesday that he has signed 34 bills into law, including a bill requiring judges to sentence offenders to at least 10 years in prison if convicted of a human trafficking crime and 15 years for a child trafficking crime. 

“Crimes of this nature — most especially when it comes to our kids — should be punishable by the full extent of the law,” Evers said in a statement. “With this bill, we are helping ensure that we’re protecting some of our most vulnerable youth and holding predators accountable, most especially when they prey on our kids.”

The bill includes increases to the maximum amounts of prison time a person can receive for human and child trafficking crimes, and it allows more time for prosecution of human trafficking crimes. 

Human trafficking involves using force, fraud or coercion for labor, services or a commercial sex act. Trafficking of a child can involve a knowing attempt to recruit a child for commercial sex acts. Wisconsin trafficking law also bans benefiting from trafficking or knowingly receiving compensation from the earnings of debt bondage, a prostitute or a commercial sex act. 

Last month, the Wisconsin Examiner reported on lawmakers’ reasons for supporting the bill, such as preventing human traffickers from doing further harm. Rep. Jerry O’Connor (R-Fond Du Lac) cited cases that appeared to have taken place in other states in which people convicted of sex trafficking received between six and eight years in prison. 

The Examiner reported on criminal justice advocacy groups and attorneys’ criticisms of the mandatory minimums, including a concern from attorneys that judges would sentence people who are trafficking victims themselves to the mandatory minimum punishment without being able to consider whether the person deserved a lighter sentence because their trafficking crime was influenced by their trafficker. The bill didn’t contain an exception to the mandatory minimum for that type of situation. While Wisconsin law allows a defense in court for people who committed a crime as a “direct result” of trafficking, that didn’t allay critics’ concerns.

The anti-sex trafficking organization Shared Hope International gave Wisconsin law failing grades on multiple categories relevant to survivors of child sex trafficking: “protection from unjust criminalization,” “legal relief” and “survivor-centered supports.” The analysis was based on laws enacted as of July 1. 

Th Democratic bill would fund special education reimbursement on a sum sufficient model instead of a sum certain model. An empty high school classroom. (Dan Forer | Getty Images)

Democratic lawmakers are proposing a bill to ensure that school districts get reimbursed for their special education costs at the rates projected when the current state budget was signed. 

The 2025-27 state budget, passed by the state Legislature and signed by Gov. Tony Evers in July, provided funding that was estimated to bring the reimbursement rate to a historic 42% in the first year of the budget and 45% in the second year. However, recent estimates show the funding set aside will not be enough to meet that rate.

Wisconsin currently uses a “sum certain” funding model for its special education reimbursement rate, meaning payments to schools come from a fixed pot of money set aside in the budget. If schools spend more than estimated, there is no increase in reimbursement and the rate falls. 

The Department of Public Instruction notified school districts in November that the initial special education reimbursement payments this year will be about 35% of their costs. This will not be the final reimbursement rate.

The Democratic bill would change state education funding to a sum sufficient model, meaning the amount of money provided by the state would meet shifting costs to maintain a set reimbursement rate.

Rep. Angelina Cruz (D-Racine) said in a statement that the bill gives Republican lawmakers the opportunity to “prove” that they were serious about providing a special education reimbursement at the rate that they proposed in the budget.

“Imagine your employer choosing to pay you for less than half of the work you’ve done,” Cruz said. “That’s the position we’re putting our public schools in. This level of reimbursement is not what our schools want or need, and it’s not what our children with disabilities deserve. At the very least, we must keep our promise.”

Rep. Christian Phelps (D-Eau Claire) said school districts deserve a higher reimbursement rate, noting that many advocates including state Superintendent Jill Underly called for a 90% reimbursement rate in the state budget, and Democratic lawmakers, who are seeking to win control of the Legislature in 2026, would pursue making that a reality in the future. 

“When Democrats control the Legislature, we will fight for full, fair funding in the budget. But right now, this bill ends the broken promises,” Phelps said. “It prevents another year of shortfalls and tells kids, families and districts that they can count on the state to keep its word.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., answers questions from reporters after chairing a hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on Sept. 17, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Republicans announced Tuesday they will hold a vote on their own health care proposal later this week to counter a Democratic bill that would extend enhanced tax credits for Affordable Care Act marketplace plans for three more years.

