(The Center Square) – The co-chairs of Wisconsin’s Joint Legislative Audit Committee announced there will be a public hearing at 1 p.m. on Wednesday at the state capitol about two audits on the costs of diversity, equity and inclusion programs…
Wisconsin Watch, a nonprofit newsroom that uses journalism to make the communities of Wisconsin strong, informed and connected, seeks a regional editor to launch and lead our northeast Wisconsin bureau — covering Green Bay, Appleton, the Fox Valley and surrounding region.
This position is ideal for someone who believes that local news should be built for people who most need information to navigate their lives and engage with their communities. The right candidate will be a mission-driven, collaborative leader with a track record of producing journalism that investigates problems, explores solutions and serves the public.
Insights from community listening efforts and partnerships with other Wisconsin news organizations, built upon years of collaboration, will help the editor direct the high-impact, responsive coverage that residents deserve.
Wisconsin Watch aims to strengthen the quality of community life and self-government in Wisconsin by providing people with the knowledge they need to navigate their lives, drive forward solutions and hold those with power accountable. We pursue the truth through accurate, fair, independent, rigorous, nonpartisan reporting. We share our stories freely and collaborate with other news organizations that share our independent, nonpartisan, truth-seeking values.
Why northeast Wisconsin?
In our broader efforts to strengthen the local news ecosystem, Wisconsin Watch is launching a bureau that will serve key information and accountability needs of northeast Wisconsin residents. The bureau will build upon the success of the NEW News Lab, a collaborative launched in 2021 that provides technology support, capacity building and funding to boost local journalism and newsrooms in the region. The collaboration’s five other partners include: WPR, FoxValley365, The Post-Crescent, Green Bay Press-Gazette and The Press Times. The University of Wisconsin-Green Bay’s Journalism Department is an educational partner.
Job duties
The editor will:
Work with the managing editor and director of partnerships for northeast Wisconsin to establish and grow Wisconsin Watch’s presence in the region, playing a key role in attracting and retaining talented journalists to staff the bureau.
Work with the director of partnerships for northeast Wisconsin and community ambassadors to understand community information and accountability needs, ensuring that residents’ perspectives shape the bureau’s coverage. This will include helping to identify strategies for meeting folks’ most important news and information needs and for “meeting those audiences where they are” in terms of information levels, preferred formats and distribution channels.
Recruit, lead and edit reporters, overseeing the production of stories that will appear on Wisconsin Watch platforms and be distributed to news outlets across Wisconsin and the country. This may include occasional editing of reporters outside of the region when applicable.
Collaborate with journalists at for-profit and nonprofit news organizations in Wisconsin and across the nation.
Represent Wisconsin Watch at community events, developingrelationships with readers and supporters to ensure we stay embedded and connected in the communities we serve.
Help launch a paid citizen observer team to watch and take notes at public meetings and hearings not covered by journalists.
Required qualifications: The ideal candidate will bring a public service mindset and a demonstrated commitment to nonpartisan journalism ethics, including a commitment to abide by Wisconsin Watch’s ethics policies.
More specifically, we’re looking for a newsroom leader who:
Has at least five years of experience in public affairs journalism, including demonstrated experience in newsroom leadership — such as managing direct reports, mentoring early-career journalists or managing projects.
Is familiar with various waysnewsrooms can inform the public — from narrative investigations and features to Q&As and “how-to” explainers to visual stories, interactive graphics and social videos.
Has demonstrated experience collaborating across and/or outside of an organization.
Has experience in WordPress or similar content management systems.
Bonus skills:
Has familiarity with northeast Wisconsin, its history and its politics.
Has experience setting strategic priorities and vision.
Can communicate in multiple languages, particularly Spanish.
Location: This editor will be located in northeast Wisconsin.
Salary and benefits: The salary range is $65,000-$80,000. Final offer amounts will carefully consider multiple factors, and higher compensation may be available for someone with advanced skills and/or experience. Wisconsin Watch offers competitive benefits, including generous vacation (five weeks), a retirement fund contribution, paid sick days, paid family and caregiver leave, subsidized medical and dental premiums, vision coverage, and more.
