President-elect Donald Trump will face significant hurdles to enacting his campaign pledge to ban transgender youth from participating in school sports that align with their gender identity. (Photo by Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump repeatedly said during the campaign that, if elected back to the White House, he would pursue a ban on transgender youth participating in school sports that align with their gender identity.

As he prepares to take office in January, experts and LGBTQ+ advocates told States Newsroom the effort would face significant delays and challenges as legal pushback from LGBTQ+ advocacy groups can be expected every step of the way.

Trump’s repeated vow to “keep men out of women’s sports” reflects his broader anti-trans agenda. Administration efforts would come as an increasing number of states have passed laws banning trans students from participating in sports that align with their gender identity.

The Trump-Vance transition team did not offer any concrete details when asked about specifics but shared a statement from spokesperson Karoline Leavitt.

“The American people re-elected President Trump by a resounding margin giving him a mandate to implement the promises he made on the campaign trail,” Leavitt wrote. “He will deliver.”

Reversing the final rule for Title IX

The U.S. Education Department, under President Joe Biden, released updated regulations to Title IX in April that strengthen federal protections for LGBTQ+ students. The final rule does not explicitly reference trans athletes’ sports participation — a separate decision the administration put on hold.

The Education Department late Friday said it was withdrawing a proposed rule that would have allowed schools to block some transgender athletes from competing on sports teams that match their gender identities while also preventing across-the-board bans.

Title IX is a landmark federal civil rights law that bars schools that receive federal funding from sex-based discrimination.

The president-elect has pledged, while speaking about trans students’ sports participation, to reverse the Biden administration’s final rule for Title IX on his first day back in office.

The Biden administration’s final rule was met with forceful pushback from GOP attorneys general. A series of legal challenges in states across the country have created a policy patchwork of the final rule and weakened the Biden administration’s vision for enforcement. 

But if Trump were to try to reverse the final rule, experts say the effort would take an extended period and require adherence to the rulemaking process outlined in the Administrative Procedure Act, or APA.

The APA rules how federal agencies propose and roll out regulations. That process can take months, creating a barrier for a president seeking to undo a prior administration’s rule.

Cathryn Oakley, senior director of legal policy at the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group, said that while a subsequent administration can undo the current Title IX regulations, it would take “a tremendous amount of work because a regulation has the force of law … so long as the administration has complied with the APA.”

For the Trump administration to undo those regulations, it would need to start at the beginning, propose its own rules and go through the entire process.

“I think it seems fairly likely that that’s something that they’re going to pursue, but that’s not something that the president has the capability to do on day one,” she said.

Oakley noted that the updated regulations also have the force of law because they interpret a law that already exists — Title IX.

The Trump administration is “bound by Title IX, which in fact has these protections related to gender identity,” she said.

Preparing to push back

But any action from the Trump administration regarding trans athletes’ sports participation is sure to be met with legal challenges from LGBTQ+ advocacy groups.

Oakley said though “we have many real reasons to be concerned” about what the Trump administration would do when it comes to Title IX protections and in general for LGBTQ+ people, “we also need to be cautious that we do not concede anything either.”

“We need to be trying to ground ourselves in the actual legal reality that the president-elect will be facing when he comes into office and be able to fight with the tools that we have and not concede anything in advance.”

Biden rule does not address athletics

The U.S. Education Department under Biden never decided on a separate rule establishing new criteria regarding trans athletes.

Shiwali Patel, a Title IX lawyer and senior director of safe and inclusive schools at the National Women’s Law Center, said “we could see some sort of announcement about changing the Title IX rule to address athletics” under the Trump administration. 

“Given the rhetoric that has come out of the Trump administration and this continued focus on trans athletes, I think we very well should and could expect to see something from the Trump administration on this, which is very harmful,” Patel told States Newsroom.

The Trump administration could also try to pursue a national ban via legislation in Congress.

The U.S. House approved a bill last year that would prohibit trans athletes from competing in sports that align with their gender identity. And in July, the chamber passed a measure that would reverse Biden’s final rule for Title IX.

But Patel said she could not see how any measure in Congress could get through the U.S. Senate’s filibuster, which requires at least 60 votes to pass most legislation. There will be 45 Democratic senators in the incoming Congress, though independent Sens. Angus King of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont caucus with the Democrats.

Despite Washington soon entering a GOP trifecta in the U.S. House, Senate and White House, narrow margins could hinder any potential anti-trans legislation from the Trump administration. 

Broader anti-trans legislation

Across the country, 25 states have enacted a law that bans trans students from participating in sports that align with their gender identity, according to the Movement Advancement Project, or MAP, an independent think tank.

Logan Casey, director of policy research at MAP, said proponents of these sports bans are using them as a starting point to enact a broader anti-trans agenda.

“In many cases, these sports bans have been one of the first anti-trans laws enacted in recent years in many states, but then states that enact one of these sports bans then go on to enact additional anti-trans or anti-LGBTQ laws,” Casey told States Newsroom.

Casey described any controversy around trans people playing sports as “entirely manufactured.”

“In just five years, we’ve gone from zero states to more than half the country having one of these bans on the books, and that’s really, really fast in the policy world,” he said.

In March 2020, Idaho became the first state to enact this type of ban. 

When the Wisconsin Legislature returns to work in January, Republicans will still be in charge but will have the narrowest majorities since taking control in 2011. That’s giving Democrats, including Gov. Tony Evers, optimism that both sides will be able to work together better than they have since Evers took office six years ago.

Both sides are eyeing the state’s massive budget surplus, which sits at more than $4 billion. What to do with that money will drive debate over the next two-year budget, which will be written in 2025, while questions hang in the air about whether Evers plans to run for a third term in 2026 and how the state will interact with President-elect Donald Trump’s administration.

Here is a look at some of the biggest pending issues:

New dynamic in the Legislature

Democrats gained seats in the November election because of redrawn maps ordered by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The Republican majority now sits at 54-45 in the Assembly and 18-15 in the Senate. Democrats have 10 more seats in the Assembly than last session and four more in the Senate and are hopeful about gaining the majority after the 2026 election.

“We have already seen a shift in the Capitol due to the new maps,” Assembly Democratic Minority Leader Greta Neubauer told The Associated Press.

She and other Democrats predict it will lead to more pressure from rank-and-file Republicans in competitive districts to move to the middle and compromise with Democrats.

“Everybody understands, at least at this point, that we need to work together, pull together,” Republican Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu told the AP. “And it’s important to get some things done.”

Pushing back against Trump

Democrats say they have been talking with Evers and Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul about how Wisconsin can push back against the incoming Trump administration’s plans for mass deportations. But Democrats say they are also looking at other ways the state can fight Trump’s policies on issues like abortion and LGBTQ+ rights.

“We’re worried about a lot of the things that former and future President Trump might do, especially when it comes to deportation and immigration,” Senate Democratic Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein said.

Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said he would support Trump’s efforts to deport people who are in the country illegally and commit crimes.

Republicans prioritize cutting taxes. Democrats are open

Republicans passed a $3.5 billion tax cut that Evers gutted to just $175 million with his veto in the last budget. With another large surplus, Republicans say they want to try again.

“People struggling to pay their bills,” LeMahieu said. “We heard that in our local races. And so we want to help help help families out there. We have the money to do it. And that’s going to be our number one priority.”

Both he and Vos said they would like a tax cut of around $2 billion.

Democrats say that they aren’t opposed to cutting taxes, but that they want it to be targeted to helping the middle and lower classes and families.

“We are not interested in tax cuts that primarily benefit rich Wisconsinites or corporations,” Neubauer said. “But we are certainly open to tax cuts that help those who are struggling to make ends meet.”

K-12 education funding

The state superintendent of schools, Jill Underly, proposed spending more than $4 billion on K-12 schools in her budget proposal, which is subject to legislative approval. That’s almost certainly not going to happen, both Republicans and Democrats said.

“We’re not going to spend $4 billion on education, I can guarantee you that right now,” LeMahieu said.

While Democrats say they are prioritizing education funding, “I don’t think we’re going to be able to match that,” Hesselbein said of the $4 billion request.

Universities of Wisconsin

Leaders of the cash-strapped Universities of Wisconsin have asked for $855 million in additional funding in the next budget, nearly an 11% increase. System President Jay Rothman says schools need the money to stave off tuition increases, cover raises, subsidize tuition, and keep two-year branch campuses open in the face of declining enrollment and flat state aid.

Evers has promised to include the request in his budget, but Republican leaders said they would not approve that much, and Democrats also said it was a goal that was unlikely to be met.

LeMahieu and Vos both said UW would not get what it wants.

“We’re going to need to see some substantial change in how they’re doing their programing,” LeMahieu said. “We can’t just keep spending more and more on a system that’s educating less and less people.”