The 32-page GOP bill would not address the expiring ACA marketplace tax credits but would send payments to certain Americans through Health Savings Accounts to cover some of the cost of health care. 

Neither measure has the 60 votes needed to advance under that chamber’s rules. That would leave the ACA marketplace subsidies to expire at the end of the year and dramatically spike the cost of health insurance for the millions of people enrolled in those plans. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said Democrats’ bill to simply extend the enhanced ACA marketplace tax credits to offset the costs Americans pay for that insurance was unacceptable. 

“The way that the program is structured, the money goes straight to the insurance companies,” Thune said. “And the way that we think this ought to work is you ought to come up with a way in which you can deliver the benefit to the patients and not to the insurance companies.”

Thune said the Democratic bill lacks an income cap for ACA marketplace tax credits and allows $0 premiums for health insurance plans — guaranteeing the measure will fail.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, of New York, called the GOP proposal a “nonstarter” that would lead to “junk insurance.” He said the only way to avoid a dramatic increase in health insurance costs next year is to extend the enhanced ACA tax credits. 

“Their phony proposal is dead on arrival,” Schumer said. “The bill not only fails to extend the tax credits, it increases costs, adds tons of new abortion restrictions for women, expands junk fees and permanently funds cost-sharing reductions.”

Multiple plans

Senate Republicans have debated for weeks whether to hold a vote on a GOP plan to show the party has something to offer toward reducing health care costs. Thune promised Democrats a vote on a health care bill of their choosing in exchange for votes to end the government shutdown. 

Schumer announced last week that Democrats would hold the vote on a three-year extension of the enhanced ACA tax credits as they exist now. 

Several GOP senators, including Maine’s Susan Collins and Ohio’s Bernie Moreno, have released plans that would include an extension of the expiring tax credits while beginning to transition away from those subsidies. 

But Republican leaders ultimately decided to hold a vote on a proposal released earlier this week by Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy, R-La., and Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, R-Idaho. 

The Cassidy-Crapo legislation would have the Department of Health and Human Services deposit money into Health Savings Accounts for people enrolled in bronze or catastrophic health insurance plans purchased on the ACA marketplace in 2026 or 2027, according to a summary of the bill. 

Health Savings Accounts are tax-advantaged savings accounts that consumers can use to pay for medical expenses that are not otherwise reimbursed. They are not health insurance products.

ACA marketplace enrollees who select a bronze or catastrophic plan and make up to 700% of the federal poverty level would receive $1,000 annually if they are between the ages of 18 and 49 and $1,500 per year if they are between the ages of 50 and 64. 

That would set a threshold of $109,550 in annual income for one person, or $225,050 for a family of four, according to the 2025 federal poverty guidelines. The numbers are somewhat higher for residents of Alaska and Hawaii.  

The funding could not go toward abortion access or gender transitions, according to the Republican bill summary. 

Proposal modeled on Trump comments

Cassidy and Crapo outlined how their proposal would work during afternoon floor speeches, where they also aired their grievances with how the Affordable Care Act has affected Americans’ health care costs. 

Crapo rebuked Democrats for establishing the enhanced ACA marketplace tax credits during the coronavirus pandemic and scheduling them to sunset at the end of this year. 

“The pattern has become clear: Democrats respond to rising premiums by throwing taxpayer dollars at the problem,” Crapo said. “Their supposedly short-term fixes only drive premiums higher and make the problem harder to solve. Leaving us with apparently no choice other than to do the same thing again and again and again.”

The GOP plan, he said, was modeled off President Donald Trump’s request to send funding directly to Americans to spend on their health care. 

“Families can use that money to cover costs not handled by their insurance policy without having to wait for insurance companies to approve their treatment decisions,” Crapo said. “Because families want the best value for their money, they will seek out the most appropriate treatment. Over time this will result in lower health care costs as providers compete for patients.”

Cassidy said the bill would not subsidize health insurance premiums but would help some Americans pay for doctor exams, dentist visits, glasses and prescriptions. 

Once eligible ACA marketplace enrollees receive that funding in their Health Savings Accounts, he said, they will shop around for better prices, including on x-rays, which are often used to determine if someone has broken a bone. 

“She’s going to say, ‘Wait a second, the x-ray is $150 here and $500 there. I’m going to where it’s cheaper, not more expensive,’” Cassidy said, giving an example. “And I can tell you when that begins to happen, the people who are more expensive begin to lower their price.”