Deadline: Applications will be accepted until the position is filled. For best consideration, apply by May 6, 2025.
To apply: Please submit a PDF of your resume, work samples and answer some brief questions in this application form. If you’d like to chat about the job before applying, contact Managing Editor Jim Malewitz at jmalewitz@wisconsinwatch.org.
Wisconsin Watch is dedicated to improving our newsroom by better reflecting the people we cover. We are committed to diversity and building an inclusive environment for people of all backgrounds and ages. We are an equal-opportunity employer and prohibit discrimination and harassment of any kind. All employment decisions are made without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, age, or any other status protected under applicable law.
The bipartisan legislation is currently being circulated for sponsorship. It would establish a two-year pilot program to offer kindergarten readiness educational opportunities at child care centers in Wisconsin.
With the UW-Madison’s diversity, equity and inclusion programs under fire and its chief diversity officer position vacant, the university has created a new position: special advisor to the chancellor and provost.
Astrophysicist Adam Frank is terrified for our future. He believes the climate crisis will wipe out much of humanity unless we take drastic steps to curb its impact. But he also says there’s an emerging scientific worldview that can help lead us out of this mess.
In 2023, state lawmakers created three workforce housing programs they said would boost house construction around Wisconsin. They didn’t work as well as legislators hoped.
The center is expected to cost $419 million, and will consist of a 395,000-square-foot facility. School leaders say it will allow them to accept an extra 1,000 engineering students each year.
U.S. marketed natural gas production remained relatively flat in 2024, growing by less than 0.4 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) compared with 2023 to average 113 Bcf/d, according to our latest Natural Gas Monthly. Production growth in the Permian was offset by declining production in the Haynesville and relatively flat production in Appalachia.
By now, we’ve all heard about the Artificial Intelligence (AI) surge that is going to demand unprecedented amounts of energy. Even the International...
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments at the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse on April 17, 2025, over the White House denying The Associated Press journalists from certain spaces open to other journalists. (U.S. General Services Administration photo)
WASHINGTON — The Associated Press and the Trump administration faced tough questioning in court Thursday as the White House fights to block a lower court order mandating officials stop denying the wire outlet entry to spaces where other journalists are permitted.
A three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia grilled the parties at length on how the First Amendment applies to journalists in the Oval Office and other areas, and whether the president can decide which journalists follow him in the press pool and exclude others based on their viewpoint.
The case, playing out at the district court level as well, tests decades of established press access for the AP in the White House, which was curtailed after President Donald Trump declared the term “Gulf of America” should be used rather than “Gulf of Mexico.”
District Judge Trevor McFadden sided with the AP on April 8 on the grounds that the Trump administration violated the wire service’s First Amendment rights when it publicly retaliated against the agency for an editorial decision to continue using “Gulf of Mexico” in its reporting and influential stylebook.
Oval Office not for ‘silent retreat’
Before the appeals court Thursday, Eric D. McArthur, representing the government, argued against McFadden’s “unprecedented” preliminary injunction, saying it interferes with the president’s “autonomy” in “highly restricted spaces.”
Pointing out the AP was not demanding access “when the president wants to concentrate on his writing and his work,” Judge Corenlia Pillard said “it’s a little confusing to me when you say a place of ‘autonomy.’”
“You make the Oval sound like a place of silent retreat,” said Pillard, who was appointed to the appeals bench during President Barack Obama’s second term.
Pillard also highlighted the expectation of privacy is different for people in “high public office.”
“There’s already a dozen people in there, so he’s agreed to have a press pool,” she said during McArthur’s roughly 45-minute questioning.
The administration argued in its emergency appeal to block the ruling that Trump will be “irreparably injured” if the higher court doesn’t stay the lower court order while it adjudicates the case.
Officials also countered that the First Amendment protects the president’s right to choose which journalists enter the Oval Office, Air Force One or Mar-a-Lago based on the content of their coverage.
Where’s the distinction?