Marijuana, health care and other priorities

Vos said he intends to create a state-level task force to improve government efficiency, similar to what Trump created at the national level dubbed DOGE. He also supports passing a bill that would allow for the processing of absentee ballots the day before Election Day, a measure that’s had bipartisan support in the past but failed to pass.

Democrats say they will continue to push for ways to expand and reduce costs for child care, health care for new mothers and prescription drugs. Both Republicans and Democrats say they want to do more to create affordable housing. The future of the state’s land stewardship program also hangs in in the balance after the state Supreme Court said Republicans were illegally blocking funding of projects.

Democrats also say they hope to revive efforts to legalize medical marijuana, an effort that was backed by some Republicans but that failed to pass last session.

LeMahieu predicted the slimmer Republican majorities will make it more difficult for any marijuana bill to pass because some lawmakers “are dead set against it.”

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletter to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup. This story is published in partnership with The Associated Press.

Wisconsin Legislature’s tight Republican majority sparks hope for bipartisan cooperation is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., left, and U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La.,  look on during a menorah lighting ceremony during a Hanukkah reception at the U.S. Capitol Building on Dec. 17, 2024, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House failed to pass a Republican stopgap spending package Thursday, sharply increasing the odds a partial government shutdown will begin after the current funding bill expires Friday at midnight. 

The 174-235 House vote came less than three hours after GOP leaders released a second stopgap spending bill this week. The first version, released just two days ago, was widely rejected by President-elect Donald Trump as well as his allies on and off Capitol Hill.

A total of 38 GOP lawmakers and 197 Democrats voted against passage. Only two Democrats voted in support of the measure. One Democrat voted “present.”

House Republicans tried to approve the new measure under a process called suspension of the rules, which required at least two-thirds of lawmakers to support the legislation for passage, including Democrats. Trump endorsed this new version, which included a two-year suspension of the debt limit.

GOP leaders could next try to put the failed bill up for a vote under a rule, which requires a simple majority vote to approve, but that path takes a few more steps and isn’t a guarantee this legislation could pass.

House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., said during floor debate the bill was necessary to avoid a shutdown and provide disaster aid to states throughout the country.

“We need to provide the necessary disaster recovery aid for states and communities as our fellow citizens rebuild and restore. The relief efforts are ongoing — it will be months, if not years, before life returns to normal,” Cole said.

No input from Democrats

Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, rebuked GOP lawmakers for walking away from the deal both parties reached on the first stopgap package.

“There were things in it that Democrats liked and Republicans did not, and there were things in it that Republicans liked and Democrats would have preferred to leave out. But that is the nature of government funding bills,” DeLauro said. “They require compromise and the support of Democrats and Republicans.”

The legislation House lawmakers were about to vote on had no input from Democrats, she said.

While Republicans have a narrow majority in the House, Democrats control the Senate and the White House, making bipartisan agreement on legislation essential to it becoming law.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre wrote in a statement released Thursday just before the vote that the GOP was “doing the bidding of their billionaire benefactors at the expense of hardworking Americans.”

“Republicans are breaking their word to support a bipartisan agreement that would lower prescription drug costs and make it harder to offshore jobs to China — and instead putting forward a bill that paves the way for tax breaks for billionaires while cutting critical programs working families count on, from Social Security to Head Start,” she wrote. “President Biden supports the bipartisan agreement to keep the government open, help communities recovering from disasters, and lower costs — not this giveaway for billionaires that Republicans are proposing at the 11th hour.”

Trump calls new bill ‘a very good deal’

The stopgap spending package that failed Thursday night would have kept the government funded through mid-March while boosting disaster aid by about $100 billion.

The legislation would have suspended the nation’s debt limit for an additional two years through January 2027 and given Congress until September to finish the much overdue farm bill.

Trump cheered the new version of the stopgap spending bill before the vote after rejecting the first version released just two days ago.

“Speaker Mike Johnson and the House have come to a very good Deal for the American People,” Trump wrote on social media. “The newly agreed to American Relief Act of 2024 will keep the Government open, fund our Great Farmers and others, and provide relief for those severely impacted by the devastating hurricanes.”

“A VERY important piece, VITAL to the America First Agenda, was added as well – The date of the very unnecessary Debt Ceiling will be pushed out two years, to January 30, 2027,” Trump added. “Now we can Make America Great Again, very quickly, which is what the People gave us a mandate to accomplish.”

Two days of tension

The second stopgap bill came after a dramatic 48 hours that began with the Tuesday night release of a different stopgap spending package before Trump’s ally Elon Musk called on GOP lawmakers to reject the bill their leadership team on Capitol Hill had negotiated over weeks.

Trump then told Republicans to address the debt limit in the package or get rid of it entirely, throwing another complex issue into the mix at the last minute.

The core elements of the stopgap spending package House Republicans released Thursday afternoon were similar to the Tuesday night package, though it dropped dozens of measures, including a provision allowing the nationwide sale of 15% ethanol blended gasoline year round.

The new package, same as the old package, doesn’t include a long-standing provision that prevents members of Congress from receiving a cost of living adjustment. Unless that’s changed, lawmakers would receive a 3.8% raise next year increasing their annual salary from $174,000 to $180,600.

“It removed key provisions to limit the power of pharmaceutical companies, and abandons our bipartisan efforts to ensure American dollars and intellectual property are reinvested in American businesses and workers; instead of fueling the Chinese Communist Party’s technology and capabilities,” DeLauro said during debate.

The new 116-page stopgap spending bill was considerably shorter than the 1,547-page version released Tuesday.

Several new deadlines

The spending package would have given Congress until March 14 to complete work on the dozen annual government funding bills that were supposed to become law by the start of the new fiscal year on Oct. 1.

It would have given the House and Senate until Sept. 30, 2025, to reach agreement on the five-year farm bill, which lawmakers were supposed to negotiate a new version of more than a year ago.

The legislation would suspend the debt limit through Jan. 30, 2027.

The bill includes tens of billions in emergency spending to help communities throughout the country recover from various natural disasters, including wildfires, tornadoes and hurricanes.

A summary of the bill, released by House Democrats on Tuesday, showed the Federal Emergency Management Agency and Department of Agriculture would receive the bulk of the natural disaster recovery funding. House Republicans didn’t appear to have altered any of the original funding levels for disaster aid in the updated Thursday version.

The USDA would get $33.5 billion in funding, with $21 billion of that designated for disaster assistance and another $10 billion for economic assistance to farmers and producers.

Other agriculture assistance funding would go toward the Agriculture Research Service, Emergency Watershed Protection Program, Emergency Forest Restoration Program and Rural Development Disaster Assistance Fund, among several others.

The Department of Homeland Security would receive $30.8 billion in funding, with $29 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s disaster relief fund.

An additional $1.5 billion would go to the Hermit’s Peak and Calf Canyon Fire fund “to continue efforts to support families who suffered damages due to the April 2022 wildfire,” according to the summary. 

The wildfire was the largest in New Mexico’s history and caused about $5.14 billion in damages, according to a report released this week.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Community Development Block Grant program for disaster recovery would receive $12 billion in additional funding.

Another $8 billion would go to the Transportation Department to “reimburse states and territories for damage from natural disasters to roads and bridges in the National Highway System, including 100 percent of costs associated with rebuilding the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore,” according to Democrats’ summary.

The Forest Service would get $6.4 billion for ongoing recovery efforts from natural disasters that took place in 2022, 2023 and this year. The National Park Service would receive $2.3 billion as part of the Department of the Interior’s $3 billion total.

The Defense Department would get $3.4 billion to repair damages related to natural disasters. The Army Corps of Engineers would receive $1.5 billion for repairs and to increase resiliency.

The Small Business Administration would receive $2.25 billion for disaster loans.

Filibuster threat

Shortly before House GOP leaders announced their second stopgap package, North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham committed to holding a talking filibuster to delay passage of any stopgap funding measures if that bill doesn’t include substantial disaster aid.

The two, along with North Carolina Sen. Ted Budd, all of whom are Republicans, held a press conference Thursday afternoon to urge GOP leaders in the House to keep the roughly $100 billion in emergency disaster aid in any short-term spending package.

They also rejected calls from some members of their own party to find ways to pay for the new emergency spending, saying that’s not how disaster aid packages have traditionally been handled.

“When you’re in the middle of a crisis, I don’t think anybody’s going to want to hear somebody come to the floor and talk about the fiscal responsibility of giving these people a home again, or giving them an opportunity to open up a business again and employ people,” Tillis said. “So, no I don’t think $10 billion or $20 billion, and ‘I promise we’ll do something more in March’ is an acceptable solution. We know what the need is today. It was negotiated in a package and it needs to be in a package to get my support to get out of here.” 

Graham sought to explain the realities of divided government and pointed out that even when Republicans control the House and Senate next year, they’ll still need Democratic support on spending bills.

“We need 60 votes to get it done in the Senate,” Graham said, referring to the chamber’s legislative filibuster, which requires at least 60 lawmakers vote to advance bills toward final passage.