The U.S. Education Department announced a proposed agreement with Republican-led states to permanently eliminate the Biden-era SAVE plan. (Catherine Lane/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Education announced a proposed agreement Tuesday that would permanently axe an income-driven student loan repayment plan in which more than 7 million student loan borrowers are enrolled. 

Under a joint proposal with seven Republican-led states that challenged the program, the department would not enroll any new borrowers in the Saving on a Valuable Education, or SAVE, plan, deny any pending applications and place borrowers currently in the plan into legally compliant repayment plans.

The program, introduced in 2023 under then-President Joe Biden’s administration, was hit with legal challenges from several GOP-led states, including Missouri, and has been blocked by the courts. The initiative sought to provide lower monthly loan payments for borrowers and forgive remaining debt after a certain period of time. 

If a Missouri federal court approves the agreement, the department said borrowers currently enrolled in the SAVE plan “will have a limited time to select a new, legal repayment plan and begin repaying their student loans.”

The agreement stems from a legal challenge to the plan brought by Missouri, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio and Oklahoma in 2024.

A ‘deceptive scheme’

In a statement alongside the announcement, Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent said President Donald Trump’s administration “is righting this wrong and bringing an end to this deceptive scheme.” 

“The law is clear: if you take out a loan, you must pay it back,” Kent added. “Thanks to the State of Missouri and other states fighting against this egregious federal overreach, American taxpayers can now rest assured they will no longer be forced to serve as collateral for illegal and irresponsible student loan policies.” 

Republicans argued the permissive repayment plan let borrowers off the hook at the expense of federal taxpayers.

Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway said in a statement Tuesday her office “fought for hardworking Americans who were being preyed upon by Biden Administration bureaucrats, and we won in court every time.” 

“We appreciate President Trump’s real, long-term solutions instead of illegal student loan schemes,” Hanaway added. 

Student advocates, though, said the agreement would place an additional burden on student borrowers already struggling with a rising cost of living.

Persis Yu, deputy executive director and managing counsel at the advocacy group Protect Borrowers, blasted the settlement agreement as “pure capitulation” in a Tuesday statement. 

“While millions of student loan borrowers struggle amidst the worsening affordability crisis … billionaire Education Secretary, Linda McMahon chose to strike a back-room deal with a right-wing state Attorney General and strip borrowers of the most affordable repayment plan that would help millions to stay on track with their loans while keeping a roof over their head,” Yu said. 

Interest accumulating

In February, a federal appeals court upheld a lower court injunction that blocked the SAVE plan from going into effect. Borrowers under the plan were placed in an interest-free forbearance last year amid legal limbo. 

But borrowers’ loans in the SAVE forbearance began to accrue interest Aug. 1 — a move the department announced in July to comply with court orders. 

The SAVE plan was already set to be phased out by July 2028 under congressional Republicans’ tax and spending cut bill that Trump signed into law this year. 

The front entrance of the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse in Washington, D.C., which houses the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. (Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration Tuesday defended the merits of its fast-track deportation policy before a panel of judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, saying immigrants who have been in the country for less than two years without legal authorization are not guaranteed due process.

The suit, brought by immigration rights advocacy groups, challenges the Department of Homeland Security’s expanded expedited removal rule’s application to immigrants in the interior of the United States who cannot prove they have remained in the country for more than two years. 

The expanded policy, which allows the removal of immigrants without an appearance before an immigration judge, is a pillar of the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign. 

Arguing on behalf of the Trump administration, Drew Ensign from the U.S. Department of Justice said that immigrants cannot rely on due process rights granted in the Constitution because those rights are reserved for U.S. citizens. Congress and Supreme Court precedents restrict immigrants’ rights to due process, he said.

Additionally, Ensign argued that because Congress authorized the DHS secretary to use expedited removal, the courts have no jurisdiction on the matter. 

Anand Balakrishnan, legal counsel for Make the Road New York, the immigrant rights advocacy group that brought the challenge, said the policy skirts a fair legal process for immigrants.

Democratic state attorneys general also submitted a brief in support of the immigrant rights groups, arguing that the expanded use of expedited removal is unconstitutional. Those states include California, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state. 

