Democrats are seizing the mantle of states’ rights to oppose the agenda of President Donald Trump, who has sought to reset Washington’s relationship with the states. 

While the party out of federal power has always pushed its agenda in statehouses, Democrats across the country have recently demanded more autonomy for governors and state lawmakers. Liberals, longtime proponents of a stronger central government, are now championing an ideology that evokes odious memories of slavery and segregation.  

Many state leaders hope that a renewed focus on federalism could help lower the national political temperature. By shifting more political decisions to the states, they envision a nation less subject to blue-red swings that change the entire course of federal law enforcement, environmental policy and business regulation. 

“Otherwise we just end up fighting every four years over red king-blue king,” said Utah state Rep. Ken Ivory, a Republican. “And our entire nation goes entirely one way, and then 180 degrees the other way.”

Ivory said the pendulum swinging is “ripping our nation apart” politically and costing untold dollars as national policy reverses depending on who is in power. He leads Utah’s Federalism Commission, a bipartisan legislative group assessing state-federal boundaries and working to educate leaders across the country on federalism issues. 

While he’s been pushing for a smaller federal government and heightened role for the states for years, he said the fiery policy debates in Trump’s second term have given the effort unprecedented momentum. 

Last June, California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom said the White House had violated his state’s sovereignty in deploying the National Guard to Los Angeles without the governor’s consent. In a lawsuit the state ultimately won, California cited arguments made by founding father James Madison in the Federalist Papers calling for ratification of the Constitution more than 200 years ago. 

And this winter in Minnesota, Democrats pushed for more state oversight of the federal government after immigration officers killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis. 

“This is a matter of states’ rights,” said Democratic state Senate leader Erin Murphy. “And while we can’t impact — except for next November – the makeup of Congress, we can impact and bring relief for the people of Minnesota.”

Many of the most high-profile conversations surrounding states rights’ have proven predictably partisan. Yet Democrats and Republicans behind the scenes have been quietly building momentum for a rebalancing of state-federal authority.  

Conservative state lawmakers who have long pushed for a smaller federal government are welcoming liberal counterparts to a growing movement underscoring the importance of federalism, the uniquely American system created by the framers of the Constitution to share power between Washington, D.C., and the states.

As the United States celebrates its 250th anniversary, Stateline is exploring how the Trump era is transforming the relationship between the states and the federal government. This article is the third in an occasional series examining the fraught moment and what evolving — and often deteriorating — state-federal ties mean for the country, now and in the future.

In Utah, the Republican House speaker called Rep. Ivory several days after Trump’s 2024 election, noting that even California’s liberal governor was talking about federalism.

“He says, ‘We have the opportunity of our lifetime. … We need to get out and work with other states, get them together,’” Ivory recalled. 

“I said, Mr. Speaker, I agree with you. But if Gavin Newsom does something that we believe is state jurisdiction, even if we don’t like the policy, we’ve got to stand with him. And he said, ‘I know,’ and that had never happened before.”

‘An inflection point’

The debate over how much power states should wield is as old as the nation itself: Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, the forebears of our two-party system, famously argued for larger and smaller federal roles, respectively. 

In Trump’s second term, Democrats have leaned on federalism principles as a means of checking federal power, said Troy Smith, a professor of constitutional federalism and director of the Constitutional Federalism Initiative at Utah Valley University in Orem. 

The American federalist system is always evolving as states and the federal government tussle over authority and the two parties come in and out of national power. Smith said state governments, namely governors, have grown increasingly partisan since the 1990s. But that may be changing as Republicans and Democrats embrace states’ rights.

“I think we’re in an inflection point now that looks like it has the potential to go in that direction as the states start recognizing they have many things in common that transcends party and cooperation could be to their benefit,” Smith said.

Federalism scholars took note of December’s inaugural meeting of the Assembly of State Legislative Leaders, a bipartisan gathering of lawmakers from 30 states. Though not highly publicized, that group signed off on a 449-word declaration on the importance of states’ ability to legislate independently. 

“I think that’s pretty unique and telling in this moment that Republican and Democratic leaders came together and unanimously approved that resolution,” Smith said. 

The group of lawmakers has yet to publicize any more meetings and its leader, Ohio’s Republican House Speaker Matt Huffman, declined an interview request.

But New Hampshire House Speaker Sherman Packard, who attended that gathering, said it was clear that concerns over the size and scope of the federal government transcend parties.

“It’s strictly a bipartisan issue,” said Packard, a Republican. “It isn’t an issue that’s dominated by one blue state or one red state. It’s an issue that I think almost every state legislature is dealing with, and red or blue, it’s worth telling the federal government, ‘enough is enough.’”

Tennessee Democratic state Rep. Karen Camper, though, is skeptical that the states will mark meaningful progress during Trump’s term. 

“Bipartisan has become a nasty word for this president,” she said. “So it’s going to have to be after he’s gone, because he will kill it. That’s what I’ve seen from this president.”

Camper, the Tennessee state House minority leader, pointed to May’s special legislative session in which the GOP pushed through a controversial congressional redistricting plan. It splits the state’s only majority-Black congressional district in Memphis across three districts, diluting that area’s vote as Republicans attempt to flip the state’s only Democratic-held district. 

“Look at what just happened in our state,” Camper said, highlighting Trump’s push for redistricting. “That was a chance for our Republican supermajority to say, ‘We’re not going down this road.’” 

Camper is also the chair of the Black Legislative Leaders Network, a national group of Black lawmakers who lead state chambers, caucuses and committees. She said she worries that too much focus on state autonomy could jeopardize important freedoms that were won at the federal level, including civil rights and voting rights.

“So we’re going to be fighting, refighting some of the same stuff, some of the same things that we fought for,” she said. “…We should be protected by these rights, regardless of where we go in this country, but in states’ rights, there’s a chance that you won’t.”

A complicated history

The debate over states’ rights is inextricably tied to race, equality and segregation. 

And some Southerners continue to argue that conflicts over states’ rights — rather than slavery — drove secession ahead of the Civil War. Historians, though, note the only significant right under debate at that time was the right to enslave people.

In the Jim Crow era, Southern states continued the siren call of states’ rights as they defended racial segregation and fought civil rights movements.

While the concept can still evoke those deeply divisive times, liberals in recent years have found political value in embracing states’ rights, said Paul Nolette, professor and director of the Les Aspin Center for Government at Marquette University and co-editor of a national academic journal on federalism. 

That’s particularly true of Democratic attorneys general, who have been aggressively challenging the White House in the past year with scores of lawsuits over its immigration enforcement efforts, environmental policies and the withholding of federal funds from states.

“If states were just this weak link, then they would be able to do nothing,” Nolette said. “You know, it would just be the federal government getting whatever it wants. But in fact, the states have a lot of tools themselves to push back on the federal government.”

Though the federal government has grown in scope over the decades, Nolette noted, state bureaucracies have also expanded influence. Many federal programs, including the national food stamp program and safety net health insurance, are administered by state governments.

“So the nature of federal policy over the last few decades has actually given states additional powers to have a say in national policy,” he said. 

Nick Brown, Washington state’s Democratic attorney general, acknowledged his view of states’ rights has evolved over the years. 

Like many others, the phrase to him frequently evoked the Southerners who championed states’ rights in their efforts to oppose racial integration. The state’s first Black attorney general, Brown previously spent years working in the U.S. Department of Justice, a federal agency he admired for its role in pursuing civil rights cases. 

But he said the Trump era demands a different role for states as the president continues to flout congressional appropriations and punish political opponents.   