“Mike Johnson is going to have to pick up a handful, at least, of Democrats, because there’s some Republicans who will never vote for anything,” Graham added.

Tillis was unable to answer a question about whether a partial government shutdown beginning Saturday at 12:01 a.m. would affect the federal government’s ongoing natural disaster response in his home state.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Agriculture, Department of Transportation and numerous federal departments would be required to follow their shutdown guidance if Congress doesn’t fund the government on time.

Those departments and agencies divide up their staffs into excepted employees, whose jobs address the protection of life or property, and non-excepted employees, who don’t.

Neither category of federal employee gets paid until after the shutdown ends.

American Federation of Government Employees National President Everett Kelley released a written statement Thursday that a shutdown would harm federal workers who “inspect our food, protect our borders, ensure safe travel during the holidays, and provide relief to disaster victims.”

“Over 642,000 of them are veterans of our armed services,” Kelley wrote. “Allowing them to go without a paycheck over the holidays is unacceptable.”

Donald Trump is due to return to the Oval Office next month, and his transition team is already planning numerous changes that will broadly impact the entire automotive industry. As we recently revealed, fuel efficiency standards could be rolled back significantly, EV incentives scrapped, and the federal government and U.S. military could be blocked from purchasing more EVs.

As it stands, the US government must purchase more EVs while replacing its old, gas-guzzling vehicles. Additionally, the government’s fleet of light-duty vehicles must all be zero-emissions cars by 2027. However, Trump is tipped to scrap this mandate. Additionally, he is expected to end Department of Defense (DOD) programs aimed at purchasing or developing electric military vehicles.

Read: GM’s New Tactical Truck Is What Happens When A Silverado ZR2 Goes Full Stealth-Mode

Several battery-electric or electrically-assisted military vehicles have been developed recently. For example, in mid-2023, GM Defense unveiled a Hummer EV-based military concept vehicle called the eMCV. It featured the same 212 kWh battery pack as the road-going Hummer but added a 12 kW diesel-powered generator to help charge the battery.

In October this year, GM Defense also launched its new ‘Next Gen’ tactical vehicle based on the Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD ZR2, fitted with a 2.8-liter turbo-diesel engine supplemented by a pair of electric motors. An electric version of GM’s nine-passenger Infantry Squad Vehicle is also being developed. The DOD also currently wants its entire fleet of non-tactical vehicles to transition to EVs by 2035.

Broad industry changes

Documents from the incoming Trump administration reveal a proposal to shift back to fuel economy standards from 2019. This could boost the average allowable emissions per vehicle mile by 25%. Trump is also said to have California in his crosshairs and may move to block the state from setting its own stricter vehicle emissions standards. If he does this, the 17 other states that use California’s standards may have to fall in line with the rest of the country.

Electric vehicles are also facing a shaky future. Trump is widely expected to eradicate the $7,500 EV tax credit, likely triggering a decrease in new EV sales across the country. Reuters also understands the administration wants to pull any leftover funds from Biden’s $7.5 billion pledge to establish a sweeping network of EV charging stations nationwide. Interestingly, Trump may scratch the environmental reviews required for things like charging stations, meaning it could be quicker for private companies to open new stations.

U.S. House Majority Whip Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Minn., left, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., center, and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., take part in a news conference at the U.S. Capitol on Dec. 17, 2024 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Efforts to prevent a partial government shutdown from starting this weekend fell apart Wednesday when numerous Republicans, on and off Capitol Hill, expressed their frustration with the many extraneous provisions added to a short-term funding package.

Complicating the situation, Vice President-elect J.D. Vance posted on social media that he and President-elect Donald Trump believe Republicans should leverage the two days left before a shutdown to get Democrats to raise or suspend the debt limit.

The catch-all, year-end spending legislation released Tuesday would not only fund the government through March 14, but provide an extension of the agriculture and nutrition programs in the farm bill through Sept. 30. The 1,547-page package also holds tens of billions in emergency aid for communities recovering from natural disasters.

But it includes several sections that have angered far-right members of the Republican Party as well as Trump and his allies. They argue the extra provisions that don’t relate to essential programs should be scrapped, throwing a wrench in weeks of negotiations between the Republican House and Democratic Senate.

How a shutdown works

Congress must pass a short-term spending bill before midnight on Friday when the current stopgap spending bill expires, otherwise every single federal department and agency would be required to shut down.

That would mean federal employees categorized as exempt would have to work without pay and employees categorized as non-exempt would be furloughed.

Unlike the 35-day partial government shutdown that took place during Trump’s first administration, this shutdown would affect larger swaths of the federal government.

Congress had approved several of the full-year appropriations bills ahead of the 2018-2019 shutdown insulating the departments of Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Labor and Veterans Affairs.

Lawmakers had also approved the Legislative Branch spending bill, ensuring members of Congress and their staff were paid throughout the shutdown.

This time around, failing to pass some sort of stopgap spending bill ahead of the Friday midnight deadline would mean cutting off U.S. troops from pay, not to mention dozens of other national security agencies like Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

It could also wreak havoc on the numerous federal departments and agencies assisting communities with response and recovery efforts stemming from natural disasters, including hurricanes Helene and Milton.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Agriculture and Small Business Administration would all be affected by a funding lapse, as would anyone who receives funding from those programs.

Debt limit

The debt limit was not part of the spending negotiations until Wednesday when Vance insisted it be included in any type of stopgap spending bill.

The current suspension of the debt limit is set to expire Jan. 1, but lawmakers will likely have a few months where the Treasury Department can use accounting maneuvers called extraordinary measures before the country would default.

Vance, however, doesn’t seem inclined to deal with the country’s borrowing authority next year.

“The most foolish and inept thing ever done by Congressional Republicans was allowing our country to hit the debt ceiling in 2025,” Vance wrote in his social media post. “It was a mistake and is now something that must be addressed.”

Vance wrote that addressing “the debt ceiling is not great but we’d rather do it on Biden’s watch.”

“If Democrats won’t cooperate on the debt ceiling now, what makes anyone think they would do it in June during our administration?” Vance wrote. “Let’s have this debate now. And we should pass a streamlined spending bill that doesn’t give Chuck Schumer and the Democrats everything they want.”

Elon Musk, a billionaire whom Trump has tasked with trying to make the federal government more efficient through steep spending cuts, wrote on social media that no legislation should move through Congress until Jan. 20, after Trump’s inauguration.

That would create havoc for hundreds of government programs, including the agriculture and nutrition assistance programs within the farm bill.

“Any member of the House or Senate who votes for this outrageous spending bill deserves to be voted out in 2 years!,” Musk wrote.

While every member of the House who chooses to run for reelection will campaign during the 2026 midterm elections, just one-third of the Senate will be up for reelection since they are elected to six-year terms. 

North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis posted on social media that any short-term spending bill, sometimes called a continuing resolution or CR, must carry disaster aid to help his home state recover from a devastating hurricane.

“If Congressional leaders intend to leave DC before the holidays without passing disaster recovery, they should be prepared to spend Christmas in the Capitol,” Tillis wrote. “I’ll use every tool available to block a CR that fails Western North Carolina communities in need of long-term certainty.”

West Virginia Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito said during a brief interview she wants to see disaster aid remain in a stopgap spending bill.

“I went down and saw the Asheville disaster,” she said “I think we need to get the disaster aid to those affected areas, some of which are in West Virginia, believe it or not.”

White House reaction

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre released a written statement Wednesday evening saying that “Republicans need to stop playing politics with this bipartisan agreement or they will hurt hardworking Americans and create instability across the country.”

“President-elect Trump and Vice President-elect Vance ordered Republicans to shut down the government and they are threatening to do just that—while undermining communities recovering from disasters, farmers and ranchers, and community health centers,” she wrote. “Triggering a damaging government shutdown would hurt families who are gathering to meet with their loved ones and endanger the basic services Americans from veterans to Social Security recipients rely on. A deal is a deal. Republicans should keep their word.”

Ford and South Korean battery manufacturer SK On are getting a huge $9.63 billion loan from the U.S. Department of Energy to build three battery manufacturing plants in Tennessee and Kentucky for electric vehicles.

In June 2023, it was initially revealed Ford and SK On would be getting a $9.2 billion loan to help with the construction of three factories. It’s unclear why the loan amount has increased, but it is the largest loan provided by the US government’s Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program. This program aims to help American firms catch up with industry-leading Chinese battery makers.

Read: Rivian’s Georgia Plant Gets A $6.6 Billion Lifeline Thanks To Taxpayers

The money will be provided to Blue Oval SK, a joint venture operated by the two companies. They’ve already invested over $11 billion in the construction of the three plants. Production at the first of the two plants in Kentucky is scheduled to start in early 2025, while the Tennessee site will be ready to start manufacturing in late 2025.

When all three sites are up and running, they’ll be capable of producing 120 GWh of EV batteries annually.