Policy expanded to interior

For decades, expedited removal has been used to apply to migrants apprehended at the U.S. border and quickly deported without appearing before an immigration judge. In January, the Trump administration expanded its scope to the interior of the country and applied it to any immigrant apprehended who cannot prove they have remained in the country for more than two years. 

An appeals court in late November declined the Trump administration’s request to pause a district court’s block of the policy while the appeal was pending. 

Tuesday’s hearing was part of the Trump administration’s appeal on the merits of its policy before a different appeals panel, Judges Justin R. Walker, Neomi Rao and Robert L. Wilkins. President Donald Trump nominated Walker and Rao and former President Barack Obama nominated Wilkins.

The panel appeared skeptical of the administration’s argument that due process rights do not apply to immigrants who entered the U.S. without legal authorization.

Duty to notify

The judges seemed split, though, about if the government should be expected to explain the expedited removal statute to a person it is attempting to remove and what that person’s rights are to challenge their removal, or if the person should have to ask for their own due process rights. 

“Even if we accept your portrayal of how the due process works, … under that framing, there still has to be adequate notice (of removal),” Wilkins said to Ensign. 

Ensign argued that immigrants subject to expedited removal have sufficient notice they are being removed and can’t rely on the due process clause of the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment to challenge it. The executive branch has the authority to decide how to apply the clause to immigrants, he said.

Wilkins pushed back on that argument, saying notices must meet minimum standards. 

“The notice (of removal) has to be sufficient,” he said to Ensign. “(It) has to inform you of at least what the procedures are or what you’re facing.”

Balakrishnan said a mere notice of removal is “inadequate.” An immigrant subject to expedited removal can be deported within hours and without having time to challenge their removal or even speak to an attorney, he said.

Walker seemed skeptical that the burden of notifying an immigrant that they were subject to the policy fell to the government. 

“For someone who has chosen to be here illegally, in violation of our laws….from a due process perspective it’s not too much to ask that if someone here illegally wants the special non-expedited removal procedures that Congress has graciously afforded them, it’s not too much to ask that they ask for them,” he said. 

Balakrishnan argued that wouldn’t be sufficient due process.

“I think it’s common sense that having even that bare amount of information, ‘if you’ve been here for over two years you’re not subject to expedited removal’ would certainly decrease the risk of error,” Balakrishnan said. “I’m not sure how it would be overly burdensome for the government to do that.” 

Then-U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Geoffrey Berman announces charges against Jeffrey Epstein on July 8, 2019 in New York City.  (Photo by Stephanie Keith/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A Manhattan federal judge granted an order Tuesday to unseal grand jury records in the case of Jeffrey Epstein co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted of sex trafficking minors among other offenses in 2021.

Federal Judge Paul Engelmayer wrote in a 24-page order that unsealing the documents fell within the scope of a new law passed by Congress and signed by President Donald Trump. The law compels the U.S. Department of Justice to release nearly all investigative files in the government’s case against Epstein, who died in jail in 2019 awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

The U.S. Department of Justice asked the court to release the records after Congress overwhelmingly passed the legislation last month requiring disclosure of “all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in its possession that relate to Epstein or (co-conspirator Ghislaine) Maxwell.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi must release the material by Dec. 19 in accordance with the law, which lawmakers dubbed the Epstein Files Transparency Act. 

Law covers grand jury material

Engelmayer described the act’s language as “strikingly broad” and wrote Congress was “undeniably aware” that grand jury materials in Maxwell’s case were in possession of the U.S. attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York.

“Its decision not to exclude grand jury materials despite knowledge as to their existence, while expressly excluding other categories of materials (such as classified information), indicates that the Act covers grand jury materials,” Engelmayer wrote.

The order comes days after a Florida federal judge reached a similar conclusion Friday and ordered the unsealing of federal grand jury materials related to the government’s investigation of Epstein from 2005 to 2007.

Epstein pleaded guilty to a state charge for soliciting a minor for prostitution but avoided a federal probe when then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta cut a deal with state prosecutors. Acosta was later appointed secretary of Labor during Trump’s first administration.

Florida interview

Maxwell is serving a 20-year prison sentence. The Trump administration recently transferred the sex offender to a minimum security prison shortly after Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche interviewed her in a Tallahassee, Florida, facility as pressure to release the Epstein files ramped up in Congress and among Trump’s base.