“I think certainly we have to look differently at what states’ authorities are in this moment,” he said. 

Brown said a heightened focus on states is welcome after years of outsized attention on national politics. That’s because the issues most important to most people — taxes, schools and public safety — are most affected by local policy decisions, he said. 

Changing the structure 

In Utah, state officials are looking to lead a national movement to bring more authority back to the states. 

While fears over the Trump administration’s overreach have fueled Democratic interest, Ivory, the Republican representative leading that effort, said the initiative is more focused on governmental structure than politics. 

Ivory likened the current federal-state dynamic to a bicycle with a bloated front tire threatening to bust and a back tire so flat it’s about to chew the rubber off the rim.

“Well, the answer is not to get a different rider or a stronger rider or to steer the bike to the left or to the right. It’s to fix the balance in the tires,” he said. “Our structure, our vehicle of government was two spheres with very specific balance, and we haven’t been paying attention to that for a long time.”

This discussion comes naturally in Western states that have for generations feuded with Washington over the proper use and ownership of federal lands. Over 90% of federal lands are located in the West, according to the Congressional Western Caucus, with the federal government owning 1 of every 2 acres. 

Utah’s commission aims at connecting state lawmakers and agency staff from across the country to better adjudicate federal and state jurisdiction on everything from land management to law enforcement. Ivory said the group would also like to help fill the void left after the 1996 disbandment of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, an entity that put state and local governments in direct contact with federal agencies. 

Utah Democratic state Rep. Jennifer Dailey-Provost acknowledged her initial skepticism of the GOP’s federalism push there because of its historic ties to slavery and segregation.

“I’m pretty liberal,” she said. “Federalism is something that was always viewed, I think for not unjustified reasons, as something that was hostile to equality and equitable outcomes and fairness.”

But after a 90-minute conversation with her Republican colleague, she began to see the value — especially now — of pushing for an expanded role for states. Now a member of the state’s federalism commission, she said she envisions a better structure where states stand together, regardless of party affiliation, to counterbalance the federal government.

“States are oftentimes too wrapped up in whether we’re blue states or red states to really have each other’s back,” she said. “And it’s been hard, politically, to convince a red state like Utah to vocally say blue-state California wants to do things its way, we have to have their back and say that they have the right to do things that way, even if it’s not how we would do things.”

As a member of the political minority in Utah, she acknowledged how difficult that can be. Utah’s Republican party holds all statewide offices and enjoys supermajorities in both legislative chambers. And Dailey-Provost said the state’s LGBTQ+ population has been subjected to “constant attacks” from the GOP there. 

Still, she said, she would rather have that debate locally than rely on the federal government to protect those residents. 

“So, I don’t like the current policy outcomes, but I see more opportunity to continue to work with communities and try to fix it over time here at the state level,” Dailey-Provost said. “… At least I feel like there’s a path forward at the local level.”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org. States Newsroom reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@statesnewsroom.com.

U.S. Senate Democrats introduced legislation on Thursday to require Congress to sign off on any deployment of federal troops to the polls, as President Donald Trump and his administration refuse to rule out the idea.

Fears of troops or other federal agents at voting sites have long loomed over the approaching midterm elections in November. Democrats and voting rights advocates have grown alarmed in recent months as Trump has publicly entertained the possibility. Other administration officials have mocked or sidestepped questions about possible deployments.

The legislation, the Protect Our Polls Act, would require Congress to pass a resolution approving any deployment beforehand. Federal law prohibits troops and other armed federal personnel from polling places, but contains an exception to “repel armed enemies of the United States” — fueling speculation that Trump could invoke this exception to bypass the ban.

“He is trying to nationalize the elections and he is telling us in his own words what he is trying to do,” Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a Michigan Democrat, said at a news conference at the Capitol. “On top of that, Trump’s nominees for his Cabinet positions have come up here and refused to rule out uniformed military or federal law enforcement being sent to the polls on Election Day.”

White House justification

The bill would require the White House, 48 hours before any deployment, to provide Congress with intelligence, legal justifications, deployment plans and evidence that state and local officials are unable to address the threat themselves. 

It also prohibits military personnel from using federal funds to access election records, a provision designed to block troops from seizing ballots.

Slotkin is offering the bill alongside Sens. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly of Arizona, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Alex Padilla of California, Jacky Rosen of Nevada and Raphael Warnock of Georgia.

“One of the things I’m very proud of is that I served to protect the Constitution of the United States and our democracy,” said Gallego, a Marine veteran. “I swore that oath, and the last thing any Marine, sailor, Army, Coastie, Air Force, spacemen — whatever they call them nowadays — wants to do is to undermine that. We’re here to protect democracy, we’re not here to undermine democracy.”

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement that if Democrats “really cared about securing our elections,” the party would pass the SAVE America Act. 

The legislation would require voters to provide documents, such as a birth certificate or passport, proving their citizenship. The measure has stalled in the Senate amid opposition from Democrats and a handful of Republicans.

In May, Trump told reporters that he would “do anything necessary to make sure we have honest elections,” in response to questions about sending National Guard personnel or federal immigration agents to voting locations in November.

Amendments blocked

At a Senate hearing in April, Slotkin pressed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on sending troops to the polls. He called the questions “another gotcha hypothetical.”

The Democratic legislation comes a week after Slotkin said Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee blocked two amendments to ban troops at the polls during work on the National Defense Authorization Act. The committee typically works on the defense spending bill behind closed doors.

The Protect Our Polls Act has virtually no chance of passing the Republican-controlled Congress. Still, its introduction underscores the level of concern among Democrats as Trump’s efforts to influence the midterm elections come into focus.

The Department of Justice has spent a year demanding states turn over unredacted copies of their voter rolls, including sensitive personal data on voters. DOJ officials have said in court that the department wants to share the data with the Department of Homeland Security, which operates a powerful computer program that can identify possible noncitizen voters. 

The DOJ has sued 30 states and the District of Columbia for the data, but no judge has so far ruled in the administration’s favor.

Investigations

The Department of Justice is also engaged in several election-related investigations over past elections. 

The FBI raided a Georgia elections warehouse in January and seized ballots from the 2020 election. Election officials have been subpoenaed in Minneapolis and the FBI last week searched the office of an Ohio voting rights group.

And Trump signed an executive order that restricts voting by mail. It would require states to provide lists of voters to the U.S. Postal Service before using the mail to send ballots and directs Homeland Security to share lists of voting-age citizens with every state. The order remains in effect for now, despite a series of lawsuits challenging it.

“There’s a common theme here,” Padilla said at a Democratic forum on election security on Tuesday. “All of these things are illegal and many unconstitutional.”

WASHINGTON — Democrats in the U.S. House on Wednesday called for greater protections for transgender and diverse students, criticizing congressional Republican and Trump administration efforts to dissolve diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

“Today I tell you, rain or shine, we’re standing up for Chicago,” Rep. Delia Ramirez of Illinois said at the early-morning press conference at the Capitol, attended by supporters including advocates from the Chicago Public Schools. “We won’t betray the fundamental belief that every single child is precious and deserving … of love, care and opportunity.”  

Ramirez was joined by Rep. Mark Takano, chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, and Rep. Summer Lee of Pennsylvania. All three are members of the House Education and Workforce Committee, which held a hearing shortly after the press conference about parental rights, inappropriate content and legal mistreatments in schools.

The lawmakers blasted the focus of the committee hearing for not relating more to increased funding for public schools and strengthened protections for transgender and diverse students. 

They also denounced the recent approach by Congress to dealing with topics of gender identity and diversity in educational settings. 