Speaking with Reuters, Blue Oval SK said it took 18 months for the Department of Energy to complete the loan process due to the time needed to conduct due diligence, including market, credit, financial, legal, and regulatory reviews.

This isn’t the only significant EV loan announced in recent weeks; just before Donald Trump returns to the presidency, the DOE announced a conditional commitment to loan $7.54 billion to the joint venture operated by FCA US and Samsung SDI to establish two lithium-ion battery cell and module manufacturing plants in Kokomo, Indiana. Rivian also recently received approval for a $6.57 billion loan from the DOE, although that loan has come under the microscope of Vivek Ramaswamy, who will lead the new Department of Government Efficiency alongside Elon Musk.

President Trump is slated to return to the White House next month and new details are starting to emerge about his plan to cut support for electric vehicles. This will reportedly be a multipronged attack as the incoming administration is reportedly aiming to eliminate the $7,500 federal tax credit as well as funding for improving America’s charging infrastructure.

According to a document seen by Reuters, Trump’s transition team is also recommending imposing tariffs on battery materials. The goal is to increase U.S. production, although the administration is expected to negotiate “individual exemptions with allies.”

More: Trump Reportedly Wants To Kill $7,500 EV Tax Credit And Tesla Might Be Cool With It

The Trump administration is also expected to redirect funds designed to support electric vehicle adoption. Specifics are murky, but the money could flow towards other electrification efforts focused on “national defense supply chain and critical infrastructure.” This effort seeks to boost U.S. production of batteries and the critical materials used to make them.

Speaking of national defense, the document reportedly mentioned ending Department of Defense efforts to acquire electric military vehicles. There’s also a wider push that would reverse a Biden administration requirement that federal agencies buy zero-emission vehicles.

Besides eroding federal support for EVs, the transition team is reportedly recommending a plan to rollback fuel economy and emission standards to 2019 levels. Reuters said this would allow for “an average of about 25% more emissions per vehicle mile than the current 2025 limits and average fuel economy to be about 15% lower.” Unsurprisingly, the incoming administration also wants to neutralize California’s emissions wavier.

These would be drastic changes, but they’re simply proposals at this point. Some of them sound easier to enact than others, but only time will tell how everything pans out.

It’s also worth noting the Biden administration is in a mad dash to get money out the door before Trump takes office. Earlier today, the Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office announced Ford’s BlueOval SK is getting a loan of up to $9.63 billion to build three battery plants – one in Tennessee and two in Kentucky – that will have the capacity to build more than 120 gigawatt hours of batteries annually.

This follows last week’s announcement that the Loan Programs Office had finalized a $1.25 billion loan guarantee to EVgo. It aims to support the deployment of approximately 7,500 chargers at roughly 1,100 stations across the United States.

GM head Mary Barra raised a few eyebrows this week when she claimed the automaker and President Donald Trump are “goal-aligned” despite Trump’s plans to introduce tariffs that Barra admits could have a “very substantial” impact on GM’s business.

“I think we’re very goal-aligned,” the CEO told guests at the Automotive Press Association event on Wednesday, before going on to explain just what the two usually opposing sides see eye-to-eye about.

Related: Trump’s Tariffs Could Cut 17% From Automaker Profits

“We want a strong economy. We want a strong manufacturing base in this country. We agree automotive jobs are important,” Detroit Free Press reports Barra saying. But she made no bones about the difficulty GM (and other automakers) face, both in terms of the uncertainty in the short term, and the potential fallout from Trump’s decisions later during his time in office.

“We’ll have to see what the policies will be,” Barra said. “It’s hard for me to predict what will happen. We’re doing a lot of scenario planning, and we’ll adjust accordingly.”

Barra admitted that Trump’s proposal to place a 25 percent tariff on vehicles imported to the US from Mexico and Canada (where GM has production sites) “could have a very substantial impact” on its profitability, as could scrapping the $7,500 EV tax credit.

Although Trump and Barra have sometimes been at loggerheads, and she was the recipient of the president’s anger on social media over GM cost-cutting measures, Barra described her sometime foe as a good listener. GM will be hoping that he’s still willing to listen to what Barra has to say and not listen too intently to the opinions of Tesla boss Elon Musk – soon to be in charge of the much-hyped Department of Government Efficiency.

“Any time you have an administrative change, there’s policy changes that occur,” Barra said, per The Detroit News. “We’ve been working with any every administration for the last several decades, and General Motors will continue to do that. But I’m actually looking forward to working with the president and with the administration, because I think we can grow the importance of the auto industry and manufacturing.”

If there’s one thing America loves, it’s a good tug-of-war between corporate power and government oversight, especially when it involves cutting-edge tech, fiery CEOs, and a whole lot of car crashes. Today, any accident involving an automated driving system must be reported to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), thanks to a Standing General Order issued in June 2021. This rule keeps automakers honest—well, sort of—but now, a newly surfaced document suggests that the Trump administration wants to kill it.

And surprise, surprise: the potential repeal would be a massive win for Elon Musk and Tesla, while also leaving regulators with fewer tools to keep autonomous driving tech in check.

More: See What Happens When Two Cars Hit A Chinese EV At 60KM/H In Triple Crash Test

Reuters reports that it has seen a document that “recommends repealing requirement that companies report automated vehicle crash data.” That’s notable for several reasons, not least of which is one of the requirement’s biggest opponents: Elon Musk. The high-profile CEO, who not only campaigned openly for Donald Trump before the election but also became his largest donor, spending at least $277 million to support him, now stands to benefit in a significant way.

A Rule Tesla Really Hates

Under the current rules, Tesla, like many other companies, must report crashes to the NHTSA under the General Order if they meet two specific criteria. First, the vehicle’s Level 2 autonomous driving system must have been in use within 30 seconds of the accident. Second, the crash must either involve a vulnerable road user (like a pedestrian or cyclist) or result in “a fatality, a vehicle tow-away, an airbag deployment, or any individual being transported to a hospital for medical treatment.”

Musk takes exception to this order for several reasons. To be fair, the NHTSA itself even outlines some of the potential issues with the order on its website. For instance, car companies can only report the accidents that they’re aware of—which isn’t always as straightforward as it sounds.

More: Tesla’s Sub-$30K Model Q And 2025 Product Plans

“For example, some entities may have access to detailed vehicle and crash data immediately after a crash, because the vehicles supply instantaneous telematics, while others may only learn of crashes from consumer complaints submitted days or weeks afterwards and which may include limited crash information,” says NHTSA.

Reuters points out that its analysis of the NHTSA crash data shows Tesla accounted for 40 out of 45 fatal crashes reported to the agency through Oct. 15. It’s plausible that Tesla not only reports more incidents but also that the statistics look tilted against the brand because so many of its cars have Level 2 driving technology and owners use it more.

More: Tesla Shares Soar By 69%, As Musk Becomes First Person To Top $400 Billion Net Worth

Moreover, Bryant Walker Smith, a law professor in the University of South Carolina who focuses on autonomous driving, said Tesla collects real-time crash data that other automakers don’t and, as a result, probably reports a “far greater proportion of their incidents” than its rivals.

Did Tesla Wait This Out? Probably.

To that end, Reuters says a source claims that Tesla executives have wanted to squash the crash reporting for years. The team evidently decided that the only solution was to wait until President Biden, whose administration was supportive of the program, was out of office.

In the meantime, stay tuned—because if this unfolds the way it seems, you’ll probably be hearing about it next time someone’s Tesla decides to “assist” them into a ditch.

After aligning himself with Donald Trump and pouring $277 million into his successful 2024 presidential campaign, according to Federal Election Commission filings, Elon Musk has seen his personal wealth skyrocket, while Tesla shares have reached an all-time high. This comes despite Trump’s long-standing opposition to electric vehicles. However, with Musk now in Trump’s ear—and seemingly at every event he hosts—investors are encouraged by the prospect of fewer regulations.

Tesla Shares Surge Following Election

On Thursday, Tesla shares reached as high as $429 before dipping to $419.80 at the time of posting, marking a remarkable 69% rise since the election. This surge has added $556 billion to the company’s market cap, pushing Tesla’s stock price to levels not seen since late 2021—and far above its January 2023 low of $108.10. The uptick is being hailed as the “Trump bump,” with analysts pointing to Musk’s vocal support of Trump as a catalyst for the renewed interest in Tesla.

Read: Tesla’s Sub-$30K Model Q And 2025 Product Plans; Key Insights From The Deutsche Bank Report

As Craig Irwin, an analyst at Roth MKM, told CNBC: “Musk’s authentic support for Trump likely doubled Tesla’s pool of enthusiasts and lifted credibility for a demand inflection.”And it’s not just Roth MKM—Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and Morgan Stanley have also raised their price targets for Tesla in response to the stock’s impressive rally.