According to transcripts, Maxwell told Blanche, Trump’s former personal defense attorney, that she “never witnessed the president in any inappropriate setting in any way. The president was never inappropriate with anybody. In the times that I was with him, he was a gentleman in all respects.”

Trump had a well-documented friendship with Epstein but denies any involvement with Epstein’s alleged crimes. The president has said that he kicked Epstein out of his private Florida club, Mar-a-Lago, because Epstein had poached young female staffers from the club.

Maxwell was convicted in December 2021, after a one-month jury trial, of conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, conspiracy to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts, transporting a minor to participate in illegal sex acts, sex trafficking conspiracy, and sex trafficking of a minor.

The Justice Department maintains Epstein had over 1,000 victims.

Dr. Martin Makary testifies during his confirmation hearing to lead the Food and Drug Administration before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on March 06, 2025 in Washington, DC.  (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Two of the country’s largest anti-abortion organizations want President Donald Trump to fire U.S. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary over access to medication abortion. 

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, expressed frustration Tuesday that the FDA hasn’t completed a review of the prescription drug mifepristone.

“The FDA needs a new commissioner who will immediately reinstate in-person dispensing as it existed under President Trump’s first term and immediately conduct a comprehensive study,” she wrote in a statement. “Commissioner Makary is severely undermining President Trump and Vice President Vance’s pro-life credentials and their position that states should have the right to enact and enforce pro-life protections. Makary must go.”

A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, which houses the FDA, wrote in a statement that “FDA’s comprehensive scientific reviews take the time necessary to get the science right, and that is what Dr. Makary is ensuring as part of the Department’s commitment to gold-standard science and evidence-based reviews.”

White House spokesman Kush Desai wrote in an email to States Newsroom that “Makary is working diligently to ensure that Americans have the best possible, Gold Standard Science study of mifepristone.”

“The White House maintains the utmost confidence in Commissioner Makary, whose leadership at the FDA has delivered and continues to deliver one landmark victory for the American people after another, from cracking down on artificial ingredients in our food supply to conducting the first safety review of baby formula in decades,” Desai added. “Uninformed attacks against Commissioner Makary from individuals outside the Administration will not change these facts.”

FDA approval 

Mifepristone is one of two pharmaceuticals used in medication abortion. It is FDA-approved for up to 10 weeks gestation and can be prescribed via telehealth and shipped to patients remotely. 

About 63% of the abortions in 2023 were medication, as opposed to procedural, according to the Guttmacher Institute. 

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an attempt by anti-abortion medical organizations to overturn the FDA’s current prescribing guidelines for mifepristone in 2024. 

Numerous medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Medical Association, filed briefs to the justices in that case attesting to the safety and efficacy of medication abortion. 

“The scientific evidence is overwhelming: major adverse events occur in less than 0.32% of patients,” the groups wrote. “The risk of death is almost non-existent.”

‘No preconceived plans’

Makary testified before a Senate committee in March as part of his confirmation process that he planned to review data on mifepristone and follow the research where it led him.

“I have no preconceived plans on mifepristone policy except to take a solid, hard look at the data and to meet with the professional career scientists who have reviewed the data at the FDA,” Makary said at the time.

Lila Rose, founder of the anti-abortion group Live Action, also called for Makary to be fired, writing in a social media post that his request to delay the results of the review until after the November 2026 midterm elections, which was reported by Bloomberg Law, was unacceptable. 

“If Dr Makary will not act as head of the FDA to protect children and mothers he should be fired,” Rose wrote, later adding the administration should, “Ban the abortion pill now!”

Americans United for Life CEO John Mize released a statement after meeting with Makary, saying it “is glaringly obvious that flawed political calculations” have stalled the FDA’s review of mifepristone. 

“To avoid political backlash in the upcoming midterm elections, advisors within the Administration are acting on a false premise, that emphasizing the importance of women’s safety and direct in-person consultation with her clinician is a political liability,” Mize wrote. 

An oak savannah in southern Dane County that the Badgerland Foundation is working to conserve using Knowles-Nelson Stewardship funds (Photo by Henry Redman/Wisconsin Examiner)

The looming shutdown of Wisconsin’s decades old Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant program has put conservation projects across Wisconsin at risk as land trusts attempt to muddle on without the program that has protected more than 700,000 acres of land in the state. 