‘Gender ideology’ bill

Just last month, the House passed a major bill that would bar federal funding provided under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 from public elementary and middle schools unless they require a parental sign-off to update a student’s pronouns, gender markers or preferred name on their records. 

The measure would also prohibit schools from using federal funds to “teach or advance concepts related to gender ideology,” a term defined in a January 2025 executive order as “the idea that there is a vast spectrum of genders that are disconnected from one’s sex.”

“The very school districts that have taken steps to make sure trans kids aren’t bullied, aren’t harassed and aren’t teased have received the ire of this administration,” Takano said at Wednesday’s press conference. 

“I am disgusted by this political agenda that attacks the rights of school districts and parents to decide the policies of their schools in their own backyards,” he added, as advocates holding signs that read “hands off our schools” and “we need investment not investigation” nodded along in agreement behind him. 

Ruling on trans athletes coming soon

Others spoke out in addition to the three House members on Wednesday, including a parent and a teacher representing Chicago Public Schools, Senior National Director of Advocacy for the NAACP Wisdom Cole and Senior Vice President of Equality Programs at the Human Rights Campaign Ellen Kahn. 

Their comments came as the U.S. Supreme Court appears poised to soon rule on two landmark cases from Idaho and West Virginia involving laws that ban transgender athletes from participating on women’s sports teams.

“Congress should be addressing the real issues of families like mine, instead of trying to erase my child’s very existence,” said Mary Kay Devine, a Chicago mother whose children attend the city’s public schools. “Leave our schools and our families alone. Congress, do your job and I’ll do mine.”  

WASHINGTON — Former Attorney General Pam Bondi was on Capitol Hill Friday for a closed door interview with lawmakers about her role in the release of the federal investigation files of Jeffrey Epstein — the now deceased wealthy sex offender who surrounded himself with influential entrepreneurs, academics and celebrities, including President Donald Trump.

But Democrats speaking to reporters outside the session criticized Republicans for not conducting the interview under oath or on camera and said Bondi did not answer many questions and blamed acting Attorney General Todd Blanche for the chaotic release of files related to Epstein. Bondi later denied on social media she evaded questions or tried to target Blanche.

Bondi sat for a transcribed hours-long interview before the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform as the panel continues its probe into the government’s handling of the Epstein case and sexual abuse survivors.

Epstein died in 2019 in a Manhattan jail cell awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges.

Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky., told reporters before the early morning interview began that the panel is “continuing to move along, and hopefully today will be beneficial.” 

Epstein estate subpoena

The committee subpoenaed Epstein’s estate in August 2025 and made public all documents it received, Comer said. He said the committee has since conducted more than a dozen interviews and has six more scheduled throughout the summer, including with Epstein’s former assistant Lesley Groff, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and private equity investor Leon Black.

“The government has failed the survivors. There’s no question about that, and that dates back five presidential administrations,” Comer said. 

Comer credited Bondi for appearing a second time before the committee and criticized Democrats who he said “got up and walked out” of the first meeting in March while Republicans “asked questions for a couple of hours.”

 

Reps. Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., and Summer Lee, D-Pa., who sit on the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, spoke to reporters on Friday, May 29, 2026, outside the committee’s closed door interview with former Attorney General Pam Bondi. (Video by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom) 

Committee Democrats were highly critical.

The panel’s ranking member, Robert Garcia, D-Calif., said the interview ground rules barring video and allowing Bondi to speak without taking an oath are a “disservice to the American people.”

House Oversight Democrats, and an Epstein abuse survivor, spoke to reporters outside the committee room for roughly 30 minutes following their portion of questioning.

The minority members said Bondi refused to answer any questions related to Trump’s knowledge of how the Department of Justice was handling the Epstein documents, and that a current DOJ lawyer was in the room with Bondi, choosing which questions she would answer. 

They also said Bondi sidestepped responsibility for the mishandled release of the files that initially unmasked victims’ names.

“She continues to push all of the investigation and the blame on acting AG Todd Blanche. She said, and I quote, ‘Acting AG Blanche was managing the entire investigation,’ end quote,” Garcia said.

Blanche, whom the president named as the acting attorney general after Bondi’s exit, was Trump’s personal lawyer prior to his second term. Committee Democrats said they plan to request Blanche come before the panel for questioning.

Bondi fires back

Bondi denied Garcia’s statement to reporters that she pushed blame on Blanche for the Epstein files release.

In two posts on X Friday afternoon, Bondi wrote, “I praised Acting AG Blanche’s management of this Herculean task. I said his ethics are beyond reproach and that he is an incredible Attorney General.”

She also denied remarks to reporters by panel member Rep. James Walkinshaw, D-Va., that she was not forthcoming about the president’s knowledge of Epstein’s actions.

“MISREPRESENTATION by Walkinshaw.  What the world knows to be true is President Trump banned Epstein from Mar a Lago decades ago bc Epstein was a despicable creep!!” Bondi wrote.

States Newsroom contacted the White House for comment but did not immediately receive a response. Trump has denied any wrongdoing or knowledge of Epstein’s crimes.

A Department of Justice spokesperson confirmed in a written statement to States Newsroom that department personnel accompanied Bondi to the interview.

“Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon and other Department of Justice personnel attended former Attorney General Bondi’s transcribed interview to assist the Committee in understanding the Department’s role in implementing and complying with the Epstein Files Transparency Act during her tenure,” according to the statement.

The spokesperson continued: “Because former Attorney General Bondi oversaw the Department at the time the Act was enacted and carried out, DOJ’s presence was solely to ensure accurate representation of Department processes, facilitate any necessary clarifications, and support a complete factual record for the Committee.

“As with any congressional engagement involving past Department actions, DOJ routinely provides staff with relevant institutional knowledge to support transparency, accuracy, and cooperation with oversight responsibilities.”

Survivor speaks out

Epstein survivor Liz Stein, now a human trafficking specialist and advocate for the organization World Without Exploitation, said outside the committee room that the Trump administration needs to do more to deliver justice to victims.

“These files contain leads, names, connections, friendships, patterns, witnesses, travel records, financial relationships and institutional failures,” Stein said. “In any other sex trafficking case of this magnitude, those leads would be aggressively pursued, but in this case they have not been.”

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration’s nearly $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund has attracted scrutiny for its corruption potential, even splitting congressional Republicans who rarely confront President Donald Trump’s decisions and policies. 

Among the top concerns: Could pardoned Jan. 6, 2021, riot defendants who assaulted police officers claim a slice of the pie and essentially be rewarded for committing political violence? 

Advocates are also legally challenging the fund’s structure that will conceal details from the public, including claimants’ names and amounts paid out.

Nikhel Sus, chief counsel for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, otherwise known as CREW, which has filed suit against the fund, told States Newsroom the administration’s order is a “flagrant power grab of congressional authority.”

The fund, established by the Department of Justice to settle Trump’s multibillion dollar lawsuit against the IRS, has also complicated Senate Republicans’ plans to pass a simple majority immigration enforcement funding package. Some GOP senators are withholding votes unless guardrails for the fund are included in the legislation.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche met with Republican senators on Capitol Hill on May 21 to defend the fund, but many GOP lawmakers left unconvinced and with multiple questions remaining.

Retiring Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., told reporters the fund is “stupid on stilts” and resembles “tyranny.”

Others were sweating out questions at town halls during the congressional recess. 

“I do not think one penny of any fund should ever go to any January 6 insurrectionist that was in the Capitol on January 6, 2021 … I want to be very clear … I clearly think Congress needs to have an oversight role in this before I can sign off or support this,” U.S. Rep. Mike Flood, R-Neb., said at a town hall in Norfolk, Nebraska, on May 26.