Musk’s Growing Influence in Government

In return for his significant backing of Trump’s re-election campaign, Elon Musk will co-lead the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency with fellow billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy. Musk is believed to be advising Trump on which agencies, budget items, and regulations should be trimmed down or eliminated altogether. This influence could pave the way for policy shifts that benefit Musk’s business interests.

Musk has also expressed interest in establishing a federal approval process for autonomous vehicles. As it stands, approvals happen at the state level, but if Musk can leverage Trump’s support to shift this to the federal level, his long-awaited robotaxi, the Cybercab, could see a major boost.

Additionally, Musk may push Trump to eliminate the current $7,500 federal EV tax credit—an action that could hurt Tesla’s competitors more than it impacts his own company, which is better positioned to absorb any short-term effects.

Musk’s Wealth Reaches Unprecedented Levels

With his newfound influence as Trump’s close ally, Musk’s personal fortune has skyrocketed—up by 77%, for those keeping track. According to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, his wealth now stands at $447 billion, making him the first person in history to surpass the $400 billion net worth mark. In addition to the surge in Tesla’s stock price, SpaceX and other investors recently purchased $1.25 billion in shares from employees and insiders. This deal has boosted SpaceX’s valuation to $350 billion, adding an estimated $50 billion to Musk’s net worth.

President-elect Donald Trump, at the time the GOP nominee, participates in a Fox News Town Hall with Sean Hannity at the New Holland Arena on Sept. 4, 2024, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.  (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — An effort to pass a sweeping measure aimed at protecting press freedoms was struck down in the U.S. Senate on Tuesday night.

The journalism shield law — which would limit the federal government’s ability to force disclosure of journalists’ sources — drew strong objections from President-elect Donald Trump, who’s had a rather rocky relationship with the press.

Arkansas GOP Sen. Tom Cotton blocked Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden’s request for unanimous consent to pass the bill, calling the legislation “a threat to U.S. national security and an insult to basic fairness in the principle of equality before the law.”

Though the U.S. House passed its version of the bill through voice vote earlier this year, Trump in November urged congressional Republicans “must kill this bill.”

Reaching unanimous consent — a process to fast-track the passage of bills in the Senate — appeared extremely unlikely given Trump’s sway in the Senate GOP conference.

Cotton, who’s the incoming Senate GOP conference chair, said the measure would “turn reporters into a protected class — free to hold, share and publish highly classified and dangerous information that no other American is allowed to possess.”

He also said the bill would turn the Senate “into the active accomplice of deep-state leakers, traitors and criminals, along with the America-hating and fame-hungry journalists who helped them out.”

Bipartisan backing

Wyden introduced companion legislation to the House bill in June 2023. GOP Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, along with Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin, co-sponsored the bill.

Wyden dubbed the bill “so common sense” and said past administrations on both sides of the aisle have “exploited the lack of a federal shield law to curtail the freedom of the press and in some cases, even jailed journalists who refused to break their journalistic ethics and reveal their sources.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer expressed strong support of the bill and his desire to get it to the president’s desk.

“No democracy can survive without a free and open and thriving press,” Schumer said on the Senate floor.

The legislation would establish “appropriate limits on the federally compelled disclosure of information obtained as part of engaging in journalism” and would limit federal law enforcement surveillance of journalists.

Dozens of news media organizations and press advocacy groups have pushed for the legislation’s passage, with press rights organizations voicing concerns about Trump’s incoming return to the Oval Office amid the threats he’s made against journalists.

Immigrant farm workers harvest broccoli on March 16, 2006, near the border town of San Luis, south of Yuma, Arizona. (Photo by David McNew/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON —  A top Republican on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee said Tuesday that when President-elect Donald Trump takes office and the GOP takes control of the Senate, lawmakers’ first priority will be to pass a border security package through a complex process known as budget reconciliation.

Trump has promised his base his administration will enact mass deportations of people living in the country illegally. South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said at a Judiciary hearing that Senate Republicans will focus on increasing beds at detention centers, hiring Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and purchasing technology for enforcement at the southern border.

“It is our belief that the only way you’ll get control of the border is for deportations to start early,” he said. “If we do not have outflow, the inflow will continue.”

However, a senior fellow at the pro-immigration think tank the American Immigration Council, Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, told the panel the endeavor will be expensive.

Carrying out mass deportations of 1 million people would cost about $88 billion a year for arrests, detainment and removal, he said. About 13 million people are living in the United States illegally.

Fixing a broken system

The committee hearing, led by Democrats who control the Senate now but will be in the minority next year, explored the ramifications of the Trump campaign promise of mass deportations.

“Instead of mass deportations, mass accountability,” said the chair of the committee, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois. “Let’s fix our broken immigration system in a way that protects our country and honors our heritage as a nation of immigrants.”

The budget reconciliation process cited by Graham that would be used to pass border security legislation, if successful, would allow Republicans to get around the 60-vote filibuster in the Senate.

Reconciliation is generally used when one party controls the House, Senate and the White House, because it only requires a majority vote in each chamber.

Graham added that Republicans will also prevent those people who were paroled into the country through executive authority from employing another avenue for legal immigration status. The GOP has been critical of programs that allow certain nationals from Haiti, Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela to temporarily work and live in the United States.

“So if you’re here illegally, get ready to leave,” Graham said.

DACA program

One of the hearing witnesses, Foday Turay, is in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, which is awaiting a federal court ruling on its legality after the Trump administration tried to end it.

Separately, on Monday, a federal court blocked the implementation of a final rule from the Biden administration to allow DACA recipients to have health care access under the Affordable Care Act. 

About 500,000 people are in the program, which is aimed at protecting children brought into the country without authorization from deportation. It also allows them to obtain work permits.

Turay is an assistant district attorney in the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, and said if he were deported it would devastate his family, as he is the primary income earner in his household.

He said his wife, a U.S. citizen, is the primary caretaker of her mother, a person with disabilities who is undergoing cancer treatments. Additionally, Turay said he would have to leave his son behind if he is deported.

Another witness, Patty Morin of Aberdeen, Maryland, told how her daughter, Rachel, was killed. The suspect, who was charged with first-degree murder and sexual assault, was in the country illegally and had a prior criminal record.

Durbin said Democrats are not opposed to ICE carrying out its duties to deport those with criminal records and stressed that Trump’s plans for mass deportations extend beyond that group and would include people like Turay.

“This man for a living is prosecuting criminals,” Durbin said of Turay. “This other individual is a clear criminal with a record. When we say ‘mass deportation,’ should we consider them the same because they’re both undocumented?”

Graham said when it comes to DACA, “hopefully we can find a solution to that problem.”

Over the weekend, Trump expressed his support for coming to an agreement with Democrats to allow DACA recipients to remain in the country, despite trying to end the program during his first term.

Use of National Guard

Durbin said he is concerned about Trump’s comments about using the National Guard to carry out mass deportations.

One of the witnesses, Randy Manner, a retired major general in the U.S. Army, said he sees problems with using the military for mass deportations.

It could affect military readiness, he said, and the military is not trained in that capacity.

“Immigration enforcement is the responsibility of federal law enforcement agencies,” Manner said.

He added that having soldiers carry out that directive would have a negative impact on morale and recruiting. Manner also said having the U.S. military involved in that kind of political messaging would erode public trust.

Cost of mass deportations

Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar said not only would mass deportations be harmful to communities, but a financial strain as well.

Reichlin-Melnick said industries that would be hit particularly hard by losing employees would include construction, agriculture and hospitality.

Reichlin-Melnick also argued that ICE already focuses on arresting and conducting deportation proceedings for noncitizens with criminal records.

“The overwhelming majority of people who would be the target of a mass deportation campaign do not have criminal records,” he said. “They are people who have been living otherwise law-abiding lives in this country, living, working and, in many cases, paying taxes.”

Tennessee Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn suggested that local law enforcement should be empowered to carry out deportations, even though immigration enforcement is a federal issue.

Art Arthur, a resident fellow in law and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates for sharply limiting immigration, supported that idea.

“They’re going to be the people who are best able to pull those individuals out of the community,” Arthur said of local law enforcement.

The electrification of the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) fleet is in the crosshairs as Donald Trump prepares to return to the Oval Office next month. Reports suggest the incoming administration may be eyeing the cancellation of multi-billion-dollar EV contracts, potentially derailing years of progress toward modernizing and decarbonizing the USPS’s aging delivery trucks.

According to a Reuters report citing unnamed sources, Trump’s transition team is exploring ways to rollback key postal EV initiatives, including contracts with Ford and Oshkosh. A plan could be announced shortly after Trump becomes President, and if he does try to end the roll-out of electric delivery trucks, it could be one of many moves made to unwind decarbonization efforts initiated by the current Biden administration.

Read: Ford, GM, Stellantis, Toyota Beg Trump Not To Axe EV Tax Credits

In early 2021, Oshkosh secured a contract to supply USPS with its next-generation delivery vehicles, with initial targets of assembling between 50,000 to 165,000 EVs over the course of 10 years. In 2023, Congress provided USPS with $3 billion to go towards the purchase of 66,000 EVs, approximately 45,000 of which are now expected to come from Oshkosh, while the others will come from established brands, including Ford.

Unwinding EV Investments Won’t Be Easy

Reuters notes that severing the contracts USPS has signed with Oshkosh and Ford could be challenging, as it’s an autonomous federal agency with a governing body. In a statement, Oshkosh said it’s “fully committed to our strong partnership with the USPS and looks forward to continuing to provide our postal carriers with reliable, safe, and sustainable modern delivery vehicles, even as USPS’ needs continue to evolve.”

Analysts from investment banking firm Jefferies believe that the Trump administration won’t completely cancel the contracts, but could push for fewer EVs and more ICE-powered vehicles to be included. “Given the need for the replacement of aging equipment, we are confident that the USPS will be receiving new vehicles in 2025. The mix of that order could potentially change to appease an administration that is more hostile to (EVs),” the analysts wrote.

The USPS electrification plan isn’t just about trucks as it also involves deploying 14,000 EV chargers across the country. These chargers, sourced from Siemens, Rexel/ChargePoint, and Blink, are intended to support the broader fleet transition. Whether the Trump administration will interfere with this infrastructure rollout remains unclear, but any disruptions could further complicate the USPS’s EV ambitions.

Update, Dec. 12, 2024: A federal judge dismissed the Republican Party of Wisconsin lawsuit on Thursday, saying there’s no controversy over the main issue in the case. Both the GOP and the defendants agree they should cast electoral votes for President-elect Donald Trump on Dec. 17, in compliance with a federal law, not the Dec. 16 date dictated under a state law.

Original story: The Republican Party of Wisconsin filed a lawsuit Friday to resolve a discrepancy between state and federal law directing when appointed presidential electors must meet to cast Electoral College votes.

State law requires presidential electors to meet on Dec. 16 this year, but a federal law passed two years ago calls for them to meet on Dec. 17. The state GOP is calling on a U.S. District Court of Western Wisconsin judge to enforce the federal requirement and strike the state one.

“The presidential electors cannot comply with both requirements,” the lawsuit states.

Resolving the current conflict is key to avoiding the state’s electoral votes getting challenged or contested in Congress, the state GOP states.

The lawsuit highlights the Legislature’s failure to pass a bill that would have brought Wisconsin in line with the new federal law. That inaction, the state GOP says, “led to the current conflict between the federal and state statutes.”

The lawsuit is filed against Gov. Tony Evers, Attorney General Josh Kaul and Wisconsin Elections Commission Administrator Meagan Wolfe.

The GOP is asking for the federal court to declare the current state law requirement — for the electors to meet on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, as opposed to the federal law’s requirement to meet on the first Tuesday following the second Wednesday — unconstitutional and unenforceable. Given the tight timeline, it’s seeking a hearing “as soon as the Court’s calendar allows.”

Spokespeople for the Wisconsin Elections Commission and Evers declined to comment for this story. 

Generally, federal law supersedes state law if there’s a conflict between the two, said Bryna Godar, a staff attorney at the University of Wisconsin Law School’s State Democracy Research Initiative. Under the current, conflicting laws, electors this year definitely have to meet on Dec. 17, but it’s less clear what they should do on Dec. 16, she told Votebeat in May.

The new designated day arose as a result of the new federal law, commonly called the Electoral Count Reform Act. Congress designed the law in 2022 to prevent the post-election chaos that then-President Donald Trump and his allies created after the 2020 election, which culminated in efforts to send fake electoral votes to Congress, block certification of legitimate electoral votes and then storm the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. 

The new federal law sets specific schedules for certifying election results and casting electoral votes. It cleared up ambiguities contained in the previous version of the law, which was enacted in 1887 but never updated until two years ago. 

As of mid-October, 15 states had updated their laws to comply with the Electoral Count Reform Act, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. A Wisconsin proposal to bring the state in line with the new federal law passed the Senate nearly unanimously in February. But it never received a vote in the Assembly. 

“It would have been beneficial if Wisconsin had also done that,” Godar said.

Scott Thompson, a staff attorney at the liberal-leaning legal group Law Forward, said the Legislature knew about this problem for over a year but chose not to resolve it with a simple fix.

“This eleventh hour lawsuit merely confirms that our state Legislature needs to stop peddling election conspiracy theories and start taking the business of election administration seriously,” he said.

Wisconsin Republicans were among those who sent documents to Congress in December 2020 falsely claiming Trump won the state. Trump won the state in 2024. The Wisconsin fake electors were subject to a civil lawsuit, and there’s an ongoing criminal case against their attorneys.

Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Shur at ashur@votebeat.org.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Wisconsin’s free newsletter here.

UPDATE: Parties agree on date Trump’s electors are supposed to cast their votes is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

President-elect Donald Trump was interviewed for the edition of NBC News’ “Meet the Press with Kristen Welker” that aired on Sunday, Dec. 8, 2024. (Photo courtesy of NBC News)

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump vowed to sign an executive order on his first day in office to end the constitutional right to U.S. citizenship for anyone born in the country, during an extensive Sunday interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press with Kristen Welker.”

But Trump also admitted there would be legal hurdles to carrying out his policy goal of amending the 14th Amendment. Many constitutional legal scholars have argued that Trump could not halt what is known as birthright citizenship through an executive order.

“We have to end it,” Trump told Welker. “We’re going to end that because it’s ridiculous.”

On other immigration topics, he said he is willing to make a deal with Democrats on keeping so-called Dreamers in the U.S., and he supports deporting entire families in his mass deportation plans, even if the children themselves are U.S. citizens.

But some of his most extensive comments were on birthright citizenship. “We’re gonna have to get it changed,” Trump said of the 14th Amendment.

Ratified in 1868

The U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 and guarantees U.S. citizenship to anyone born in the country.

“All persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” according to the 14th Amendment.

Trump said that he will try to end birthright citizenship through an executive order, “if we can.”

Experts take issue. “There is today no serious scholarly debate about whether a president can, through executive action, contradict the Supreme Court’s long-standing and consistent interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment,” Gerald Neuman, director of the human rights program at Harvard Law School, said in a statement in 2018 along with a group of constitutional law scholars.

Two-thirds of both the U.S. House and Senate would be required to vote to approve an amendment changing the Constitution, and three-fourths of state legislatures would have to ratify such an amendment for it to take effect. A convention could also be called by two-thirds of state legislatures.

While Republicans are set to control both chambers by January, it’s not by a margin of two-thirds.

During the interview, Trump also inaccurately claimed that the United States is the only country in the world that has birthright citizenship. More than a dozen countries bestow birthright citizenship, from Canada to Brazil.

Some countries have birthright citizenship, but with restrictions, such as France, which requires at least one parent be a citizen in order for the child to obtain citizenship.

A branch extended to Dreamers

Welker asked Trump what his plans are for the Dreamers, the more than 500,000 people in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that he tried to end during his first administration. The DACA program is currently waiting for a federal court to decide its legal fate.

“These are people that have been brought here at a very young age and many of these are middle-aged people now, they don’t even speak the language of their country,” he said.

Trump said that he would “work with the Democrats on a plan,” but did not elaborate on any details.

Welker asked Trump about his mass deportation plans, a campaign pledge to deport millions of undocumented people, and how that would affect the more than 4 million mixed-status families, meaning families with different immigration statuses.

“I don’t want to be breaking up families,” Trump said. “So the only way you don’t break up the family is you keep them together and you have to send them all back.”

Welker asked if that included, “even kids who are here legally?”

“Whatcha gonna do if they want to stay with the father?” Trump said. “We have to have rules and regulations.”

Trump did not answer repeated questions as to whether he would bring back one of his harshest immigration policies, known as family separation, that separated parents from their children at the border. While most have been reunited, there are still about a quarter of children who are not with their parents.

“We don’t have to separate families,” Trump said. “We’ll send the whole family very humanely, back to the country where they came.”

Two lawyers and a former Trump campaign aide are scheduled to make their initial appearances in court Thursday, each facing 11 felony charges for their roles in a scheme that generated documents falsely claiming Donald Trump won Wisconsin’s 2020 election.

Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul in June initially charged Michael Roman and attorneys Jim Troupis and Kenneth Chesebro with “uttering as genuine a forged writing or object,” a felony that can result in up to a $10,000 fine and imprisonment of up to 6 years. The charges stem from their efforts to craft a slate of false electors for Donald Trump in 2020 after he narrowly lost Wisconsin and other key swing states to Joe Biden.

On Tuesday, the state Department of Justice added 10 additional charges for each defendant, arguing Chesebro, Roman and Troupis defrauded the 10 Republicans who falsely posed as electors for Trump. All 10 new charges are felonies and they can each result in up to  a $10,000 fine and imprisonment of up to 6 years.