Charles Tobin, attorney for the AP, argued that the White House has “brazenly excluded” AP reporters and photographers from opportunities open to other journalists.
McFadden “appropriately and very narrowly tailored” his injunction, Tobin said. The lower judge ruled that, under the First Amendment, once the White House opens doors for all journalists to spaces including the Oval Office and East Room, it cannot then exclude them based on viewpoint.
McFadden explicitly wrote his ruling does not mandate journalists be given access to the president or that the president cannot choose which outlets to grant exclusive interviews.
Judge Neomi Rao said, “the AP concedes he could choose journalists based on viewpoint for exclusive interviews.”
“When you’re talking about 10 or 12 journalists in the Oval or on his plane or in his home at Mar-a-Lago, what is the distinction?” asked Rao, who was appointed during Trump’s first presidency.
Tobin replied that the pool is a system that invites numerous journalists to participate on a rotating basis.
“That’s exactly where the distinction lies,” he said.
Private invitations allowable
Judge Gregory Katsas presented other scenarios when the president could invite only “supportive” members of the public and press, for example in the Cabinet room for a policy rollout.
Tobin argued if the event is open to all press members, the president cannot discriminate based on viewpoint.
“Once you have a system of rotation, that’s when the viewpoint becomes anathema,” Tobin replied.
What if the president “tapped (certain reporters) on the shoulder” and invited only them into the Oval Office, asked Katsas, who was appointed during Trump’s first term.
Tobin replied the president could handpick reporters for a private interview in the Oval Office, as long as it wasn’t an event open to the wider press pool.
“This seems awfully close to what’s happening here,” Katsas said.
Wire position axed
On Wednesday the White House announced a new media policy placing restrictions on all wire services’ access to the Oval Office and other spaces. Other wire services include Bloomberg and AFP.
Despite McFadden’s court order, the White House on Monday denied entry to an AP reporter and photographer to an Oval Office press conference between Trump and El Salvador President Nayib Bukele.
The AP filed a motion in district court Wednesday requesting McFadden to enforce his preliminary injunction.
McFadden has scheduled a hearing for Friday.
The White House began denying the AP entry to the Oval Office, East Room and other places on Feb. 11.
Trump’s press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, announced in late February that White House officials would take over pool rotation decisions from the White House Correspondents Association, a member organization that has self-governed journalist rotations and briefing seats placement since the Eisenhower administration.
Mural depicting workers painted on windows of the Madison-Kipp Corp. by Goodman Community Center students and Madison-Kipp employees with Dane Arts Mural Arts. (Photo by Erik Gunn /Wisconsin Examiner)
The economic uncertainty that has sent the stock market and consumer confidence plummeting in the last month hasn’t yet affected employment in Wisconsin, according to the state’s chief economist.
Wisconsin’s job numbers reached another record high in March, and unemployment, although up slightly, is still close to an all-time low, the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) reported Thursday.
Uncertainty over the impact of tariffs imposed by the Trump administration has contributed to falling consumer confidence as well as business confidence, said Dennis Winters, DWD’s chief economist. So far that hasn’t affected the state’s job market, however, he said.
Based on a monthly federal survey of employers, DWD projected Wisconsin had 3.055 million nonfarm jobs in March — an increase of 10,000 from February and 15,000 from a year ago.
From a separate household survey, the department projected Wisconsin’s March unemployment rate at 3.2%. That’s even with February, but a slight increase from the 2.9% calculated for March of 2024.
The job growth was greatest in service industries, which added more than 21,000 jobs over the last 12 months.
Manufacturing jobs have fallen by 7,000 since March 2024 — all of that in durable goods. Winters said that reflects longstanding challenges in the sector more than specific recent developments.
Prisoners look out of their cell as Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem tours the Terrorist Confinement Center, or CECOT, on March 26, 2025 in Tecoluca, El Salvador. (Photo by Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images)
U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen said Thursday that soldiers blocked him from entering a notorious mega-prison in El Salvador where the erroneously deported Maryland resident Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia has been held for more than a month.