The fund hit a road bump on May 29 when it was temporarily blocked in the courts. Judge Leonie Brinkema in the Eastern District of Virginia, in a suit in which plaintiffs are represented by the advocacy groups Democracy Forward and Common Cause, issued a brief order halting the Department of Justice, the Treasury Department and other high-ranking administration officials from taking any additional actions to create the fund or make payments from it.

Brinkema, who made no decisions on the merits of the case, set a June 12 hearing.

What is the “anti-weaponization” fund?

In exchange for Trump and his family dropping a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS for the 2019 leak of tax returns, the DOJ ordered the establishment of a settlement fund in the amount of $1.776 billion — a nod to the country’s founding. 

As part of the arrangement, Trump also agreed to drop an administrative claim for damages related to what Blanche described as an “unlawful” FBI raid of the president’s Mar-a-Lago residence, part of the Biden administration’s case against Trump for allegedly hoarding classified documents after leaving office. 

Trump also agreed to drop a claim for damages related to the DOJ’s 2019 inquiry into Russian meddling in Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. 

Blanche introduced the fund on May 18 as a path to restitution for “victims of lawfare.”

“The machinery of government should never be weaponized against any American, and it is this Department’s intention to make right the wrongs that were previously done while ensuring this never happens again,” Blanche said in a press release. 

The fund will be led by five commissioners chosen by the attorney general, one of them in consultation with Congress. The president has the power to remove any member, according to the DOJ.

The department maintains the fund is nonpartisan. In addition to money, the DOJ will also issue formal apologies to eligible claimants, according to officials. 

Who is trying to limit or shut down the fund?

House Democrats tried to intervene in the president’s IRS case settlement, but U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams dismissed the case on Trump’s terms. Williams was appointed to the bench in the Southern District of Florida in 2010 by President Barack Obama.

On May 27, nearly three dozen former federal judges urged Williams to reopen the case, arguing the Trump administration “deceived” the court by not sharing with the judge details of the “anti-weaponization” fund. 

Further, the judges argued, the DOJ also claims the settlement forever absolves Trump and his family from tax audits and any other claims by a federal agency.  

“The parties to this case are using this lawsuit as the legal justification for these actions,” the judges argued.

Legislative proposals have also popped up in the House and Senate.

A bipartisan bill from Reps. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., and Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., both up for re-election in swing districts, proposes to ban the use of federal money to pay claims submitted to the “anti-weaponization” fund.

“The Bipartisan Transparency for American Taxpayers Act ensures federal funds cannot be used for this fund without the transparency, oversight, and legal safeguards the American people deserve. Taxpayer dollars will not become a discretionary payout fund. Transparency is not optional. Accountability is not negotiable,” Fitzpatrick said in a press release.

Suozzi characterized the arrangement as a “slush fund to pay off January 6th criminals and other maladjusted minions!”

When pressed during a May 19 Senate hearing on whether Jan. 6 defendants who were convicted of assaulting police officers would be eligible for the fund, Blanche said “anybody in this country can apply” and final decisions will be made by the fund’s commissioners.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., announced plans to introduce painful amendments when and if the Senate GOP brings its immigration enforcement funding bill to the floor.

Van Hollen said he will call for votes on an amendment to block payment to Jan. 6 defendants who have been convicted of violent crimes and sexual abuse of children.

The Maryland senator also said he will introduce an amendment that would prohibit members of Congress from receiving payouts.

“And as it currently stands, Members of Congress have the chance to benefit from this corrupt scheme. If Republicans won’t put an end to this fund entirely, they should at least join with us to bar Members of Congress from cashing in on it,” Van Hollen said May 21 in a written statement.

Who is suing?

Multiple lawsuits have been filed against the fund.

U.S. Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn and Washington Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges, who defended the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021,  argued in federal court that the pardoned rioters could use payout money to organize.

“In the most brazen act of presidential corruption this century, President Donald J. Trump has created a $1.776 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund to finance the insurrectionists and paramilitary groups that commit violence in his name,” they argued in a complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. 

Legal advocacy groups, including CREW, Democracy Forward and Common Cause have also challenged the fund in court.

Through the order, the administration has granted itself “final unreviewable authority to disperse nearly $1.8 billion in money that Congress did not appropriate for that purpose to people that they subjectively determine are victims of so-called lawfare or weaponization,” Sus, of CREW, said in an interview.

The fund’s structure also flouts transparency laws, Sus said, not least of which includes moving $1.776 billion from the government’s legal judgment fund in a single transaction to a separate, unaccountable pot of money.

As the law stands now, the Department of Treasury publicly updates a website at least once per month with judgment award amounts paid to claimants by the U.S. government.

By withdrawing one lump sum, “they are wholly circumventing disclosure law that Congress passed specifically for that purpose to require disclosure for each settlement,” said Sus, whose organization filed the complaint in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

CREW also argues DOJ’s order is arbitrary and capricious.

“I think arbitrarily picking 1776 as the number for their (fund) valuation is the definition of an arbitrary capricious action — like they just did it because they thought it was cool,” he said.

“And that’s not how the government’s supposed to operate. They’re supposed to actually consider the facts, they’re supposed to have a reasoned explanation for why they’re doing things.”

In the Virginia case, another group of plaintiffs is represented by Democracy Forward and Common Cause.

Among the plaintiffs are Andrew Floyd, a former federal Jan. 6 case prosecutor who was fired by the DOJ in June 2025, and Joseph Caravello, a California university professor who was charged with felony assault on a federal officer after protesting an immigration raid last summer. A jury acquitted Caravello in April.

The nine-count lawsuit alleges in part the fund violates the plaintiffs’ First and Fifth Amendment rights, and violates the authority of Congress.

The fund “does not offer benefits to victims of ideological targeting by Democrats and Republicans alike; instead, it offers benefits to those who have espoused views that were, or were perceived to be, oppositional to Democratic administrations, but not to those who have espoused views that were, or were perceived to be, oppositional to Republican administrations,” according to the complaint filed in the Eastern District of Virginia.

Juan Salinas II of the Nebraska Examiner contributed to this report.

 

  

WASHINGTON — A group of U.S. Senate Democrats has sent a letter to the head of the Congressional Budget Office, asking him to include outside projections for the cost of the Iran war in the agency’s official cost estimate. 

“The American people deserve to know the true costs of this conflict, and they deserve transparency and honesty when their government commits the nation to war,” the senators wrote in the May 27 letter to the nonpartisan agency. “Your timely and comprehensive estimate of the immediate and long-term budgetary consequences will help ensure that the Iran war remains subject to rigorous and appropriate legislative oversight.”

House Budget Committee ranking member Brendan Boyle, D-Pa., sent a letter to the CBO in early March, asking the agency to estimate what the conflict would cost “under several scenarios, including scenarios of the war lasting longer than 4 to 5 weeks and deploying U.S. troops on the ground in Iran.” 

The senators’ letter asks CBO Director Phillip Swagel to “take into consideration the significant divergence between the administration’s public estimates and those produced by independent analysts and investigative journalists.”

The senators wrote that while Pentagon officials said in mid-May they believed the war had cost about $29 billion, other estimates placed its total costs much higher. 

“It is essential that Congress and the American public receive accurate, comprehensive estimates of the costs of the war in Iran,” they wrote. 

Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, California Sen. Alex Padilla, Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, Connecticut Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff, Illinois Sens. Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth, Maryland Sens. Angela Alsobrooks and Chris Van Hollen, Massachusetts Sens. Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker and Andy Kim, New York Sens. Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, Oregon Sens. Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden, Vermont Sen. Peter Welch and Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine all signed the letter. 

On his way out of office, Gov. Tony Evers has negotiated a school funding and tax cut bill with his fellow retirees, Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos. Call it a retirement celebration for three soon-to-be-ex politicians. Evers is promoting a big bump in school funding in the “blockbuster” deal and urging Democrats to vote for it. But the most joyful celebrants of this sudden windfall are Republican legislators, who have taken to calling it the “big, beautiful, bipartisan bill” —  a not-so-subtle echo of Trump’s triumphant name for the massive tax cut and spending bill he jammed through Congress.

Wisconsin Democrats are less than thrilled. On the Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee, the “blockbuster” proposal passed on a straight party-line vote, as Erik Gunn reports, with all of the Republicans on the committee voting in favor and all the Democrats voting against it. The bill is not so much a blockbuster as a budget-buster, said Joint Finance Democrats Deb Andraca (D-Whitefish Bay), Kelda Roys (D-Madison) and Tip McGuire (D-Kenosha). 

The problem with the legislation, according to its critics, is that it consists largely of one-time expenditures – including a temporary infusion of cash to schools and $300 checks to be mailed to Wisconsin state taxpayers — that will drain state coffers of about $2.9 billion after the whole package of proposals is paid out. While it effectively erases the state’s budget surplus, it won’t fix the structural problems with the way the state consistently underfunds schools and leaves property taxpayers to pick up the bill, or with the growing drain created by an expanding system of taxpayer-subsidized private schools, which will also get more money through this deal. Meanwhile, it creates the very real possibility that new legislative leaders and a new governor will be staring at a nearly $3 billion revenue hole when they begin to work on the next state budget, in an uncertain economic time.

The plan does include a burst of state funding for special education – sorely needed and, as Evers underscores, a big boost from current levels to a projected 50% reimbursement in the final year of the current budget cycle to school districts across the state. Evers’ office put out a comprehensive list of school districts and the millions in new money they will receive. The deal also allocates $350 million to bring down property taxes. And it eliminates taxes on tips and overtime, in keeping with Trump’s new federal policy. These are all popular proposals, and they provide a shot of relief to stressed and strapped school districts and taxpayers.

But advocacy organizations you would expect to embrace the governor’s move to increase funding for special ed have come out against the deal. 

“People with disabilities depend on programs and services that get state and federal funding,” Sydney Badeau, chair of the Wisconsin Board for People with Developmental Disabilities, said in a statement on the deal. “Spending down Wisconsin’s savings and reducing income when the state is already not providing enough funding to cover actual costs means there will be even less money next budget to pay for the programs people need. Less savings and less income means budget cuts next cycle at a time when many state programs, services, and infrastructure need more investment.”  

Kids Forward, the statewide antiracist policy center, also opposes the deal, saying it “relies on one-time money to paper over long-term challenges, all while legislators preparing to leave office pass the responsibility — and the blame — onto future lawmakers and families across Wisconsin.”

Meanwhile, Republicans are already turning the deal into campaign talking points on their most challenging issue – affordability

“Folks need help now,” declared Joint Finance Committee Co-Chair Rep. Mark Born (R-Beaver Dam), adding that inflation has been a problem “for at least five years,” a spin on voters’ cost-of-living worries that conveniently avoids the Trump administration’s responsibility for surging gas prices and massive healthcare cuts, which are dragging down state Republicans as they campaign this year.

Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) touted the deal in a Tuesday press conference, saying Republicans have always been better stewards of the economy, and it was because of their wise leadership that Wisconsin built up a budget surplus in the first place (mostly by abandoning the state’s obligation to fund public schools). Now, she declared, it’s time to give all that money back to the taxpayers – “it’s their money” and rightfully belongs to individuals, she said, not “progressive politicians in Madison.” This is the drown-the-government-in-the-bathtub philosophy at work – defund schools and hand out checks to individuals. It works best if you are extremely wealthy and don’t mind trading in public education and other forms of public infrastructure for a pay-as-you-go system where you spend your own cash for private education, private health care and private security.  

Nedweski rolled directly into campaign mode, declaring that the benefits to taxpayers in the deal “would all be at risk” if the Democrats win control of the Legislature next year.

Without a doubt, Evers has handed Republicans a massive election-year gift.

Democrats, if they do manage to win legislative majorities – which has seemed more and more likely as Republicans flee the Capitol in droves, including some who represent key, swing districts — would be in a much stronger negotiating position than Evers is now. Instead of a one-time boost in school funding and a flurry of tax-rebate checks, they could recommit to guaranteed state funding for public education, as a lawsuit brought by students, parents and teachers argues they must under the state constitution. 

Now, as the national economy is in turmoil, they will confront the next budget cycle with a looming $2.9 billion hole – the budget surplus blown by a bunch of guys who are heading out of office and won’t have to worry about what comes next.

It was one thing for Evers to wrangle with Republicans and try to claw back funding for schools when the GOP-led Legislature was single-mindedly determined to block his every move. It’s a different matter to trade away the bulk of the state’s budget surplus now, in the waning days of his term, with everything up in the air.

The lack of communication between Evers and members of his own party has rankled Democrats for a long time. But the deal he is pushing to a reluctant Democratic caucus and delighted Republicans is a blow both politically and, more importantly, to the future health of the state. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

After the U.S. Supreme Court severely weakened the federal Voting Rights Act in an April 29 decision, a furious U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries condemned what he called an “illegitimate” conservative majority on the court.

“This isn’t even the Roberts Court,” Jeffries said, referring to Chief Justice John Roberts. “It’s the Trump Court.”

Democrats are renewing their calls to overhaul the Supreme Court in the wake of the court’s decision, which empowers states to gerrymander congressional maps in ways that will break apart districts where a majority of residents are Black, Hispanic or belong to other minority groups. 

The momentous opinion overturned the reasoning behind decades of court cases that relied on the 1965 Voting Rights Act, a law born of efforts to stamp out Jim Crow voting laws in the South, to protect these majority-minority districts.

For years, critics of the court, where conservatives enjoy a 6-3 majority, have pushed for changes. Those efforts often center on expanding the size of the court to dilute the influence of the majority or imposing term limits on the justices, though other ideas, like narrowing the kinds of cases the court can consider, have also been discussed.

But the April 29 decision seems to be the last straw for some Democrats and progressives, though they are unlikely to be able to force any of the changes on their wishlist — at least for a long time. 

After rulings in recent years that ended the federal right to an abortion and handed President Donald Trump sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution while in office, they are fed up with a court they view as unmoored from the law and ruling based on politics.

“We cannot protect voting rights, civil rights or the environment as long as we have a Supreme Court majority that is captured by MAGA authoritarians,” Doug Lindner, senior director of judiciary and democracy at the League of Conservation Voters, an environmental advocacy group, told reporters on Thursday. “We need to take back our Supreme Court.”

Any effort to impose significant changes at the court will encounter stiff Republican opposition. GOP lawmakers have praised the court’s latest decision and some see long-serving Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito as conservative icons. Unless Democrats win 60 seats in the Senate or eliminate the filibuster, Congress is highly unlikely to pass a major overhaul.

Republicans have denounced past proposals to change the court. After President Joe Biden proposed 18-year terms for justices and other changes in July 2024, U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson said the plan “would tilt the balance of power and erode not only the rule of law, but the American people’s faith in our system of justice.”