The defendants are set to appear in Dane County Circuit Court almost four years to the day after a group of Republicans met at the State Capitol in Madison to create the documents.

Trump appears to have avoided legal consequences for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, largely due to his election victory last month. Thursday’s hearing offers a reminder that others involved in the plot are still being prosecuted.

Kaul’s office declined to answer a question about why he believes it’s important to continue the prosecutions into 2025. But Kaul spokesperson Gillian Drummond reiterated that the Department of Justice’s approach “has been focused on following the facts where they lead and making decisions based on the facts, the law and the best interests of justice.”

The case’s original 47-page criminal complaint details how Chesebro, Troupis and Roman helped craft a “Certificate of the Votes of the 2020 Electors from Wisconsin” that falsely said Trump won Wisconsin’s 10 Electoral College votes at the time — tactics replicated in six other swing states. The complaint also outlines efforts to deliver the paperwork to then-Vice President Mike Pence.

A majority of the 10 Republicans who acted as the false Trump electors told investigators that they did not believe their signatures would be sent to Washington, according to new details in Tuesday’s amended complaint. A majority of the false electors also said they did not consent to their signatures being presented as Wisconsin’s electoral votes without a court ruling handing the state to Trump.

Chesebro and Roman have faced charges in Georgia, where Chesebro is seeking to invalidate an earlier deal in which he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit filing false documents.

Of the trio charged in Wisconsin, Troupis is the only one who has filed motions to dismiss ahead of Thursday’s hearing.

One motion, which was filed before the additional charges were handed down, argues the DOJ failed to allege a criminal offense. 

The Wisconsin Supreme Court just two hours before the alternative electors met ruled against Trump’s efforts to throw out more than 220,000 Dane and Milwaukee county votes and to reverse his loss. But an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was still in the works, Troupis’ motion notes. The Republican electors cast their illegitimate ballots for Trump, the motion adds, as Troupis worked to protect his client’s rights in case the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Wisconsin’s election results.

“That practice of having both sets of electors meet and vote during an on-going legal challenge or recount is over a century old,” Troupis argues in his brief. He points to the 1876 presidential election, when three states sent competing slates of electors to Washington, and the 1960 race, when Hawaii featured competing electors due to an ongoing recount that eventually flipped three electoral votes from Richard Nixon to John F. Kennedy. Historians have identified key differences between those cases and 2020.

“Having the Republican electors meet and cast their ballot was not criminal or even untoward and the ballot was not a forgery,” Troupis argues.

A separate motion argues the criminal complaint omits information that pokes holes in the DOJ’s allegations. 

Troupis’ attorney points to a 2022 memo from the DOJ solicited by the Wisconsin Elections Commission as it investigated a complaint filed against the Trump electors. 

That complaint argued the Trump electors “met in a concerted effort to ensure that they would be mistaken, as a result of their deliberate forgery and fraud, for Wisconsin’s legitimate Presidential Electors.” But the DOJ concluded in its memo that the “record does not support this allegation” and that the Trump electors even before the Dec. 14 meeting “publicly stated, including in court pleadings, that they were meeting to preserve legal options while litigation was pending.” 

Troupis’ legal team claims that conclusion — omitted from the criminal complaint —shows “it was proper and necessary for the alternate electors to meet and vote on December 14.” 

In another motion, Troupis argues election-related prosecutions can unfold only if the elections commission determines probable cause and refers the case to a county district attorney — not the attorney general. 

Troupis’ legal team argues his motions to dismiss must be heard before Troupis makes his initial appearance. Dane County Circuit Court Judge John Hyland declined on Friday to hear the motions before the initial appearance.

Trump could not pardon his former aides upon his return to office. Presidential pardon power extends only to federal offenses. These are state charges. 

The hearing is scheduled for 10:30 a.m at the Dane County Courthouse.

Forward is a look ahead at the week in Wisconsin government and politics from the Wisconsin Watch statehouse team.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.

UPDATE: New charges filed in 2020 ‘fake electors’ scheme is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Donald Trump supporters clash with police and security forces as people try to storm the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Brent Stirton/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump wants to jail former and current members of Congress who investigated his incitement of the violent Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, and he plans to pardon the rioters immediately upon taking office, he told NBC News Sunday.

On the network’s “Meet the Press with Kristen Welker,” Trump said leaders of the special congressional panel that probed the Capitol riot “lied” and “should go to jail.”

Trump singled out committee Chair Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat and a senior Black member of Congress, and former high-ranking House Republican Liz Cheney of Wyoming, who co-chaired the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.

“Cheney did something that’s inexcusable, along with Thompson and the people on the un-select committee of political thugs and, you know, creeps,” Trump told NBC host Welker. 

Jason Miller, an adviser to Trump, walked back the president-elect’s comments Monday. Miller told CNN that Trump’s remarks about jailing Jan. 6 committee members were taken out of context and that he just wants his administration to “apply the law equally” to everybody.

President Joe Biden is reportedly mulling preemptive pardons for Cheney and former Democratic Congressman and incoming Sen. Adam Schiff of California, who also sat on the panel, along with others who could be targeted by the new Trump administration, according to media reports citing anonymous White House sources.

Trump takes office Jan. 20.

Cheney: ‘Here is the truth’

In a statement Sunday, Cheney described Trump’s actions on Jan. 6 as “the worst breach of our Constitution by any president in our nation’s history.”

“Here is the truth: Donald Trump attempted to overturn the 2020 presidential election and seize power,” Cheney said. “He mobilized an angry mob and sent them to the United States Capitol, where they attacked police officers, invaded the building and halted the official counting of electoral votes. Trump watched on television as police officers were brutally beaten, and the Capitol was assaulted, refusing for hours to tell the mob to leave.”

The Justice Department charged just over 1,560 people for taking part in the attack. Among those, 210 were found guilty at trial, and 979 pleaded guilty to charges that included assaulting police officers, trespassing and bringing deadly weapons to the Capitol, according to the most recent department data. That means it’s possible more than 1,000 individuals could be pardoned, depending on Trump’s decisions.

“As proven in Court, the weapons used and carried on Capitol grounds include firearms; OC spray; tasers; edged weapons, including a sword, axes, hatchets, and knives; and makeshift weapons, such as destroyed office furniture, fencing, bike racks, stolen riot shields, baseball bats, hockey sticks, flagpoles, PVC piping, and reinforced knuckle gloves,” according to the Justice Department.

Thompson said Monday the committee members “are simply not afraid of his most recent threats.”

“Our committee was fully authorized by the House, all rules were properly followed, and our work product stands on its own. In fact, in the two years since we have completed our work, no court or legal body has refuted it,” Thompson said in a statement provided Monday to States Newsroom.

“Donald Trump and his minions can make all the assertions they want – but no election, no conspiracy theory, no pardon, and no threat of vengeful prosecution can rewrite history or wipe away his responsibility for the deadly violence on that horrific day. We stood up to him before, and we will continue to do so,” said Thompson, who has served as the top Democrat on the House Committee on Homeland Security for the past two years.

Pardons on day one

Trump told Welker that he intends to pardon the Jan. 6 rioters on his first day in office. He said they violently attacked police officers because “they had no choice” and that their lives have been “destroyed” after facing charges for their actions.

During the wide-ranging interview Trump also blamed former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for the attack and repeated debunked claims that “antifa” activists were part of a conspiracy to bait his supporters into attacking.

Video from Trump’s speech that day show him rallying his supporters to march to the Capitol and urge Congress to “do the right thing” by refusing to certify Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory.

Trump also falsely told Welker that the Jan. 6 committee destroyed its investigative material and evidence.

In fact, hundreds of witness interview transcripts, videos and online exhibits are publicly available. The committee’s work culminated in a nearly 900-page final report that remains available online, and can be easily found with a simple internet search.

Kinzinger: ‘We did nothing wrong’

Former GOP Rep. Adam Kinzinger, the only other Republican who sat on the Jan. 6 committee, said Sunday in a statement that Trump’s threat is “nothing more than the desperate howl of a man who knows history will regard him with shame.

“Let me be clear: we did nothing wrong. The January 6 Committee’s work was driven by facts, the Constitution, and the pursuit of accountability — principles that seem foreign to Trump,” Kinzinger, of Illinois, published on Substack.

Trump did not specifically name Kinzinger during his interview.

The White House did not immediately respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment on Biden’s reported consideration of preemptive pardons.

A 2011 photo shows an exhibit at the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library & Museum that commemorated the 75th anniversary of the signing of the Social Security Act in August 2010. (FDR Presidential Library & Museum | via Flickr)

The chairman and CEO of Milwaukee-based FiServ said Thursday that he looks “forward to applying my experience to transform our social security system” as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration under President-elect Donald Trump.

Frank Bisignano made the statement in a press release from FiServ confirming his appointment to the post, which is subject to Senate confirmation. Trump first disclosed the Bisignano’s nomination on his social media platform Wednesday evening, The New York Times reported.

FiServ, founded in 1984 as a financial services data processing company, expanded into electronic billing and payments, providing mobile banking services for financial institutions and related technology based services for the financial industry.

Bisignano, who has spent most of his career in investment banking, has held the top spot at FiServ since 2020 after engineering the 2019 merger of the company he headed at the time, First Data Corp., with FiServ.

The Milwaukee Business Journal listed Bisignano as the highest-paid Wisconsin public company executive in the most recent fiscal year, with compensation totaling more than $27.9 million, 83% of that in stock awards.

At First Data, where he led the company in 2015 in a $2.6 billion initial public offering, he ranked as the second-highest paid U.S. executive in 2017, according to the Times — $102 million, 97% of that in stock awards. His total compensation that year was 2,000 times that of the average First Data employee, the Times reported.

In announcing his nomination, Trump listed Bisignano’s prior investment banking posts at Morgan Stanley, CitiGroup and JPMorgan Chase & Co. “He has a long career leading financial services institutions through great transformation,” the president-elect wrote.

Bisignano has contributed to both Democrats and Republicans over the course of the last two decades, according to Federal Elections Commissions records assembled by OpenSecrets.org, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group that tracks political spending. Those include contributions to Trump.

In the last election cycle, however, his largest individual contributions include $15,000 to a PAC backing former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who mounted an early primary challenge to Trump’s 2024 bid, and $50,000 to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who also ran against the former president for the GOP nomination. 

Nancy Altman, president of the advocacy group Social Security Works, was skeptical Thursday about Bisignano’s qualifications to operate the program, however.

“I don’t know that he has any background in Social Security or with a large government agency, or a program that sends benefits to 70 million Americans every month,” Altman said.

She suggested that the absence of evidence that he’s proposed drastic changes to Social Security makes it likely he can be confirmed. “But it’s a question who will come in with him who maybe won’t [need to be] confirmed, but will maybe be  calling the shots,” she added.

Social Security is designed so that payroll taxes from the current generation of workers fund the benefits of the previous, now retired, generation. Altman said that it should be viewed not as a kind of savings account but as a form of insurance.

Within the next decade, forecasters have predicted that Social Security’s revenue from payroll taxes will not be enough to fully fund recipients’ benefits, requiring changes to the program.

While that’s led some people — especially younger members of the workforce — to fear the program won’t be around for them when they retire, Altman said those fears have been stoked by opponents hoping to do away with Social Security entirely.

Altman said she’s confident that Congress will reach a solution, but that her organization and other advocates will watch closely and oppose a deal that cuts benefits, raises the retirement age or privatizes the system. Instead, Social Security Works is campaigning for an approach that includes raising the income levels subject to the payroll tax. 

A scene on tariffs from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off in 1986 is getting some extra attention. (Paramount Pictures.)

Fans of the movie, “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off,” will remember the scene. Ben Stein plays a famously boring high school teacher giving a lecture about economics to a room full of teenagers fighting to stay awake. In about a minute, he covers the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and the Laffer Curve, fundamental economic topics, desperately trying to get the students to engage with him.

“Anyone? Anyone…” is the memorable device Stein uses, to no avail, to engage an audience who couldn’t care less.

Some analysts say the economy is the reason voters chose Donald Trump for a second term in last month’s election. His economic plan is rooted in the broad and cavalier use of tariffs on imports from friends and foes alike. Last week, he announced his plan to impose 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico. The announcement prompted a surprise visit from Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and a phone call from Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum.

Meanwhile, the American public, particularly Trump voters, remain in an economic daze much like Ben Stein’s class.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was passed in 1930 in an attempt to thwart the impacts of the Great Depression. It was legislation initially designed to provide relief to the American agriculture sector but became “a means to raise tariffs in all sectors of the economy.” It also marked the end of an entrenched Republican platform of protectionist policymaking during that era. The policies ended because they were…anyone…anyone? Failures.

The details

Ignorance has become a vital asset in the political space these days. Yes, it is an asset in politics, but it is the devil in economics.

As a political asset, there are voters who believe that simply throwing a tariff at any nation they are mad at has nothing but benefits. Mad at Mexico because of migration? Slap them with a tariff and border crossings will go down, right? A good number of voters believe the answer is yes. Though this is almost entirely wrong, politically speaking, that ignorance served the pro-tariff candidate in November.

Economically however, the only real certainty that a 25% tariff on Mexico will have, is a 25% price increase in America. There actually is no disagreement on how tariffs functionally work, but I will refer to PBS for a simple explanation. Importers here pay the tariff, otherwise known as a tax, and remit that payment to the U.S. Treasury. How they pass that increase in costs along may vary a little from merchant to merchant, but ultimately it ends up in the price the American consumer pays.

Yes, a tariff program, in the most basic sense, is government imposed price increases. So, if high prices are the reason why an American voted against the current party in power, voting for higher prices seems, well, ignorant.

Now, does a tariff hurt who the angry American is mad at? Sure. In our example, Mexican goods become less affordable if a tariff is applied to them. In that sense, a tariff can hurt who it is designed to hurt. But that doesn’t change the fact that Americans pay the tariff, not the other country.

Many voters have the perspective that Trump imposed tariffs during his first term, and everything worked out fine. The Associated Press reports, “When Trump first became president in 2017, the federal government collected $34.6 billion in customs, duties and fees. That sum more than doubled under Trump to $70.8 billion in 2019, according to Office of Management and Budget records.” That sounds like a lot of money, until it is put in the context of the current $29.3 trillion gross domestic product.

The tariffs Trump is discussing in 2024 are wildly bigger and are being threatened toward virtually every country. But that’s not the only thing different between 2024 and 2017.

What else is different?

Anyone? Anyone?

The economy that Trump inherited in 2017 is sharply different than the one he will inherit in January. Inflation eight years ago was low and had been for a long time. Interest rates were also low and had been for a long time. The 2016 election wasn’t about inflation, and those rather small tariffs weren’t either. But times have changed.

For the life of me, I cannot find any credible theory as to how raising prices on imported goods will have the effect of lowering prices. I’ve written that sentence six times, and I know it reads like gibberish, but I just can’t help it.

Simply put, tariffs raise prices. After a bout with historic global inflation, consumers are exhausted with high prices. We can all agree with that part.

But there is a word for thinking that raising prices will actually lower them.

Anyone? Anyone?

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on Facebook and X.

Tesla’s billionaire CEO Elon Musk and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy have been tapped by President-elect Donald Trump to head the so-called “Department of Government Efficiency,” or DOGE for short. If it rings a bell, that’s because DOGE is a backronym referencing the Doge meme and Dogecoin cryptocurrency, both famously associated with Musk.

While it won’t function as an executive department, DOGE will be an advisory body expected to have significant influence on federal spending and operations. That’ll supposedly happen sometime after Trump takes office in January. When it does, it seems that Ramaswamy plans to investigate a big government loan to Rivian for a factory in Georgia. That’s only one of several programs now coming under scrutiny.

Rivian’s Georgia Factory Loan Under the Microscope

Rivian announced plans to build the factory back in 2021. Since then, it’s faced several roadblocks including opposition from some neighbors. In May of this year, it delayed plans for the plant after initially saying it would begin construction in 2024. Then, in October it said it was seeking a loan to start the work. In November, the Biden administration approved a $6.6 billion dollar loan to the automaker.

Notably, the loan comes from the Department of Energy, which provides financing to all sorts of private businesses. One of its mandates is to promote technological innovation and no doubt, this is the type of loan that could do that. Certainly, it also spurs on the creation of jobs and cleaner energy. That doesn’t mean that the deal doesn’t warrant scrutiny though.

More: Rivian And VW Are Teaming Up To Reinvent The New Electric Golf Mk9

“Biden is forking over $6.6B to EV-maker Rivian to build a Georgia plant they’ve already halted. One ‘justification’ is the 7,500 jobs it creates, but that implies a cost of $880k/job which is insane. This smells more like a political shot across the bow at @elonmusk & @Tesla,” Ramaswamy said in a post on X.

The politician went on to say, in a separate post, that “We are acutely aware of the reality that the outgoing Biden administration is pushing out $$ and proposing new regulations at a fast pace to get ahead of Jan 20. All midnight-hour expenditures & new regulations will get special scrutiny and should be rescinded where appropriate.”

Tesla’s Past Loan and Musk’s Potential Role

How much power and influence Musk will hold over any investigation of other EV brands is unknown at this time. It’s worth noting that Tesla also accepted a federal loan in 2010. The amount of that loan was $465 million and the brand paid it back almost ten years ahead of schedule. 

Typically, government loans for large production facilities like this can result in positive outcomes. As Fortune points out in its coverage, plants like this tend to bring other economic boosts to an area as tier I and II suppliers move in to fill the need of the automaker. If Rivian can post a profit in the fourth quarter, it could make this new loan look more lucrative to everyone involved.