Without the stewardship fund, projects to conserve 1,300 acres of Northwoods forest near the headwaters of the Wisconsin River in Vilas County, hundreds of acres of “ecologically significant” wetlands in Door County and dozens of acres of prairie and grassland in Dane County could go unfinished. 

“It’s a bit bleak and it’s so disheartening to know that there’s so many beautiful, wonderful places kind of on the chopping block right now all across the state,” says Emily Wood, executive director of the Door County Land Trust. “It’s not just us. We hear from our partners that there are hundreds and thousands of acres that are just not going to be protected if [the program] goes away, and that’s going to have such an impact, domino effect, on future generations.” 

The Knowles-Nelson Stewardship fund was created in 1989 to fund land conservation in Wisconsin. The program provides grants to local governments and non-profits to cover some of the costs for purchasing and conserving land that can be used for recreation, preserving animal habitats and supporting local industries such as forestry. 

The program enjoys massive bipartisan support, yet in recent years, some Republicans in the state Legislature — largely from communities in the northern part of the state — have grown hostile to it, claiming that the program has too often been used to fund the purchase of land up north, depleting local tax bases. 

Republican legislators have also complained that they no longer have oversight over the Department of Natural Resource’s management of the program after a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision last year found that the Legislature had given itself an unconstitutional veto authority over the DNR’s grant decisions. 

Several attempts have been made to save the program from expiring next summer. In his initial state budget proposal, Gov. Tony Evers asked to extend the program for ten years with $100 million in annual funding. Republicans stripped that provision from the budget immediately. 

Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc) and Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point) have authored a bill that would extend the program for four years at $28 million per year. The bill also includes a provision that would require the full Legislature to approve any land purchases that cost more than $1 million — a proposal that critics say would be far too slow for the speed at which real estate transactions need to move. 

A separate proposal from Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay) would re-authorize the program for six years at $72 million per year and create an independent board made up of members appointed by the Legislature to approve large land purchases through the program. 

But there has been little progress made on advancing either proposal and now conservation groups are trying to plan for the next year without the support that Knowles-Nelson has traditionally provided.

Wood says that her organization is trying to protect the landscape in one of the most ecologically significant parts of the state. The challenge for her group is that Door County’s natural beauty draws tourists and increased development, yet too much development would damage the natural beauty. 

The Door County Land Trust has protected more than 5,000 acres of land in the county and Knowles-Nelson has covered half the cost in nearly every transaction, according to Wood. With the program shuttering next year, three projects totaling about $1 million — all of which scored highly on the DNR criteria — are at risk. 

“The county as a whole receives a ton of money from the Knowles-Nelson stewardship fund, because we are so geared towards tourism and access to natural resources,” she says.  The stewardship fund is critical for Door County to continue “to be the county that you know, everyone expects us to be when they get in the car and come up here.” 

Near the southern border of Dane County, Filip Sanna and the BadgerLand Foundation are working with the Driftless Area Land Conservancy and The Prairie Enthusiasts to protect and restore vital oak savannah and prairie in southern Wisconsin. 

Hundreds of years of agriculture have all but destroyed the native prairies in what was once one of the most ecologically diverse regions in the world.

The foundation has already conserved and gifted to the Driftless Area Land Conservancy hundreds of acres between Belleville and New Glarus that will soon be open to the public for hiking and hunting and used for sustainable practices such as regenerative agriculture. But future plans are threatened by the looming loss of stewardship funds. 

Recently, a tract of about 30 acres became available on the market within an area environmental groups have targeted as important for protecting grassland bird habitat. The Prairie Enthusiasts wanted to conserve the land but funds through the stewardship program wouldn’t be available fast enough. So the BadgerLand Foundation and the Prairie Enthusiasts reached an agreement in which the foundation would purchase the land and then sell it to the Prairie Enthusiasts once the stewardship grant comes through. 

Now those funds are uncertain and Sanna says it could sidetrack future plans.

One of the arguments Republican legislators have often made against the Knowles-Nelson program is that more populated areas in the southern part of the state should bear more of the land conservation burden. 

But the program dying off could jeopardize land conservation in the population centers because land is more expensive there. Dane County’s recently enacted 2026 budget doubled the size of the county’s conservation fund from $5 million to $10 million. That, Sanna says, can be a Band-aid for now. But county and local governments are facing their own budget challenges and smaller counties won’t be able to step into the DNR’s conservation shoes. In many places, the local governments are also dependent on stewardship program funds to conserve and maintain public land. 

“One of the responses we have to the uncertainty about Knowles-Nelson is to try to look to the county level and then some combination of county funding and private donations,” Sanna says. “That might work in Dane County, where we have a relatively strong tax base. But if you go to the neighboring counties around, Green and Iowa and Lafayette and all of those counties, that’s probably not an option.” 

“if [Knowles-Nelson] dies, the next step is going to be, now you’re going to have nice parks around all the wealthy people, but all the rest of Wisconsin that is smaller population centers that’ll just be like towns, rural housing, farmland, private land,” he continues. “There won’t be public land.” 

Way up in Vilas County, in the part of the state where the fight over land conservation has been most heated, a handful of administrative delays might end up killing a 1,300 acre conservation project because stewardship funds will no longer be available. 

The Northwoods Alliance and Partners in Forestry are working together to use federal and Knowles-Nelson funds to preserve two tracts of land west of the town of Land O’ Lakes. Joe Hovel, director of Partners in Forestry, says the project would include trails as part of the extensive Wilderness Lakes bike path system. 

Because the real estate deal on the project got delayed, and the slow speed at which the state and federal government have moved, it’s likely that the chance to use Knowles-Nelson dollars has already passed. 

Hovel says the complaints about land conservation up north discount the economic value of protecting the land for recreational uses. 

“It’s really short sighted in a sense that there isn’t enough respect for the recreational value of this land conservation stuff,” Hovel says. “The value of public access conservation land dwarfs, I mean it literally dwarfs, the value that timber revenue brings in.” 

A report from the Outdoor Recreation Roundtable found that recreation on federal public lands generates $128.5 billion in economic activity every year. All the logging on federal land generates $200-300 million per year.

The Legislature has just over six months to extend the program. Wood says it would be a self-inflicted wound if elected officials allow a program that other states look to as a model to expire. 

“It’s so disheartening to hear that the fund that has had so much success over the years, that other states look to how to fund conservation, they look to Wisconsin’s model on how to do it, and that we as a state, that same model is going to go down just because of partisan gridlock,” she says. “We really just need to keep it alive because funding it in a later year, or coming back and making changes to make it better are way more possible if it’s an existing program.” 

“But coming up with another one from scratch, it just seems like it would be an impossibility. So right now, it does feel like we are just screaming to keep it, just keep it alive. Just don’t kill it.”

Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Mandela Barnes spoke with bike shop owner Mitch Pilon about rising costs under President Donald Trump and the effects of tariffs. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Even with a crowded Democratic primary field, gubernatorial hopeful Mandela Barnes told reporters Monday that he is focusing his efforts on the Republican candidate he might face in November 2026 and he has raised a “strong haul” in the first week of his campaign.

Barnes, a former lieutenant governor and U.S. Senate candidate, visited Black Saddle Bike Shop (where he said he’s often had his bike serviced) on the North Side of Madison. The stop was part of Barnes’ “Wisconsin Way” tour, launched last week after he announced his campaign. He has joined a field of candidates in the Democratic primary that includes Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation Missy Hughes, state Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison), state Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison) and former state Rep. Brett Hulsey.

Barnes said his fundraising so far is “something that’ll make my mom proud,” though he wouldn’t expand on how much money he has raised. He said his goal will be to raise $50 million in the race overall, though he also criticized the need to raise so much. 

Barnes noted that during Gov. Tony Evers’ successful second bid for the office, Evers spent around $42 million to defeat Republican businessman Tim Michels, who spent $28.48 million. A record-breaking $164 million was spent in 2022 on Wisconsin’s gubernatorial race.

“It’s not a good sign for things. I wish that were not the case. The goal is to get big money out of politics. The goal is for campaign and ethics reform,” Barnes said, adding that reform is needed at both  the state and federal levels. “We should be taking more steps to reduce the impact of money in politics,” he said.

Barnes said the first week of the campaign has been exciting, and he has been trying to talk to as many people as possible. He spoke with bike shop owner Mitch Pilon about rising costs under President Donald Trump and the effects of tariffs. 

“With an absence of support from the federal government, even if the state doesn’t have all the resources to make it better, at least staving off some of the worst from happening, I fully believe that’s a responsibility of state government,” he told Pilon, adding that he wants to help “tip the scales back into the favor of working people.” 

Pilon, who opened the shop in February 2020, said making ends meet has been a challenge for him and his partner, who is a social worker.

“In Wisconsin, after 10 years, your student loans should be absolved, which they’re not going to be now, and she has a master’s degree… that’s $100,000 in debt at social worker’s compensation,” Pilon said. The Trump administration has sought to upend student loan forgiveness programs this year. “I own a small business. I work really hard… we can’t afford a house.” 

“[Trump] promised to lower costs for people,” Barnes told reporters after the conversation. “He said he was going to bring back manufacturing to this country, specifically to this state. It hasn’t happened. As people continue to feel the pinch, tough decisions are being made.” 

Barnes said he got into the race because of the urgency of those sorts of challenges. 

“It’s a critical moment that calls for leadership. It calls for boldness, to not just take on the president, but to also offer real solutions for the problems that people are facing,” Barnes said. “So this is one of many small businesses that we’ll be showing up to… over the course of this campaign.” 

Pilon also asked Barnes about one of the obstacles that his campaign will need to overcome — his failed challenge to U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson in 2022. Barnes has faced pushback to his campaign due to that loss. 

“We lost the Senate race…” Pilon said. “How do you get over that? How do you rise above that?”

Barnes responded that he didn’t get into the race for “personal reasons.”

“I got into it because there was work that needed to be done,” Barnes said. “I don’t feel like the job is being done and, alright, that’s a wakeup call to go out there and raise my hand and do the job.” 

“How do you change people’s minds?” Pilon asked. 

“A lot of it is personal stories and experience,” Barnes said. 

It has been rare for candidates in Wisconsin to succeed in winning a statewide race after an earlier loss. Charles Franklin, director of the Marquette Law School poll, found in an analysis of previous governor and U.S. Senate election results that the last time a candidate won one of those statewide campaigns after losing a previous one was in the 1970s. Examples of failed second chances include Tom Barrett, who lost bids for governor in 2010 and 2012, Tim Michels, who lost to Evers in 2022 after he lost a bid for the Senate in 2004, and Russ Feingold, who lost Senate races in 2010 and 2016.

Barnes is undeterred by the precedent. 

“There’s a lot of history that would suggest I wouldn’t ever become lieutenant governor,” Barnes said in answer to a question about Franklin’s second-change analysis. “There’s also, you know, in terms of historical precedent, I don’t know that there is a precedent that suggests anybody on the Democratic or Republican side has a better chance of winning.”

Barnes ran for the Democratic lieutenant governor nomination in 2018 in a two-person race, going on to win on the same ticket as Gov. Tony Evers. He was elected and served as the state’s youngest and first Black lieutenant governor from 2019 to 2023. 

Wisconsin’s gubernatorial race next year is wide open for the first time since 2010.

During the 2022 Senate race, Barnes became the Democratic nominee after other high-profile candidates dropped out weeks before the primary.

Barnes denied he helped push the other Democrats out of the race then. He also said primaries are good for democracy when asked whether he wants other candidates to coalesce around him.

“I think it should be a battle of ideas, whether it’s a large primary or not, but would never that’s never been my style to try to get anybody out of any race,” Barnes said. “As you know, from the way I got in, I showed up by challenging someone in a primary election, so it’d be very hypocritical of me to suggest anybody get out.”

Barnes previously served in the Wisconsin State Assembly for two terms from 2013 to 2017. He gave up his seat in the state Assembly in 2016 to challenge former State Sen. Lena Taylor (D-Milwaukee). He lost the primary by more than 11,000 votes.

Barnes said his campaign will be focused not just on unifying Democrats but on a “unifying message to defeat extremists and extremism.” 

“It does not matter what your favorite ideology might be, there’s a place for you in this campaign because it is about improving quality of life for everybody,” Barnes said. 

With about 10 months until the primary, Barnes said he’ll be focused on the Republican candidates in the race. U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany is the presumed frontrunner for the Republican nomination. 

“This is about pointing out flaws and failures, and Tom Tiffany as he stands as the front runner, his failures and leadership, his decisions to go lock-step with the president who has made things worse for Wisconsin,” Barnes said. “Tom Tiffany didn’t go to Washington to make things better for us, and we shouldn’t expect him to improve things for us as governor.” 

The primary election is scheduled for Aug. 11, 2026.