No action under Biden

Supreme Court reform has long percolated as an issue among Democrats and progressives, but picked up steam during the 2020 presidential primary campaign. 

The court’s ideological makeup had already moved toward conservatives after Justice Anthony Kennedy, often a swing vote on key decisions, retired in 2018 and was replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a conservative. Republicans then cemented a firm 6-3 majority on the court in the fall of 2020 after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal, died and was replaced by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Campaigning for president, then-candidate Biden voiced support for a presidential commission that would study court reform. After winning election, Biden named a blue ribbon panel of law professors, former judges and other lawyers, which issued a final report in December 2021.

The commission’s report stopped short of endorsing structural changes. It took no position on expanding the size of the court from nine members, citing “profound disagreement” among commission members over the idea. The commission also adopted no stance on term limits for justices.

The report was essentially put on a shelf — Biden made no serious effort to advance a court overhaul, though he later proposed some reforms after ending his campaign for reelection.

Public opinion dropping

Americans’ view of the Supreme Court has been falling. An August 2025 Pew Research Center survey found 48% of Americans hold a favorable view of the court, a 22-percentage point drop from August 2020.

A survey released in September 2025 by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania found 69% support for term limits but only 31% support for expanding the size of the court.

Eric J. Segall, a law professor at Georgia State University and the executive director of the Emmet J. Bondurant Center for Constitutional Law, Practice and Democracy, said past courts would have been responsive to the prospect of legislation, but the current court isn’t swayed by public opinion.

In some cases the court tries to preserve its legitimacy by giving the other side a win, Segall said, but in general the court’s decisions since 2018, when Kennedy retired, can be explained by viewing the court as a subset of the Republican Party.

“This court is defined by the Republican Party,” he said.

Segall has called for dividing the court evenly between conservative and liberal appointees. An evenly-split court would encourage greater compromise among the justices, he contends. He also supports expanding the court and term limits if possible. But he bluntly predicted court reform wouldn’t happen in his lifetime.

“If Democrats have the power to do it, they won’t do it,” Segall said.

Action unlikely, at least in short term

Jeffries, who will likely become U.S. House speaker if Democrats retake the chamber in the November midterm elections, said this week that “everything was on the table” in terms of the Supreme Court.

“In the new Congress, we’re going to have to do something about this Supreme Court,” Jeffries told the MeidasTouch Network.

Rep. John Rose, a Tennessee Republican, said on social media that Jeffries’ comments show that Democrats are preparing to “nuke the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court the second they’re back in power.”

Trump and some Republicans in Congress, convinced Democrats will end the filibuster to pass priorities like Supreme Court reform, want Republicans to end the filibuster first and enact a host of conservative priorities before the party potentially loses control of the Senate following the November elections.

But even if Democrats end the filibuster, the party faces a steep climb to changing the court unless it retakes control of Congress and the White House. That means any major overhaul almost certainly wouldn’t become law until at least 2029.

Trump’s response

Trump has had a turbulent relationship with the court but would be virtually certain to veto legislation remaking it while he remains in office.

While the justices have protected Trump and future presidents from criminal prosecution for actions taken as part of their presidential duties, they struck down his sweeping worldwide tariffs as illegal, dealing a major blow to one of his signature policies. They also refused to hear legal challenges that sought to overturn Trump’s 2020 election loss.

Still, Trump scoffed on Thursday at Democratic hopes to remake the court in the future. He accused the party of wanting 21 justices on the court (Democratic-sponsored plans in recent years have called for 13 or 15 justices). He also called Jeffries’ comments a “dangerous statement.”

“Hakeem Jeffries said the Supreme Court is illegitimate,” Trump said Thursday. “That’s a rough statement.”

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson wants to make changes to a Senate-passed bill that would end the shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security, a move that will further delay funding and prolong the stalemate that began in mid-February. 

The holdup could again interrupt paychecks for workers at the Transportation Security Administration and Federal Emergency Management Agency, both of which are part of DHS. Huge backups in airline security lines resulted in March when TSA officers went without pay for weeks until the administration scrambled to reprogram funds.

Johnson, R-La., has chosen not to negotiate potential tweaks in the funding bill with Senate Democrats, who will be needed to advance it if the House makes alterations.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said during a Tuesday afternoon press conference the bill that’s stalled in the House doesn’t “need tweaks.” 

“They’re just stuck. So they come up with, ‘We need some technical changes,’” he said. “Hold up national security for technical changes? It’s absurd. They can pass the bill right now.” 

Washington Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, said during a brief interview she was “flabbergasted” by Johnson’s comments.

She added during the press conference she has “no idea what technical changes they’re looking at.”

House hasn’t voted on DHS funding

The Senate unanimously passed a bill to fund the vast majority of the Department of Homeland Security in late March and again in early April. Johnson hasn’t put it to the House floor for a vote, blocking it from becoming law. 

The legislation doesn’t include funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the Border Patrol, a compromise negotiated after Republicans and Democrats were unable to broker agreement on guardrails for immigration enforcement operations. 

Republicans plan to provide upwards of $70 billion in additional spending for ICE and Border Patrol in a party-line budget reconciliation bill they hope to pass in the coming weeks. 

Johnson said last week he believes the “sequencing is important” on when each of the two bills becomes law. But time is running out for the tens of thousands of federal workers, who are about to miss out on their paychecks once again. 

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said in a statement the executive order President Donald Trump signed earlier this month to pay all DHS employees despite the funding lapse can only stretch so far. 

“That money is dried up if I continue down this path the first week of May,” Mullin said. “My pay roll through DHS is just over 1.6 billion dollars every 2 weeks so the money is going extremely fast and once that happens there is no emergency funds after that.”

‘We’ve got to get these agencies funded’

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said he’s working with House GOP leaders to “massage” the DHS funding bill in hopes it will become law sometime soon. 

“I’m very sympathetic,” he said. “We talked last night and he’s got to manage his challenges there. We have to manage our challenges here. But one way or the other, we’ve got to get these agencies funded.”

The disconnect between House Republicans and their Senate GOP counterparts on when to fund DHS is just one of several challenges party leaders are attempting to address this week. 

“We’re trying as best we can to coordinate strategy with the House. But, you know, it’s a unique situation. We’ve got very narrow margins and people with real strong opinions,” Thune said. “So it’s going to take, obviously, I think, the heavy involvement of the White House to bust some of these things loose. But we’re trying as best we can to ensure that we can get all of these issues across the finish line and ultimately on the president’s desk.”

Republican leaders will need the support of their own members as well as at least some Democrats in order to get major legislation, including the DHS funding bill, to Trump. 

But as of midday Tuesday, it didn’t appear they’d looped in key negotiators on possible changes to the Senate-passed spending bill. 

Recess next week

Alabama Republican Sen. Katie Britt, chairwoman of the subcommittee in charge of funding DHS, said she didn’t know what changes House GOP leaders wanted to make. 

“I am not aware. I just know that we need to find a pathway forward,” she said. “And nobody should be leaving here, or certainly flying off to (congressional delegation trips), until we do.” 

Both chambers of Congress are scheduled to leave on Thursday for a week-long break. 

Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy, ranking member on the DHS funding panel, said House Republicans hadn’t reached out to him or his staff. 

“I don’t know why he’s making this more complicated than it needs to be,” he said. “Our bill, which passed the Senate 100 to zero, would pass the House easily.”

A Milwaukee alder is throwing his hat in the ring to seek the Democratic nomination for Wisconsin’s 1st Congressional District, saying that he’s been told he’ll get aggressive financial support in challenging the Republican incumbent.