The Maryland Democrat arrived in the Central American country Wednesday in an effort to help bring Abrego Garcia, whom the Justice Department admitted in court was deported in error, back to the United States, or at least check on his wellness. He met with El Salvador Vice President Félix Ulloa that day, who denied his requests to either visit or speak on the phone with Abrego Garcia.
Van Hollen told reporters Thursday afternoon that he again tried to make contact with Abrego Garcia that morning.
A U.S. immigration judge issued a protective order in 2019 finding that sending Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran citizen, back to his home country would put him in grave danger.
Accompanied by Chris Newman — the lawyer for Abrego Garcia’s wife and his mother — Van Hollen said they tried to enter Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT, but soldiers stopped them at a checkpoint about three kilometers from the prison.
“We were told by the soldiers that they’d been ordered not to allow us to proceed any further than that point,” Van Hollen said.
Van Hollen said that since Abrego Garcia was sent to CECOT, he has not spoken with anyone outside of the prison walls, and “this inability to communicate with his lawyers is a violation of international law.”
“That covenant says, and I quote, ‘A detained or imprisoned person shall be entitled to communicate and consult with his legal counsel,’” he said.
Van Hollen also said he met with the U.S. Embassy in El Salvador and they discussed “the full range of important bilateral relations between the United States and El Salvador.”
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt and other Republicans have criticized Van Hollen for making the trip, repeating the accusation that Abrego Garcia is a gang member.
Representatives for the White House and DHS did not respond to messages seeking comment Thursday.
Appeals court slams administration’s inaction
Meanwhile, Abrego Garcia’s case continues to work its way through U.S. courts as a flashpoint conflict between two branches of government that has led to the precipice of a constitutional crisis.
On Thursday, a federal appeals court panel dismantled the administration’s latest appeal, saying the government had done “essentially nothing” to attempt to return Abrego Garcia in compliance with last week’s Supreme Court order.
A three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit said the executive branch was due deference in conducting foreign policy, but that the administration’s inaction in seeking Abrego Garcia’s return amounted to defiance of a judicial order.
The unanimous ruling was written by Fourth Circuit Chief Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, who was nominated by Republican President Ronald Reagan. The other two judges, Robert Bruce King and Stephanie Thacker, were nominated by Democratic presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
“The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done,” the panel wrote. “This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.”
The appeals ruling responded to the government’s appeal of U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis’ order this week for the Trump administration to offer evidence on how it has sought to help with Abrego Garcia’s release from CECOT.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that the Trump administration must “facilitate” — but stopped short of requiring — his return to the United States.
In unusually frank language, the Fourth Circuit panel warned Thursday the conflict between the executive and judicial branches threatened the foundation of U.S. government.
“If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home?” the court asked. “And what assurance shall there be that the Executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies? The threat, even if not the actuality, would always be present.”
Near the end of the order, the panel urged the administration to obey the judicial branch.
“We yet cling to the hope that it is not naïve to believe our good brethren in the Executive Branch perceive the rule of law as vital to the American ethos,” the judges wrote. “This case presents their unique chance to vindicate that value and to summon the best that is within us while there is still time.”
Neither country taking action
The Fourth Circuit panel pointed out that the leaders of both the United States and El Salvador claimed they had no power to return Abrego Garcia.
“We are told that neither government has the power to act,” they wrote. “The result will be to leave matters generally and Abrego Garcia specifically in an interminable limbo without recourse to law of any sort.”
During a White House visit this week, El Salvador President Nayib Bukele said he would not bring Abrego Garcia back to the United States.
The Trump administration has admitted in court that Abrego Garcia’s deportation stemmed from an “administrative error.” The administration continues to accuse him of being part of the gang MS-13, despite no charges or convictions of any criminal offenses against him, including gang-related crimes.
The U.S. Supreme Court is pictured Oct. 9, 2024. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court announced Thursday it will hear oral arguments next month over President Donald Trump’s efforts to restructure birthright citizenship, though the justices won’t decide on the merits of the case just yet.