The announcement is getting pushback from a Democratic Party-aligned union group that has endorsed another Democrat in the district.

The newest entrant, Peter Burgelis, said that he was first approached a few months ago by Democratic “party members, not party leadership, but people that care about our state” who didn’t think any of the other 1st District Democrats could beat four-term U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil (R-Janesville). He formally entered the race Sunday.

“What it will take to get him out of office is someone who can raise attention nationally, raise money on a national level and attract national attention to the race, that makes this the top 10 race for Democrats to support,” Burgelis told the Examiner Monday.

Burgelis is a mortgage loan officer who was elected to the Milwaukee County Board in 2022, then ran for and won a Milwaukee Common Council seat in 2024. He doesn’t live in the 1st CD and acknowledged in an interview Monday that could make him a target in attack ads.

He said he decided to enter the race after looking at the fundraising data for the other Democrats who will be competing  in the August primary to challenge Steil.

“What I was hoping to see in the first quarter financial report is one of the candidates break out strong with a war chest that would be able to go to bat against Bryan Steil, attract national attention, attract national money, and there just wasn’t anyone that did that,” Burgelis said.

A crowded primary field

This year’s 1st CD Democratic contest has drawn more hopefuls for the nomination than any year in recent memory. Until Burgelis’ entry, the contest had appeared to coalesce around four people.

Among those four is emergency room nurse Mitchell Berman, who announced his candidacy in August.

John Drew, a retired United Auto Workers union leader who chairs the UAW’s statewide political action council, told the Examiner Monday that the council endorsed Berman after distributing questionnaires, conducting interviews and assessing the campaigns of the Democratic hopefuls.

Berman’s background as an ER nurse and as a union member helped drive the endorsement. “He’s somebody who cares deeply about the issues that affect working people,” Drew said. “And we saw that he was running a strong campaign. He was raising more money than any of his opponents, and we felt he was the best candidate to take on Bryan Steil.”

Federal Election Commission reports filed through March 31 show that Berman has collected a total of $426,671 and spent $286,071, with $146,600 on hand. The nearest competitor, Randy Bryce, has collected $45,618 and spent $36,854.

Burgelis, however, told the Examiner Monday that he considers Berman’s fundraising and cash on hand too far behind Steil, who has more than $5.5 million on hand, to make him competitive in the November election.

Burgelis’ opening campaign salvo largely echoes the issues that the rest of the Democratic field in the 1st District — as well as in Wisconsin and nationwide — have been centering in the approaching midterm elections

“Gas is up, groceries are up, healthcare, utilities — everything’s more expensive because of Bryan Steil’s votes to promote the Trump agenda,” Burgelis said. “They’re cutting Medicaid and food assistance in exchange for trillion-dollar tax cuts. That’s not something Wisconsin voters support. Bryan Steil is in it to benefit his billionaire buddies.”

Recruited by former Democratic chair, other insiders  

Burgelis said he was first approached a few months ago, by “a number of people,” including former Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chair Mike Tate.

He said initially he was asked if his aldermanic district overlapped with the 1st CD. Burgelis said the congressional district is about a mile away.

“Months later the conversation came back to — ‘We need someone who can win and beat Bryan Steil. No one’s coming out of the pack,’” Burgelis said. He added that he was told that the upcoming quarterly fundraising reports “aren’t going to be strong enough,” was asked, “would you consider running?” and decided to enter the race.

“I had conversations with many Democrats and other political leaders before making my decision to run,” Burgelis told the Examiner. “I got broad agreement that someone with a successful political record and who could attract national attention and national money would be needed to beat [Steil].”

He said, “The opportunity to flip the seat and attract national attention and national money is now. Nobody running now can do that.”

Asked about his role in recruiting Burgelis, Tate said in an email message, “Peter asked me about running a while back and I encouraged him to do so. He’s a hard worker, a good progressive, and we need a strong candidate to take on Steil. I don’t have any other color or the like to add.”

Burgelis said his review of past election results gave him confidence that the seat could be flipped to the Democrats.

“The residency thing, I think, is certainly something that a GOP campaign ad is going to harp on in November and October,” Burgelis told the Examiner. “But right now, the goal for Democrats is to get the best candidates through the primary.”

An Urban Milwaukee report April 21 that Burgelis was considering the race noted that Wisconsin law requires members of Congress to live in the state, but does not require them to live in their district.

“The congressional district is a mile from my aldermanic district, and people and neighbors in my district care about the same things that everyone else in Southeastern Wisconsin cares about — life is unaffordable anymore,” Burgelis said.

He said the absence of local elected officials or state lawmakers from the district in the race tells him that “no one sees that they can bring in the national attention or national money needed to have a successful race against an incumbent Republican.”

Drew, the UAW leader, said he spoke with Burgelis after first learning he might run and asked the alder to walk through his reasoning. Burgelis didn’t convince him, however.

“I thought it was a terrible idea,” Drew said. “It seemed like for party insiders a chance to install a manufactured candidate instead of looking at people in the 1st CD — like Mitch Berman — who live there, who are organic candidates, who have a great profile.”

Berman has “dedicated time to campaigning for that office,” Drew added. Ignoring that is “an indication that there are people in the Democratic Party that have not learned anything from our defeats — that a working class candidate who is fighting for bread and butter economic issues is the type of candidate we need to win, not only the 1st CD but in general.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Wednesday that Democrats will use the unlimited number of amendment votes they are allowed on Republicans’ budget resolution to illustrate policy differences on cost-of-living issues and immigration activities. 

“We are for reducing costs for the American people, whether it’s housing or whether it’s health care or whether it’s electric costs or whether it’s groceries or whether it’s child care,” he said. “And they are funding a rogue police force that is not even popular with the American people.”

Republicans voted Tuesday to begin debate on their budget resolution, which holds instructions that would allow the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee as well as the Judiciary Committee to each write a bill that spends up to $70 billion on immigration enforcement. 

Amendment debate could begin Wednesday or Thursday, followed by a simple majority vote to approve the budget resolution, sending it to the House.  

GOP leaders are using the same complex budget reconciliation process they used last year to enact their “big, beautiful” law to approve three years of funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol. The earlier bill, enacted last July, included $170 billion to bolster the administration’s immigration activities. 

The House and Senate must vote to adopt the budget resolution before they can use the reconciliation process to approve a bill without having to garner 60 votes in the Senate to end debate.

Spending on those two agencies would normally run through the annual Homeland Security government funding bill. But that process stalled earlier this year when Democrats demanded new constraints on immigration activities after federal officers shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis. 

Negotiations between Republicans and Democrats moved rather slowly and contributed to a record-setting shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security, which began in mid-February. 

President Donald Trump urged GOP lawmakers to vote against any Democratic amendments in a social media post.

“The Radical Left Democrats, and their so-called ‘Leader,’ Cryin’ Chuck Schumer, one of the most incompetent Senators in American History, will try to offer ‘Amendments’ during this process to divide Republicans,” he wrote. “Republicans must stick together and UNIFY to get this done, and to keep America safe — something which the Democrats don’t care about. Thank you for your attention to this matter.”

‘Glaring contrast’ to be highlighted

Democrats said during their press conference they plan to use the marathon amendment voting session on the budget resolution that sets up the reconciliation process to force Republicans to take votes on several issues. 

“We are ready with our amendments to show the glaring contrast between the parties in terms of who’s for reducing your costs and who’s not,” Schumer said. 

Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash., said that instead of working on legislation to bring down costs for everyday Americans, Republicans in Congress are focused on providing tens of billions in additional funding for immigration enforcement. 