Instead, they will choose whether to leave in place nationwide injunctions from lower courts that so far have blocked the Trump administration from implementing the executive order.
The oral arguments, scheduled for May 15, will likely provide the first indication of whether any of the nine justices are interested in revisiting the Court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 following the Civil War.
The amendment states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The Supreme Court ruled in 1898 in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that the 14th Amendment guarantees any child born in the United States is entitled to U.S. citizenship, even if their parents are not citizens.
Trump disagrees with that ruling and signed an executive order on his first day in office seeking to change which babies born in the United States become citizens. If that order were implemented, babies whose parents were “unlawfully present in the United States” or whose parents’ presence “was lawful but temporary” would not be eligible for citizenship.
Several organizations and Democratic attorneys general filed lawsuits seeking to block the executive order, leading to nationwide injunctions against its implementation.
Last month, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene in the lower court’s nationwide injunctions, limiting them to the organizations and states that filed suit.
The three cases are Trump v. State of Washington, Trump v. CASA, Inc. and Trump v. State of New Jersey.
Legislation
Nationwide injunctions by lower court judges have become an issue for Republicans in Congress as well as the Trump administration.
Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley introduced a bill in Congress that would bar federal district court judges from being able to implement nationwide injunctions.
“We all have to agree to give up the universal injunction as a weapon against policies we disagree with,” Grassley said during a hearing earlier this month. “The damage it causes to the judicial system and to our democracy is too great.”
Wisconsin Elections Commissioner Robert Spindell arrives at Milwaukee Central Count with Sen. Ron Johnson (Photo | Isiah Holmes)
Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) Chair Ann Jacobs said at a meeting Thursday that the body is still investigating how the City of Madison lost nearly 200 ballots during the 2024 presidential election.
The city of Madison announced in late December that 193 unprocessed absentee ballots had been found in the weeks following the election. The discovered ballots weren’t enough to sway the results of any contests, but WEC began an investigation into the error to determine what caused it and how similar mistakes can be prevented in future elections.
On Thursday, Jacobs said that she and Republican commissioner Don Millis had already taken depositions of former Madison city clerk Maribeth Witzel-Behl and members of her staff but that there was more work to be done and depositions to conduct with employees of Madison and Dane County. She added that those other interviews were delayed until after the April 1 election.
Witzel-Behl, who had already been on administrative leave during the spring elections, resigned from her position as Madison city clerk earlier this week after nearly two decades in the role during which time she oversaw more than 60 elections.
Jacobs said the investigation has already highlighted ways the state can improve its absentee ballot processes.
“On a positive note, I do think the information we’re learning from the work we’ve done so far will help inform some best practices for tracking absentee ballots, making sure all absentee ballots are counted timely, and as we move to amend our manuals and update them … I really do think that what we’ve learned is going to help us do a better job there on some of that absentee ballot processing,” she said.
After the update on the investigation, Republican commissioner Robert Spindell began remarks that devolved into a shouting match with Jacobs.
Spindell began by noting how long Witzel-Behl had been the Madison clerk.
“I think it’s fine that we’re doing this investigation of the city of Madison, or the misplacement of some [193] ballots and then not properly following through when they were found,” he said. “But I do want to commend the Madison clerk for her 20-plus years service.”
Spindell then transitioned into what he said he believes is a “more serious problem” — some Milwaukee polling places running out of ballots during the April 1 election. On Election Day earlier this month, seven polling sites ran out of ballots, causing city officials to scramble to replenish supplies. The delay caused long lines to form at some polls.
City election officials said they generally determine how many ballots to print and distribute to poll locations by assessing voter turnout in previous similar elections. But this year Wisconsin and Milwaukee broke turnout records for a spring election.
A former member of the Milwaukee Elections Commission who previously sparked controversy when he celebrated and took credit for the low turnout among Black voters in the 2022 midterm elections, Spindell has often been extremely critical of the administration of Milwaukee’s elections.
Republicans have often attacked Milwaukee’s election administration, resulting in frequent, baseless accusations that the city’s election results are fraudulent.
Before Spindell could finish his statement, Jacobs banged her gavel, saying she was ruling his comment out of order, but Spindell just got louder and continued.
Wisconsin open meetings law requires that if a government body such as the elections commission is going to discuss an issue at a meeting, it must have been properly listed on the meeting’s announced agenda.
“I am not going to let you keep going,” Jacobs said. “I’m going to talk over you until you stop. You must stop. You are out of order, and I will eject you from this meeting. Do you understand the words I am saying? They are simple. You are out of order. The City of Milwaukee is not on this agenda. You do not get to hijack the agenda. You are not the chair. When you are chair you get to put things on the agenda, it’s not on the agenda.”
Even though most of what he said was inaudible, Spindell ended by saying “I’ve said what I needed to say.”
During the meeting, the commission also approved the design for a mailer that will be sent to voters who haven’t voted in four years to ask if they still live at the addresses listed in their voter registrations and informing them they risk having their registrations deactivated. The commissioners also received an update on an audit to determine if any people currently serving felony sentences voted in recent elections and moved forward an administrative rule that would keep the home addresses of judicial candidates off public elections paperwork.
Solar panels in Damariscotta, Maine. (Photo by Evan Houk/ Maine Morning Star)
WASHINGTON — The legal battle over a Biden-era climate program ramped up late Wednesday when an appeals court halted a federal judge’s ruling requiring the disbursement of those funds.
The ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will keep funds frozen in Citibank accounts while a federal suit over the program is ongoing.
The appeals court order reversed a preliminary injunction that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan of the District of Columbia issued Tuesday that temporarily barred the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from “unlawfully suspending or terminating” grant awards.
The appeals panel said it had not had access to Chutkan’s opinion explaining her order granting an injunction — which came a day after the order itself — and the trial judge had therefore not met the high bar needed to issue a preliminary injunction. The panel’s order “should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits,” the judges said.
“The purpose of this order is to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the district court’s forthcoming opinion in support of its order granting a preliminary injunction together with” the government’s appeal, the judges wrote.
Chutkan issued her opinion the day after granting the preliminary injunction, pointing out that “for weeks, despite repeated inquiries to Citibank and EPA, Plaintiffs received little to no communication from EPA or Citibank regarding their inability to access their funds.”
“Overnight, billions of dollars appropriated by Congress were frozen. As a result, nationwide projects were halted, workplans were disrupted, and millions of dollars in approved transactions with committed partners could not be disbursed,” she wrote.
On Thursday, the D.C. Circuit panel asked the government to refile its argument responding to Chutkan’s opinion by 5 p.m. Eastern on Saturday.
Fight over funding
Climate United Fund and other organizations sued President Donald Trump’s administration and Citibank in March over money frozen in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.
The $27 billion initiative, which provides funding to organizations building for energy-efficient projects and other measures to tackle climate change, was authorized by Congress as part of the Inflation Reduction Act that Democrats passed along party lines and President Joe Biden signed into law in 2022.
Chutkan’s order blocked the administration from “directly or indirectly impeding” Citibank or causing the bank to “deny, obstruct, delay, or otherwise limit access to funds in accounts established in connection with” the organizations’ grants.
The Trump administration quickly challenged that ruling Wednesday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The higher court temporarily blocked Chutkan’s decision “pending further order.”
The appeals court’s ruling halts Chutkan’s preliminary injunction to the extent that it “enables or requires Citibank to release, disburse, transfer, otherwise move, or allow access to funds.”
The higher court also prevented the Trump administration from having to file a status report with the district court within 24 hours of the preliminary injunction’s entry that confirmed their compliance, as outlined in Chutkan’s ruling.
The appeals court also ordered that “no party take any action, directly or indirectly, with regard to the disputed contracts, grants, awards or funds.”
The EPA said in March it would be terminating $20 billion in grants under the program, and the agency’s administrator Lee Zeldin described the climate initiative as a “gold bar” scheme.
Climate United Fund did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday, and the EPA declined to comment.
Login
www.thecentersquare.com - RSS Results in wisconsin of type article
WPR