“Gas prices have surged. Health care premiums have doubled or tripled, or worse, pricing millions out of their coverage. So what are Republicans doing about all of that? Nothing,” she said. “Their urgent top priority this week is shoveling at least $70 billion at ICE and Border Patrol with zero accountability, zero reforms and zero strings attached.”

Hawaii Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz said Republicans are sending a clear message about their policy goals and priorities by using the reconciliation process to provide the administration with another significant boost for immigration and deportation activities. 

“When you’re in the majority in the Senate, you get limited opportunities to use this unusual tool of reconciliation — once, maybe twice, in a year,” he said. “And so it’s pretty significant that using this tool, they have decided to do exactly nothing about the cost of living.”

Klobuchar decries $70 billion for immigration enforcement

Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar said that $70 billion in federal spending could go toward addressing many of the other challenges facing the country. 

Instead of giving it to ICE and the Border Patrol, she said, Congress could bolster the number of local police officers, or help people afford the cost of their health insurance premiums, or have Medicare cover dental and vision and hearing care, or build hundreds of thousands of new homes, or help lower the cost of child care for millions. 

Republicans, she said, also know there is a need to place limits on federal immigration agents after events like those in her home state and throughout the country. 

“They know there are serious problems. Why? A number of them joined with us at that Judiciary hearing to call for Kristi Noem to leave,” Klobuchar said, referring to the early March hearing that took place just days before the former DHS secretary was removed. “They asked just as tough questions, some of them, as we did.”

Wisconsin Senate Democrats and their candidates for two districts key to determining control of the Senate in 2027 promised Thursday to pass bills to bring down the cost of health care, housing, groceries, energy and child care. 

At a press conference outside the state Capitol, Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) chastised Republican lawmakers for not taking action on an array of issues.

“We have to watch the Senate Republicans play this really strange game of what they’re doing with this special session,” Hesselbein said. “They refuse to go into the special session and get the job done for the people of Wisconsin.” 

This week lawmakers gaveled in for a special session called by Gov. Tony Evers who wanted the Legislature to take up a constitutional amendment that would  ban gerrymandering. Typically, Republican lawmakers have gaveled in and then immediately gaveled out of Evers’ special sessions, but on Tuesday, lawmakers gaveled in but then adjourned until Thursday. They said they were leaving the session open and they wanted to have more discussions with Evers, who said there wasn’t anything to talk about. 

Lawmakers returned on Thursday afternoon to postpone again until April 21. 

The state Assembly and Senate have both completed their regular session work this year, although  Evers and lawmakers are still trying to reach a deal on using some of the state’s $2.5 billion budget surplus to provide property tax relief to Wisconsinites and fund public schools. Discussions have still not resulted in action since they began in February.

Hesselbein said Senate Democrats are committed to working to improve affordability in the next legislative session and promised to pass a slate of 18 bills if they win the majority. Democrats have already introduced the bills in the current session, but they did not advance in the Republican-led Legislature. 

“Senate Democrats are here. We are ready to work,” Hesselbein said. “We could get these bills passed this legislative session and we could lower costs right now, but instead Republicans behind me in this building continue to use their last gasp of power to waste time and ignore the pressing needs of every single person in the state of Wisconsin.” 

The state Senate is currently controlled by an 18-15 Republican majority, meaning Democrats would need to hold all of their current seats and flip two additional seats to win control. The last time Democrats held a majority in the state Senate and Assembly was the 2009-11 legislative session.

There have been five announced retirements by Senate Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) and two incumbents in districts that will be key to determining control. 

Hesselbein said she is “surprised” by the number of retirements. 

“It is curious that now that we finally have fair maps, a fair number of them have decided to not run,” Hesselbein said. 

Hesselbein and current Democratic senators were joined by two of their preferred candidates in key districts for the press conference who spoke to the bill packages. 

Rep. Jenna Jacobson (D-Oregon) laid out the health care and housing bill package. She is running in a three-way primary in Senate District 17. The winner of the primary will face Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green), the budget committee co-chair who is running for his fourth term in office. The other two Democratic candidates in the primary are Corrine Hendrickson, a child care advocate and Lisa White of Potosi, a small business owner. 

“There’s no question that two of the most pressing concerns and most expensive aspects of life in Wisconsin are homeownership or rent and the cost of health care and medication,” Jacobson said. “As property values skyrocket, hedge funds buy up single-family homes. As we face limited supply and algorithmic price hikes designed to maximize profit, we are left with the landscape that makes it more and more difficult for folks to afford rent and the age for the average first-time homeowner is at an all-time high.”

The policies covered in the health and housing package of bills include: 

• Eliminating cost-sharing payments for prescription drugs under the BadgerCare program
• Capping the cost of insulin at $35 
• Capping the cost of asthma medication at $25 and the cost for related medical supplies at $50 a month
• Eliminating sales tax on over-the-counter medicines
• Increasing the limit on the homestead tax credit, which provides relief to low-income homeowners and renters, from about $24,000 to $35,000
• Banning hedge funds from buying Wisconsin homes
• Prohibiting the use of algorithmic software to set rental rates and penalizing landlords who use such software for that purpose

Trevor Jung, the Racine transit director, is running in Senate District 21, which is currently represented by Sen. Van Wangaard (R-Racine). Wanggaard, who has served in the Senate since 2010, announced his retirement last month. He introduced the “Families First” package, which seeks to address child care, energy and grocery costs. 

“The Wisconsin Republican-controlled Legislature has ignored the crisis of rising prices across the state,” Jung said. “When I join these folks behind me in the Wisconsin State Senate, I will get to work…Our work will ease the burden of rising costs on Wisconsin families.” 

The policies include: 

• Using state funding to extend Child Care Counts, the state program launched with pandemic relief funds to support child care centers
• Making the child and dependent care tax credit refundable, meaning that a taxpayer would get a cash refund for the difference between a filer’s tax liability and the credit’s full value
• Raising the threshold for eligibility for the Wisconsin Shares program to 85% of the state’s median income, so more families are eligible for a state subsidy for child care
• Regulating data centers by requiring they cover the cost of expansions of the energy grid, creating a new “very large” class of customer and mandating 70% renewable energy use by the centers 
• Requiring utilities to spend 2.4% of their revenues to fund energy efficiency and renewable resource programs
• Expanding the state investment in low-income energy assistance programs to $10.4 million a year from $6 million
• Requiring a state program to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy for low-income households 
• Providing free school meals to all Wisconsin students
• Restricting the use of algorithms to set prices in grocery stores
• Prohibiting dynamic price gouging of consumer goods in retail stores

Even with a majority in the Senate, the odds of having the bills become law will depend on the state Assembly, which is currently controlled by a Republican majority, as well as  the new governor. 

Democrats will need to hold all their current seats and flip five additional seats to win the Assembly majority. This election cycle will be a test-drive for the odd-numbered Senate districts up for election this year, but every Assembly seat has already been up for election under the new maps.

Hesselbein said she is confident that voters will elect Democrats up and down the ballot in November, including in the Assembly, but added that the bills should have bipartisan support. 

“These are not fringe issues that people are talking about. These are things that we’ve been hearing about from Rhinelander to Madison to Racine to Mount Horeb. Everywhere around the state people are talking about rising costs and what we can do to combat them, so I think we should have Republicans regardless of what the makeup of the state Assembly or the state Senate is.”

There will also be a new governor in 2027. U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany is competing on the Republican side. There are seven major Democratic candidates, and Hesselbein said she believes each will be supportive of the Senate’s bills.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE