Gov. Tony Evers celebrates "historic" tax cuts in the last state budget. Schools are still facing austerity. Photo via Gov. Evers' Facebook page

As Republicans in Congress struggle to deliver President Donald Trump’s massive cuts to Medicaid, food assistance, education, health research and just about every other social good you can think of, in order to clear the way for trillions of dollars in tax cuts to the richest people in the U.S., here in Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers and state lawmakers are working on the next state budget.

The one thing our Democratic governor and Republican legislative leaders seem to agree on is that we need a tax cut.

After throwing away more than 600 items in Evers’ budget proposal, GOP leggies now say they can’t move forward with their own budget plan until  Evers makes good on his promise to meet with them and negotiate the terms for the tax-cutting that both sides agree they want to do. Evers has expressed optimism that the budget will be done on time this summer, and said the tax cuts need to be part of the budget, not a separate, stand-alone bill. Evers wants a more progressive tax system, with cuts targeted to lower-income people. In the last budget, he opposed expanding the second-lowest tax bracket, which would have offered the same benefits to higher earners as the lower middle class.

But what if we don’t need a tax cut at all?

It has long been an article of faith in the Republican Party that tax cuts are a miracle cure for everything. Trickle-down economics is  a proven failure:  The wealthy and corporations tend to bank their tax cuts rather than injecting the extra money into the economy, as tax-cutters say they will. The benefits of the 2017 tax cuts that Congress is struggling to extend went exclusively to corporations and the very wealthy and failed to trickle down on the rest of us. 

 In the second Trump administration, we are in new territory when it comes to tax cutting. The administration and its enablers are hell-bent on destroying everything from the Department of Education to critical health research to food stamps and Medicaid in order to finance massive tax breaks for the very rich. 

If ever there were a good time to reexamine the tax-cutting reflex, it’s now.

Evers has said he is not willing to consider the Republicans’ stand-alone tax-cut legislation, and that, instead, tax cuts should be part of the state budget. That makes sense, since new projections show lower-than-expected tax revenue even without a cut, and state budget-writers have a lot to consider as we brace for the dire effects of federal budget cuts. The least our leaders can do is not blindly give away cash without even assessing future liabilities.

But beyond that, we need to reconsider the knee-jerk idea that we are burdened with excessive taxes and regulations, that our state would be better off if we cut investments in our schools and universities, our roads and bridges, our clean environment, museums, libraries and other shared spaces and stopped keeping a floor under poor kids by providing basic food and health care assistance. 

Wisconsin Republicans like to tout the list of states produced annually by the Tax Foundation promoting “business friendly” environments that reduce corporate taxes, including Wyoming, South Dakota, Alaska and Florida. They also like to bring up ALEC’s “Rich States, Poor States” report that gave top billing last year to Utah, Idaho and Arizona for low taxes and deregulation. 

What they don’t track when they lift up those states are pollution, low wages and bankrupt public school systems. 

I’m old enough to remember when it was headline news that whole families in the U.S. were living in their cars, when homelessness was a new term, coined during the administration of Ronald Reagan, the father of bogus trickle-down economics and massive cuts to services for the poor. 

Somehow, we got used to the idea that urban parts of the richest nation on Earth resemble the poorest developing countries, with human misery and massive wealth existing side by side in our live-and-let-die economy.

Wisconsin, thanks to its progressive history, managed to remain a less unequal state, with top public schools and a great university system, as well as a clean, beautiful environment and well-maintained infrastructure. But here, too, we have been getting used to our slide to the bottom of the list of states, thanks in large part to the damage done by former Republican Gov. Scott Walker. 

We now rank 44th in the nation for investment in our once-great universities, and the austerity that’s been imposed on higher education is taking a toll across the state. Our consistently highly rated public schools have suffered from a decade and a half of budget cuts that don’t allow districts to keep pace with inflation, and recent state budgets have not made up the gap. 

Now threats to Medicaid, Head Start, AmeriCorps, our excellent library system, UW-Madison research and environmental protections do not bode well for Wisconsin’s future.

In the face of brutal federal cuts, we need to recommit to our shared interest in investing in a decent society, and figure out how to preserve what’s great about our state.

Tax cuts do not make the top of the list of priorities.

In a move that could reshape the future of clean transportation policy in the U.S., Senate Republicans just voted to strip California of its long-standing authority to set its own vehicle emissions rules, including blocking its plan to stop sales of gas-powered vehicles.

The decision targets California’s ambitious clean-air mandates, which critics say are too aggressive for the current market to handle. Supporters of the state’s standards, however, argue that this vote undermines state rights and sets a troubling precedent for federal overreach.

More: Major US Dealers Launch War On New EV Sales Model

California has long set its own rules regarding air pollution standards. These included regulations on heavy-duty trucks, trains, and cars. It had even declared that it wouldn’t allow the sale of gas-powered new cars and trucks after 2035. But that authority was just revoked using the Congressional Review Act, or CRA.

This happened despite warnings from two nonpartisan agencies, the Senate parliamentarian and the Government Accountability Office, both of which warned the Senate that this move was likely illegal. Nevertheless, the Senate voted 51 to 44 to overturn the waiver that grants California the power it had to set its own rules.

A Shift With National Consequences

This is a huge move because California, by itself, equates to the fourth-largest economy on the globe. Automakers have largely followed California’s guidance on emissions to keep selling cars there. Several states have also taken up the same standards. Now, all of that is in question as Donald Trump’s signature will axe the waiver for good.

Reacting to the news, California Governor Gavin Newsom said, “The United States Senate has a choice: cede American car-industry dominance to China and clog the lungs of our children, or follow decades of precedent and uphold the clean air policies that Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon fought so hard for. Will you side with China or America?”

The Conservative Pushback

Those on the other side of the political aisle obviously have a different view. “California has imposed the most ridiculous car regulations anywhere in the world, with mandates to move to all electric cars,” Trump said during his campaign, reports The Guardian. “I will terminate that.”

“The fact is, these EV sales mandates were never achievable,” John Bozzella, president and chief executive of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, said in a statement. “There’s a significant gap between the marketplace and these EV sales requirements.”

How did the party of small government justify stepping in and imposing its will on a state this way? It says that since California has such a large sway on the auto industry that it was effectively setting Federal policy all along. This move stops that ability and returns that power to the Federal level alone.

“Over the past two decades, California has used its waiver authority to push its extreme climate policies on the rest of the country, which was never the intent of the Clean Air Act,” Senator Shelley Moore Capito, Republican of West Virginia, said to the New York Times.

The Hard Numbers

As we recently pointed out, data does seem to indicate that California’s goals surrounding the end of gas-powered new car sales are too ambitious. While EVs are gaining traction around the world, the U.S. is one of the slowest markets concerning adoption.

No doubt, that’s the result of several factors like distance between destinations, charging infrastructure, and pricing. Regardless of why the uptake is slower, it still makes California’s goals tough to imagine coming true. This new move from the Senate makes it appear altogether impossible now. 

President Donald Trump arrives with Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., for a House Republican meeting at the U.S. Capitol on May 20, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House Republicans who have yet to rally behind the party’s “big, beautiful bill” huddled in the speaker’s office Tuesday as different factions tried to hash out agreement on taxes, Medicaid and a few other outstanding issues.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters before those meetings began there were “a number of loose ends to tie up” with deficit hawks and members from high-tax states, who are pressing to raise the state and local tax deduction, also known as SALT.

“We got some hours ahead of us to work this out, and I’m very confident we will,” Johnson said. “I’m going to have a series of meetings that will begin right now in my office to try to tie up the final loose ends. This is a 1,100-page piece of legislation. We’re down to a few provisions so we are very confident, very optimistic we can get this done and stay on our timetable.”

Johnson hopes to pass the legislation this week, though he didn’t appear to have the votes as of Tuesday afternoon.

Trump pays a House call

The smaller meetings followed a closed-door huddle between all the chamber’s GOP lawmakers and President Donald Trump earlier in the day that didn’t quite have the intended effect of immediately convincing holdouts to vote for the bill.

Trump, however, appeared to declare victory before leaving the Capitol.

“I think we have unbelievable unity. I think we’re going to get everything we want,” Trump said after the morning meeting. “And I think we’re going to have a great victory.”

House Republicans have an extremely thin 220-213 majority, requiring nearly every GOP lawmaker to support the 1,116-page package in order for it to reach the Senate.

Getting SALT-y

The reconciliation bill currently proposes lifting the SALT cap from $10,000 to $30,000 for married couples filing jointly, with a phase-down for those earning $400,000 or more, but that’s not enough for Republicans from states most impacted by the aspect of tax law.

New York Republican Rep. Nick LaLota told reporters in the early afternoon that he would likely lose reelection if he can’t secure a better SALT agreement than what was on the table.

“If I do a bad deal, I would expect my constituents to throw me out,” LaLota said. “If I did a deal at $30,000, my own mother wouldn’t vote for me.”

LaLota said Republicans leaders should prioritize a deal that benefits swing voters to avoid the party losing centrist members and possibly the House majority in the 2026 midterms.

“If we win that one issue, they’ll have a much easier November of 2026. And thus we’ll be able to keep the House and do other fiscally responsible things for the next couple of cycles here, if we get this one issue right,” LaLota said. “Conversely, you get this issue wrong — you vote for a bad bill and you keep the cap low — those folks are getting thrown out of office, we lose the majority, and then we have an open border, then we have an impeached president, and then we have all the other things that America voted against.”

LaLota said later Tuesday, after GOP leaders proposed different SALT cap numbers, that there was still “no accepted deal, yet the parties are talking a little more with an understanding of each other’s position.”

“Leadership understands better what our pain threshold is,” LaLota said. “We clearly rejected the $30,000 number that’s in the Ways and Means bill.” 

He declined to say if the SALT Caucus was prepping a counteroffer for leadership, but said that staff were conducting “some research on some of the mixes of income caps and what SALT cap there would be and how much that would be valued at relative to the entire $4 trillion package.”

‘Bad faith negotiation’

Rep. Mike Lawler, a staunch supporter of raising the SALT cap for his constituents north of New York City, would not comment to reporters outside the speaker’s office about a specific dollar amount but said there’s an “improved offer” on the table.

“We’re waiting on more details. We’ll have more to say later,” Lawler said.

Speaking to Fox News in the hallway, he said, “I’m not going to sacrifice my constituents and throw them under the bus in a bad faith negotiation, which is what this has been by leadership and Jason Smith,” he said referring to the chair of the House Committee on Ways and Means.

“We need to come to an agreement. We need to provide real and lasting tax relief, and that’s what I’m fighting for, for my constituents. I respect the president … but I’ll respectfully disagree,” Lawler said.

Trump urged House Republicans Tuesday morning that raising the SALT cap benefits Democratic governors.

Conservatives still unhappy

Complicating negotiations, some far-right House Republicans remain opposed to the bill, saying it does not go far enough.

Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, who did not support the bill during a committee vote Sunday night, told States Newsroom Tuesday afternoon that his “concerns and problems still exist.”

Roy argues the massive reconciliation deal does not reduce deficit spending enough, particularly with respect to Medicaid and clean energy tax credits.

When asked whether lawmakers were approaching an agreement, Roy said “Not sure. We’re still talking. We’ve had literally like five meetings today already.”

Thune predictions

The House passing the package this week would only be one of many steps in the long, winding process.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said during a press conference Tuesday afternoon, just after Johnson spoke during a closed-door lunch, that changes to the package are expected in the upper chamber.

Thune said one of the major questions for GOP senators is whether the legislation holds “sufficient spending reforms to get us on a more sustainable fiscal path.”

“I think most of our members are in favor of a lot of the tax policy and particularly those portions of the tax policy that are stimulative, that are pro-growth, that will create greater growth in the economy,” Thune said. “But when it comes to the spending side of the equation: This is a unique moment in time and in history where we have the House and the Senate and the White House, and an opportunity to do something meaningful about government spending.”

Thune said that GOP senators would likely make “tweaks” to the tax provisions once the House sends over a package, especially around how long certain tax policy lasts.

“They have cliffs and some shorter-term timeframes when it comes to some of the tax policies,” Thune said. “We believe that permanence is the way to create economic certainty and thereby attract and incentive capital investment in this country that creates those good-paying jobs, and gets our economy growing and expanding, and generates more government revenue.”

In the wake of the US-China trade war, Tesla temporarily halted shipments of parts from China to the US. However, with both countries now agreeing to a 90-day truce and significantly reducing their respective tariffs, Tesla is looking to resume the import of critical components from China. Elon Musk may want to keep this news under wraps from President Trump, though, as his stance on tariffs is far from favorable.

Read: Tesla’s CyberCab Promises 300-Mile Range with Surprisingly Small Battery

An unnamed inside source told Reuters that Tesla will start shipping Cybercab and Semi parts from China at the end of this month. The electric automaker will reportedly start trial production of the Cybercab in October before moving ahead with mass production in 2026. Tesla has grandiose ambitions for the Cybercab and is betting on hundreds of thousands of units being sold in the US, forming the core of its long-awaited robotaxi service.

As the electric car maker gears up for production, many details about the Cybercab remain under wraps. What is known, however, is that the vehicle will be a compact, two-seater, completely eliminating the traditional steering wheel and pedals. Tesla is keeping specifics to a minimum, but early reports suggest the Cybercab will feature a battery pack smaller than 50 kWh, yet still offering an impressive range of approximately 300 miles (483 km).

Progress on the Tesla Semi

Production of the Tesla Semi officially began in late 2022, but progress has been slow. Full-scale production is expected to kick off next year at a new factory adjacent to the existing Gigafactory in Nevada, which will significantly expand Tesla’s production capabilities.

While Elon Musk and President Trump have found common ground on many issues in recent months, tariffs remain a notable point of disagreement. Trump has famously called tariffs “the most beautiful word to me in the dictionary,” yet Musk has long championed free trade. In fact, according to Reuters, he urged Trump to lower tariffs, though he ultimately left the decision in the President’s hands.

One of the unanticipated consequences of the tariffs was their negative impact on domestic production. Tesla’s CFO, Vaibhav Taneja, noted that the tariffs hurt the company’s US investments, as the company had to import equipment from China to expand its local production lines.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday, May 16, 2025, that the Trump administration's attempt to deport a group of Venezuelans under an 18th-century wartime law "does not pass muster." (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday kept in place a block on the Trump administration’s efforts to deport 176 Venezuelans in Northern Texas under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.

A majority of the justices found that President Donald Trump’s administration violated the due process rights of Venezuelans when the administration tried to deport them from North Texas last month by invoking the 18th-century wartime law. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.

“Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster,” according to the decision.

The justices did not determine the legality of the Trump administration using the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans 14 and older with suspected ties to the gang Tren de Aragua.

On his social media platform, Trump expressed his disapproval of the ruling.

“THE SUPREME COURT WON’T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!” he wrote on Truth Social.

The justices found that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals “erred in dismissing the detainees’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction,” and vacated that order, sending the case back.

The Trump administration on Monday asked the high court to remove the injunction, arguing that detaining suspected members of Tren de Aragua poses a threat to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and staff.

In a Wednesday response, the American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the suit, warned that if the Supreme Court lifts its injunction, “most of the putative class members will be removed with little chance to seek judicial review.”

In Friday’s order, the justices noted that because the Trump administration has used the Alien Enemies Act to send migrants to a notorious prison in El Salvador, careful due process is needed.

“The Government has represented elsewhere that it is unable to provide for the return of an individual deported in error to a prison in El Salvador…where it is alleged that detainees face indefinite detention,” according to the order, noting the wrongful deportation of Maryland man Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador.

“The detainees’ interests at stake are accordingly particularly weighty,” the court continued.

Other rulings

On April 18, the ACLU made an emergency application to the high court, asking to bar any removals under the Alien Enemies Act in the Northern District of Texas over concerns that the Trump administration was not following due process.

Several federal judges elsewhere have blocked the use of the wartime law in their districts that cover Colorado, Southern Texas and Southern New York.

A federal judge in Western Pennsylvania Tuesday was the first to uphold the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, but said those accused must have at least three weeks to challenge their removal.

Maryland Democratic U.S. Rep. Glenn Ivey, who represents the district where Kilmar Abrego Garcia and his wife live, led the chant “bring him home” outside the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland shortly before a hearing in Abrego Garcia’s case on Friday, May 16, 2025. (Photo by Ariana Figueroa/States Newsroom)

GREENBELT, MARYLAND — A federal judge said Friday the Trump administration has “pretty broadly” invoked the state secrets privilege to withhold information on its efforts — or, the judge indicated, a possible lack of effort — to return a wrongly deported Maryland man from a prison in El Salvador.

President Donald Trump’s administration moved last month to invoke the so-called state secrets privilege to shield information about its process to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States after a top immigration official admitted his removal to a prison in El Salvador was an “administrative error.”

The judge handling the case, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, granted an expedited discovery process after she found last month that “nothing has been done” by the administration to return Abrego Garcia.

She did not make a public order regarding the state secrets privilege Friday afternoon before closing her courtroom to the public to discuss sensitive matters with attorneys for Abrego Garcia and the Department of Justice.

The state secrets privilege is a common-law doctrine that protects sensitive national security information from being released. The Trump administration has argued the need to invoke it in this case to protect diplomatic relationships.

‘He’ll never walk free in the United States’

During the public portion of Friday’s hearing, Xinis pressed the Department of Justice attorneys about Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s comment that Abrego Garcia “will not return” to the U.S.

“That sounds to me like an admission that your client will not take steps to facilitate the return,” Xinis said. “That’s about as clear as it can get.”

DOJ attorney Jonathan D. Guynn disagreed and said the Trump administration is complying with court orders. He said Noem’s comment meant that if Abrego Garcia was back in U.S. custody he would be removed either to another third country or back to El Salvador.

“He’ll never walk free in the United States,” Guynn said.

He added that the Trump administration is “currently complying and we plan to comply.”

Xinis said she disagreed, and then she clashed with Guynn over the legality of Abrego Garcia’s removal.

Guynn said that he was lawfully deported.

Xinis answered that she found months ago that Abrego Garcia was unlawfully detained and removed from the U.S.

Few documents produced

One of the attorneys for Abrego Garcia, Andrew J. Rossman, said the Trump administration has invoked the state secrets privilege for 1,140 documents relating to the case. From that request, Rossman said his team received 168 documents, but 132 were copies of court filings and requests made by him and his team.

Xinis seemed visibly stunned by Rossman’s report and had to clarify that his team had only received 36 new documents, which Rossman confirmed.

Rossman said that none of the documents for which the government is invoking the state secrets privilege are classified.

“There’s ways to do this right, and they haven’t done it,” he said, noting that he has attorneys on his team who have security clearances and can review classified and sensitive information.

Rossman said that he and his team are seeking answers to three questions: the status of Abrego Garcia, what steps the Trump administration has taken, if any, to facilitate his return, and the steps the federal government will take, if any, to comply with court orders.

Guynn said the Trump administration received an update from El Salvador on Thursday that Abrego Garcia was in “good health” and had “even gained weight.”

The U.S. Supreme Court ordered that the Trump administration must “facilitate” the return of Abrego Garcia.

Rossman, said that it’s “deeply disturbing” that administration officials, including the president, have made public statements that contradict court orders directing the government to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S.

President Donald Trump has said he could easily pick up the phone and order El Salvador to return him but won’t because he believes Abrego Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang.

Noem was pressed at a May 14 congressional hearing about a photo that appears altered to add letters across Abrego Garcia’s knuckles to indicate his inclusion in the gang. She said she was unaware of it.

A federal judge in the District of Columbia, in a separate case regarding Trump’s use of an archaic wartime law for deportations, questioned Department of Justice attorneys on the president’s claim that he could order Abrego Garcia to be returned. The attorney admitted that the president sometimes overstates his influence abroad.

El Salvador prison

Abrego Garcia has had protections from deportation since 2019, but he was one of nearly 300 men on three mid-March removal flights to a notorious prison in El Salvador known as CECOT.

Abrego Garcia has been moved to a lower security prison, according to Maryland Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen, who traveled to the country last month to meet with Abrego Garcia and inquire with Salvadoran officials about why he is being held there.

Those officials said Abrego Garcia was being held because of the agreement between the United States and El Salvador.

The U.S. has a $15 million agreement with El Salvador’s government to house immigrants removed from the U.S., mostly Venezuelans removed under the wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.

The Trump administration has argued that Abrego Garcia is a national of El Salvador and in that country’s custody and the U.S. cannot force another government to return him. 

Hours before Friday’s hearing, dozens of protestors gathered outside the court, calling for Abrego Garcia to be returned to the U.S., as well as criticizing the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. 

U.S. Rep. Glenn Ivey, who represents the area in Maryland where Abrego Garcia and his family live, appeared outside the court and led chants calling for the release of Abrego Garcia from El Salvador.

“The president has to obey the orders of the Supreme Court,” Ivey said. “The Supreme Court has spoken here, and it’s time for him to follow it and bring him home.”

Hundreds gather outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, May 15, 2025, to protest the Trump administration's effort to strip birthright citizenship from the Constitution. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared split Thursday hearing a major case in which the Trump administration defended not only the president’s order to end the constitutional right to birthright citizenship but also its efforts to limit nationwide injunctions.

Though the dispute before the justices relates to the executive order on birthright citizenship that President Donald Trump signed on his Inauguration Day, the Trump administration is asking the high court to focus on the issue of preliminary injunctions granted by lower courts, rather than the constitutionality of the order.

It means that the Supreme Court could potentially limit the power of federal judges in district courts who curtail the president’s authority.

The Trump administration argues that a federal judge granting a nationwide injunction that blocks the federal government from carrying out its policy anywhere in the country is unconstitutional.

The justices had before them three cases with injunctions levied by judges on Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship, from courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state. Under the 14th Amendment, all children born in the United States are considered citizens, regardless of their parents’ legal status.

Trump’s order, originally planned to go into effect Feb. 19, said that children born in the United States would not be automatically guaranteed citizenship if their parents were in the country without legal authorization or if they were on a temporary legal basis such as a work or student visa.

The justices questioned the practicality of a system in which judges can no longer issue nationwide injunctions and the logistics of instead having individuals file their own cases.

Liberal justice Elena Kagan said that would create a chaotic system, and conservative justice Neil Gorsuch said it would produce a “patchwork” of suits and noted how long it takes for a class — a group of affected people — to be put together for a court case.

Nationwide injunctions have stymied Trump’s agenda, but were also frequent during the Joe Biden administration. However, Trump has lashed out at judges who have blocked his actions, which in March prompted a rare response from conservative Chief Justice John Roberts on the importance of an independent judiciary.

‘Stateless’ children

If the Supreme Court, dominated 6-3 by conservatives, decides that nationwide injunctions are not allowed in the birthright citizenship cases, it would temporarily create a patchwork of citizenship rules varying from state to state while the cases are litigated. Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor said it would create a class of stateless people.

“Thousands of children who are going to be born without citizenship papers that could render them stateless in some places because some of their parents’ homes don’t recognize children of their nationals unless those children are born in their countries,” she said.

If birthright citizenship were to be eliminated, 255,000 children born each year would not be granted U.S. citizenship, according to a study by the think tank Migration Policy Institute.

40 injunctions since Jan. 20

Arguing on behalf of the Trump administration, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, in his opening remarks, noted that since Trump took office in January, there have been 40 nationwide injunctions.

“Universal injunctions exceed the judicial power granted in Article III, which exists only to address the injury to the complaining party,” he said, referring to the Constitution. “They transgress the traditional balance of equitable authority, and it creates a host of practical problems.”

Sauer touched on the merits of birthright citizenship, arguing that the 14th Amendment was only meant to grant citizenship to newly freed Black people, and not for immigrants in the country without legal authorization.

“The suggestion that our position on the merits is weak is profoundly mistaken,” Sauer said. “That kind of snap judgment on the merits that was presented in the lower courts is exactly the problem with the issue of racing to issue these nationwide injunctions.”

He said that the Trump administration would follow the high court’s ruling on birthright citizenship.

Sotomayor said that the Supreme Court has ruled four times to uphold birthright citizenship, starting in 1898, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in which the court ruled children born in the U.S. are citizens.

The justice that seemed most inclined to agree with Sauer’s argument was conservative Clarence Thomas, who noted the use of nationwide injunctions began in the 1960s and the U.S. has survived without them.

However, conservative Justice Samuel Alito criticized that district court judges “are vulnerable to an occupational disease, which is the disease of thinking that ‘I am right and I can do whatever I want.’”

Citizenship ‘turned on and off’

New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum, who represented the states that sought an injunction against the birthright citizenship order, laid out how the patchwork of citizenship means that citizenship would be “turned on” and off depending on state lines.

“Since the 14th Amendment, our country has never allowed American citizenship to vary based on the state in which someone resides, because the post-Civil War nation wrote into our Constitution that citizens of the United States and of the states would be one and the same without variation across state lines,” he said.

Immigrant rights’ groups and several pregnant women in Maryland who are not U.S. citizens filed the case in Maryland; four states — Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon — filed the case in Washington state; and 18 Democratic state attorneys general filed the challenge in Massachusetts.

Those 18 states are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. The District of Columbia and the county and city of San Francisco also joined.

Feigenbaum argued that the birthright citizenship case before the justices is the rare instance in which nationwide injunctions are needed because under a patchwork system, a burden would be created for states and local facilities such as hospitals where births occur.

“We genuinely don’t know how this could possibly work on the ground,” he said.

Kelsi Corkran, who argued on behalf of immigrant rights groups, said that the Trump order is “blatantly unlawful,” and that a nationwide injunction against the executive order was warranted.

“It is well settled that preliminary injunctions may benefit non-parties when necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs or when warranted by extraordinary circumstances, both of which are true here,” she said.

Corkran is the Supreme Court director at Georgetown’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection.

Lots of injunctions

The justices seemed frustrated with the frequent use of preliminary injunctions from the lower courts not only in the Trump administration, but others that occurred during the Biden administration.

Kagan noted that during the first Trump administration, suits were filed in the more liberal courts of California, and that during the Biden administration suits were filed in the more conservative courts in Texas.

“There is a big problem that is created by that mechanism,” Kagan said.

She added that it’s led to frequent emergency requests to the high court.

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed, and called it a “bipartisan” issue that has occurred during Republican and Democratic presidencies.

While the justices seemed concerned about the frequent use of nationwide injunctions, they also seemed eager to address the merits of the constitutionality of the birthright citizenship executive order that could potentially impact newborns.

Kavanaugh returned to the question of the logistics of birthright citizenship and how it would even be enforced.    

He pressed Sauer on how hospitals and local governments would implement the policy and if they would be burdened.

“What would states do with a newborn?” Kavanaugh asked, adding that the executive order requires a quick implementation within 30 days.

Sauer said that hospitals wouldn’t have to do anything differently because the executive order directs the federal government to “not accept documents that have the wrong designation of citizenship from people who are subject to the (executive) order.”

Kavanaugh asked how the federal government would know who is subject to the order.

“The federal officials will have to figure that out,” Sauer said.

Any decision on the case will come before the Supreme Court’s July Fourth recess. 

Protesters gather to support Judge Hannah Dugan. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Judge Hannah Dugan appeared at her arraignment Thursday in Milwaukee’s federal court and pleaded not guilty to charges that she helped a man elude federal agents in the Milwaukee County courthouse earlier this year. 

Dugan was arrested in April and was indicted Tuesday by a grand jury on two counts, concealing a person from arrest and obstruction of proceedings. The charges could carry penalties of six years of prison, years of supervision, and at least $350,000 in fines. 

Dugan appeared with three attorneys, and did not comment to reporters after the hearing was over. Attorneys mentioned in court that a small number of video excerpts have been shared with the defense, but discovery is still ongoing. 

Judge Lynn Adelman has been assigned to preside over Dugan’s jury trial, which was set to start on July 21, with a pretrial hearing July 9. Jury selection is expected to be lengthy and complicated. A motions hearing was set in Judge Nancy Joseph’s court on May 30.

Dugan is accused of escorting a man into a public hallway with access to elevators after federal agents arrived outside her courtroom, where the man, a Mexican immigrant, was having a routine hearing in a misdemeanor battery case.

The agents had an administrative warrant for his arrest, which was not signed by a judge and did not give agents the authority to enter the courtroom. While the agents waited in the hallway outside, Dugan directed the man and his attorney out a side door that exited into the same hallway. The agents saw him leave the room and one rode down the elevator with him before he was arrested later on the street. 

Outside the Milwaukee federal courthouse on Thursday, a crowd of about 200 people gathered, including elected officials, activists and local residents showed up early in the morning to support the circuit court judge. Speakers led chants through a microphone on the courthouse steps.

One person at the rally, Erik Fanning, said that the charges against Dugan feel “preposterous,” and argued that a judge would be knowledgeable about what the law would and would not allow her to do in courtroom situations. 

“As many people in this country have found out, the law can be manipulated in order to serve an interest that’s sometimes more powerful than the law, as we’re seeing right now in this country,” Fanning told Wisconsin Examiner. “And so that’s the fear here with me.”

After her arrest, Dugan was suspended by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and protests erupted in Milwaukee County calling for the charges against her to be dropped.

If the case against Dugan succeeds, “That’s a powerful statement,” Fanning said. “That’s a powerful move in this game that they’re playing with our justice system.”

Shortly after Dugan’s arrest, FBI Director Kash Patel posted on social media praising her detention, then deleted the post. 

For Fanning, Dugan’s arrest felt like a “made-for-TV” moment created by the Trump administration. More press attention on Dugan’s arrest and trial validates his own instincts that “this is a watershed moment,” he said.  

“The media should be interested, because it’s a frightening, very important moment,” Fanning said. “Remember who this administration’s leader is. It’s a TV guy. It’s a manipulating the press, and propaganda guy…So everything they do is a TV show.”

A proposal in the U.S. House would allocate $5 billion a year in tax credits for people donating to organizations that provide private and religious school scholarships. (Getty photos)

WASHINGTON — A national school voucher program got a step closer to becoming law Wednesday, as school choice continues to take heat across the United States.

The proposal in the U.S. House would allocate $5 billion a year in tax credits for people donating to organizations that provide private and religious school scholarships and is baked into the Ways and Means Committee’s piece of a massive reconciliation package to fund President Donald Trump’s priorities.

The tax credit provision largely reflects the Educational Choice for Children Act — a sweeping bill that GOP Reps. Adrian Smith of Nebraska, Burgess Owens of Utah and Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana reintroduced in their respective chambers earlier this year.

The tax-writing committee advanced its measure Wednesday in a party-line vote. Republicans are using the complex reconciliation process to move the package through Congress with simple majority votes in each chamber, avoiding the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster, which would otherwise require bipartisanship.

“School choice” is an umbrella term centering on alternative programs to one’s assigned public school. While proponents have argued that school choice programs are necessary for parents dissatisfied with their local public schools, opponents say these efforts drain critical funds and resources from school districts.

At a press conference Wednesday, Rep. Elise Stefanik praised the Educational Choice for Children Act, which she cosponsored in the House.

The New York Republican said the bill is “a transformative piece of legislation that will expand educational opportunities for children across our nation.”

“For too long, students, especially those from underserved communities, have been trapped in failing school systems,” she said, adding that “school choice gives students the opportunity to succeed” and “is the great equalizer.”

$20 billion tax credit over 4 years

The tax panel’s proposal includes a $20 billion total tax credit, which would be made up of a $5 billion tax credit annually between 2026 and 2029. 

The scholarships would be available to students whose household incomes do not exceed 300 percent of the median gross income of their area.

“This is opening the door to the federal government subsidizing a secondary private system of education that gets to pick and choose who it educates and how it educates kids,” Sasha Pudelski, director of advocacy at AASA, The School Superintendents Association, told States Newsroom.

The association helps to ensure every child has access to a high quality public education.

“​​I think it’s really important for folks to understand that we are opening this door for the first time to this kind of subsidy,” Pudelski said.

The provision also comes as Trump has made school choice a major part of his education agenda.

He signed an executive order in January that gave the U.S. secretary of Education two months to offer guidance on how states can use “federal formula funds to support K-12 educational choice initiatives.”

More opposition

Organizations that advocate for students with disabilities, including the National Center for Learning Disabilities, the Council for Exceptional Children, the Center for Learner Equity, and The Arc of the United States, fiercely opposed the bill, highlighting concerns that it is not sufficient in providing enforceable protections for students with disabilities and their families.

In a statement, Jacqueline Rodriguez, CEO of the National Center for Learning Disabilities, said “the guarantee of rights and protections for students with disabilities using these vouchers is disingenuous at best and crooked at worst, without the other critical provisions of IDEA,” or the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

“It is quite possible that families with disabilities will use a voucher under the pretense that their child will have the same rights when in fact they do not,” Rodriguez said. 

The Milwaukee County Courthouse (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Attorneys for Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan filed a motion to dismiss the federal charges against her on Wednesday, arguing the government can’t charge her because she has judicial immunity. 

“This is no ordinary criminal case, and Dugan is no ordinary criminal defendant,” the motion states. “Dugan is a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge. She was arrested and indicted for actions allegedly taken in and in the immediate vicinity of her courtroom, involving a person appearing before her as a party. The government’s prosecution of Judge Dugan is virtually unprecedented and entirely unconstitutional — it violates the Tenth Amendment and fundamental principles of federalism and comity reflected in that amendment and in the very structure of the United States Constitution.” 

The motion states that the problems with the prosecution “are legion,” and begin with her judicial immunity, which prevents judges from being charged with crimes for their official acts. Immunity is not a defense to be used at trial but “is an absolute bar to the prosecution at the outset,” the motion states, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States that found the president can’t be charged with crimes for official acts. 

Dugan has been accused by federal officials of helping an immigrant without legal status in the U.S. escape from federal agents waiting to arrest him outside her courtroom last month. The criminal complaint alleges she directed the man, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, who came to her court for a routine hearing in a misdemeanor case, out a side door to avoid federal agents waiting to arrest him with an administrative warrant. Flores-Ruiz and his lawyer exited the courtroom into the same hallway where the agents were waiting and a DEA agent rode down the elevator with him before he was arrested on the street. 

Trump administration officials have touted the case as an example of a stern federal response to “deranged” judges across the country working to stymie the president’s efforts to increase immigration enforcement. 

Dugan’s motion states the facts alleged in the indictment and criminal complaint against her would be disproven at trial, but that the case should never get that far. 

“Even if (contrary to what the trial evidence would show) Judge Dugan took the actions the complaint alleges, these plainly were judicial acts for which she has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution,” the motion states. “Judges are empowered to maintain control over their courtrooms specifically and the courthouse generally.” 

Dugan’s attorneys also argue that the prosecution violates the Tenth Amendment, which clarifies the balance of power between states and the federal government. The motion states that federal agents going into a state courthouse to arrest a sitting judge is a violation of the Constitution. 

“The government’s prosecution here reaches directly into a state courthouse, disrupting active proceedings, and interferes with the official duties of an elected judge,” the motion states. “The federal government violated Wisconsin’s sovereignty on April 18 when it disrupted Judge Dugan’s courtroom, and it is violating Wisconsin’s sovereignty now with this prosecution. The Court should end the violation of Wisconsin’s sovereignty and dismiss the indictment.” 

Dugan is scheduled to appear in court for her arraignment Thursday morning.

Protesters gather outside of the Milwaukee FBI office to speak out against the arrest of Milwaukee Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan was indicted Tuesday by a federal grand jury on charges of concealing a person from arrest and obstruction of proceedings. 

Dugan has been accused by federal officials of helping an undocumented immigrant escape from federal agents waiting to arrest him outside of her courtroom last month. 

The case has been cited by officials in the administration of President Donald Trump as an example of “deranged” judges working to stymie the administration’s increased immigration enforcement. Critics, including 150 judges of both political parties who wrote a letter to the Department of Justice objecting to Dugan’s arrest, have said the charges against a sitting state judge mark an escalation by the Trump administration trying to make a political point in a weak case to attack the judiciary.

Tuesday’s indictment is a normal procedural step in a criminal case but attorneys said after Dugan’s arrest late last month that it was strange that federal prosecutors hadn’t gotten a grand jury indictment prior to bringing the charges against her. Instead, U.S. attorneys filed a criminal complaint, which publicized the case immediately and allowed Dugan’s attorneys to learn the allegations against her. 

The charges stem from a routine court appearance in April by Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a 30-year-old Mexican immigrant accused of misdemeanor battery. While he was in the courtroom, agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the FBI and DEA arrived with an administrative warrant to arrest Flores-Ruiz. 

That warrant, which was not signed by a judge, did not give agents the authority to enter the courtroom. The agents waited in the hallway outside. Dugan directed Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out a side door of the room that exited into the same hallway. The agents saw him leave the room and one rode down the elevator with him before he was arrested later on the street. 

Dugan has been temporarily removed from her seat on the Milwaukee County Circuit Court by the Wisconsin Supreme Court while the charges are pending, but after the indictment, her attorneys said in a statement she’ll fight the charges. 

“Judge Dugan asserts her innocence and looks forward to being vindicated in court.” 

Dugan is scheduled to appear in court on Thursday morning.

As global carmakers juggle tightening regulations and international trade headaches, the European Union has thrown them a much-needed lifeline. The EU will ease upcoming CO2 emission standards following intense lobbying from major players in the automotive industry.

It’s a significant win for car manufacturers and comes at a time when they’re already dealing with the fallout from US President Trump’s tariffs and the broader effects those have had on global markets and supply chains.

Originally, the EU had proposed that European carmakers reduce their CO2 emissions by 15% by 2025 compared to 2021 levels. Automakers pushed back hard, calling the target unworkable and warning it could result in up to €15 billion (around $16.8 billion) in penalties. Under the current rules, companies must pay €95 (roughly $107) for every gram of CO2 over the limit, multiplied by each car sold—an equation that quickly adds up.

Read: Europe’s Carmakers Hike Gas Car Prices To Push EV Sales Harder Ahead Of New Mandates

Last month, the European Parliament’s executive presented an amendment more to the auto industry’s liking. Rather than basing emissions solely on 2025, it will average them out across 2025, 2026, and 2027. This will give car manufacturers more time to increase production of EVs to offset the ICE-powered models they continue to sell.

Politico reports that 458 members of the European Parliament voted in favor of the change compared to just 101 who voted against it and 14 who abstained. This key amendment will now be put into law.

Changes Couldn’t Come Soon Enough

The reprieve should help European car brands massively at a time when they face fierce competition from new Chinese brands. However, not everyone is pleased with the change.

According to NGO Transport & Environment cars director Lucien Mathieu, local brands will now be able to take their foot off the gas in introducing new and innovative EVs.

“It’s ironic that the EU is delaying emissions targets for the car industry just as EV sales surge,” he said. “The boom is thanks to new, more affordable models that the carmakers launched to comply with the original EU target. This delay will allow the industry to take the foot off the gas for the EV roll-out while also slowing down investments.”

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent prepares to testify before the Senate Finance Committee during his confirmation hearing in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on Jan. 16, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The United States and China agreed Monday to lower steep tit-for-tat tariffs for 90 days, temporarily cooling a trade war but still leaving a cloud of uncertainty over businesses in the world’s two largest economies.

American and Chinese officials announced the pause will go into effect Wednesday, following talks in Geneva, Switzerland, as negotiations on a final deal continue. U.S. markets rallied following the announcement.

U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods will drop to a universal 10% baseline, down from the 145% President Donald Trump imposed last month. Trump’s previous 20% emergency tariffs announced in February on all products because of illicit fentanyl chemicals from China will remain in place, as will protective tariffs on goods still in place from the president’s first term. New duties on small packages sent to the U.S. from China, valued at less than $800, will also remain.

Fentanyl discussion

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Monday that he and Chinese counterparts “had a very robust and highly detailed discussion” on preventing fentanyl and the chemicals to make the synthetic opioid from entering the U.S.

“The upside surprise for me from this weekend was the level of Chinese engagement on the fentanyl crisis in the United States. They brought the deputy minister for public safety,” Bessent said.

Bessent told reporters that overall negotiations were “always respectful.”

“We had the two largest economies in the world. We were firm — and we moved forward … We came with a list of problems that we were trying to solve and I think we did a good job on that,” Bessent said.

The White House touted the 90-day pause as a “landmark deal” in a Monday press release.

China has agreed to lower its tariffs on U.S. goods to 10%, down from 125%, according to a joint statement.

Tariffs are taxes on goods coming across the border. Companies and small businesses that import items from China must pay them to the U.S. government to receive their purchases.

Business reaction unclear

“I see the president’s approach to this as him putting a knife in your back and then pulling it out an inch and calling it a win,” said Alex Duarte, senior economist at the Tax Foundation, a think tank that advocates for lower taxation.

“Depending on the good, the rate could be close to 55%, so the tariffs on China are still pretty high. It’s hard to say how businesses are supposed to react to this because there’s so much uncertainty and the president behaves very erratically,” Duarte told States Newsroom Monday.

States Newsroom spoke to several business owners who were extremely nervous ahead of Trump’s April 2 “liberation day” tariffs. That announcement sent markets plummeting.

Marcus Noland, executive vice president and director of studies at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said in an interview Monday the situation has “gone from OK to apocalyptic to bad.”

“It’s clearly preferable to a tariff that would have essentially ended trade between the two countries, but it’s still significantly more restrictive than where we started the year,” Noland said.

The White House released a statement Monday saying the administration will continue “working toward a rebalancing” of a trade deficit with China. In 2024, the U.S. purchased $295.4 billion more in goods from China than China purchased from the U.S.

“Today’s agreement works toward addressing these imbalances to deliver real, lasting benefits to American workers, farmers, and businesses,” according to the White House press release.

The lobby of the Wisconsin Institutes for Medical Research, where researchers say pauses to federal grants have stifled science. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

Earlier this year, Dr. Avtar Roopra, a professor of neuroscience at UW-Madison, published research that shows a drug typically used to treat arthritis halts brain-damaging seizures in mice that have a condition similar to epilepsy. The treatment could be used to provide relief for a subset of people with epilepsy who don’t get relief from other current treatments.

But even as the culmination of a decade-long project was making headlines as a possible breakthrough for the 50 million people worldwide with epilepsy, Roopra’s research was put on hold because the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under President Donald Trump has stopped reviewing grant requests. 

Now, months after his funding was paused, Roopra says he is facing the choice between cutting corners in experiments to save costs or laying off research staff — which comes with its own loss of years of experience and institutional knowledge. 

“Experiments are being trimmed down,” Roopra says. “So the perfect experiment, which is what every experiment must be, we’re now trying to reanalyze and say, ‘Well, can we get by with less?’ If we do, we’re not going to have the perfect answer, and that’s always a danger.”

Roopra’s lab is currently working on an experiment comparing data from healthy mouse brains to diseased brains and, ideally, he’d have ten of each. But to save costs he now has to use three of each. The result is that the conclusions that can be made from the data are less certain, which only creates more expenses in the long term. 

“What that means is we’ll still get some data, but the confidence we have in our conclusions will be drastically reduced,” he says. “And so any experiments we then decide to do based on that will be on more shaky ground, and experiments further on that will be on even shakier ground. And so you have this propagating knock-on effect, but ultimately, the conclusions you get, they’re going to have to be interpreted cautiously, whereas, if we did the perfect experiment for which we were expecting funds, we would have robust data, robust conclusions. We could move forward, forthright into trials.”

Science is expensive, Roopra says, because results have to be replicated many times. Cutting grant funding, as the Trump administration has done, results in austerity measures at labs and universities. Those budget cuts mean experiments aren’t repeated as many times, which means data isn’t as complete and results in less work reaching the end goal — treatments that improve people’s lives. 

Roopra says that when a patient sees a doctor and is prescribed a drug, that is just the tip of an iceberg, underneath which are the thousands of hours of research and millions of dollars spent at pharmaceutical companies conducting clinical trials and university departments testing theories.

“So it’s actually going to cost everybody more money if we do it this way, because we have to go back,” he says. “And once this moves to clinical trials, which is our goal, if we don’t have the very best, the most solid foundation for doing so, if that trial goes ahead and it fails, it may never be done again. Because trials cost hundreds of millions of dollars, you’ve got to get it right the first time. So that’s what this new normal looks like.”

Roopra’s work is just one research focus in one department on one campus. Wisconsin institutions alone receive about $750 million annually from the NIH. The Medical College of Wisconsin has lost at least $5 million in research grants since Trump took office. 

The cuts affect “every lab, every department, and we’re very biomedical-research centric, but it’s also happening outside of biomedical research,” Dr. Betsy Quinlan, chair of UW-Madison’s neuroscience department, says. “It’s happening in physics and it’s happening in engineering. It’s happening to all research, environmental science.”

Researchers in Wisconsin have had at least $26.8 million in expected grant funding terminated, according to data compiled by Grant Watch, a project to track cuts to grant funding at the NIH and National Science Foundation (NSF). 

“I’ve heard a lot of panic in the community as if the support that the federal government has for science has ended and that science is no longer the priority,” NIH director Jay Bhattacharya said at an event at the Medical College of Wisconsin earlier this month. “One of the reasons I was delighted to be able to come here was to assure people that is not true.”

Nonetheless, among the terminated grants here in Wisconsin are projects to study science misinformation in Black communities, how to engage the public in water stewardship in urban areas such as Milwaukee, the effect of technology on children’s development, the cardiovascular side effects of hormone treatment on transgender men and ways to increase HIV prevention measures among gay men in rural areas. 

“It’s vital that we adopt reforms, real reforms in the research enterprise of this country, so that we depoliticize it, ground it in reality and build a culture of respect for dissent and free speech,” Bhattacharya said.

But discoveries can come from unexpected places, says Quinlan, who warns that the top-down approach to approving research grants that the administration appears to be moving toward will stifle scientific exploration. 

“If the agency says, ‘Here’s a very narrow range of things we will fund,’ it will squash all creativity and real discovery, because real discovery comes when you see something that is unexpected and you follow the unexpected lead,” she says. 

While the cuts to grants are having an immediate impact on research in Wisconsin, there are also concerns about morale among lab staff and a “brain drain” as researchers choose to leave the U.S.  or even abandon science entirely. 

“The biggest problem I think most researchers are facing is the uncertainty and decline in morale that these changes have wrought,” Jo Handelsman, director of the Wisconsin Institute for Discovery, says. “These are extremely real and fairly devastating effects on the research community in terms of what’s already happened, almost every week there’s a wave of NIH termination. No one feels their grant is going to continue for sure. That’s a difficult way to do research.”

For decades, scientists have come from all over the world to work in the U.S. Now cuts to grants and the Trump administration’s harsh immigration policies are changing that. Last week, after decisions from a number of judges, the Trump administration walked back an effort to cancel the visas of 27 students at University of Wisconsin schools. Roopra says those fears hurt research. 

“Every minute that that researcher is worried is a minute they’re not thinking about the science,” says Roopra, whose work has also focused on breast cancer. “And so what it looks like is a continuous, chronic fear, which pushes us to think about maybe looking at other options, which we’d rather not do.”

The Milwaukee County Courthouse (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

A bipartisan group of 150 former federal and state judges criticized the FBI’s arrest of Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan late last month in a letter to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. 

The letter, sent on Monday, takes issue with the way federal officials publicized Dugan’s arrest and used it in an attempt to intimidate the judiciary system across the country.

Dugan was arrested and charged with two federal crimes after she directed Eduardo Flores-Ruiz — a 30-year-old Mexican immigrant who appeared in Dugan’s courtroom on misdemeanor battery charges —  to use a side exit when a group of federal agents came to arrest him as part of an immigration enforcement action. 

Dugan herself was arrested a week after Flores-Ruiz, accused of impeding the federal agents. Trump administration l officials quickly drew attention to Dugan’s arrest outside the court. FBI Director Kash Patel posted about the arrest on X and later posted a photo of Dugan in handcuffs being walked out of the Milwaukee County Courthouse. Bondi appeared on cable news to call judges who resist the Trump administration “deranged.”

bondi-letter

The letter states that if Dugan’s case were an emergency she would have been arrested sooner, and since it wasn’t an emergency she didn’t need to be “perp walked” out of the courthouse. She could have been issued a summons to appear before a federal judge, which is common practice in other white-collar criminal cases, according to the letter. 

“The circumstances of Judge Dugan’s arrest make it clear that it was nothing but an effort to threaten and intimidate the state and federal judiciaries into submitting to the Administration, instead of interpreting the Constitution and laws of the United States,” the letter states. “This cynical effort undermines the rule of law and destroys the trust the American people have in the nation’s judges to administer justice in the courtrooms and in the halls of justice across the land.”

Retired Wisconsin Supreme Court Judge Janine Geske is among the letter’s signers.

From left to right, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth attend a Cabinet meeting at the White House on April 30, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump released a budget request Friday that would dramatically slash some federal spending, the initial step in a monthslong process that will include heated debate on Capitol Hill as both political parties work toward a final government funding agreement.

The proposal, for the first time, details how exactly this administration wants lawmakers to restructure spending across the federal government — steep cuts to domestic appropriations, including the elimination of dozens of programs that carry a long history of bipartisan support, and a significant increase in defense funding.

Trump wants more than 60 programs to be scrapped, some with long histories of assistance to states, including Community Services Block Grants, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, the National Endowment for Democracy, the National Institute on Minority and Health Disparities within the National Institutes of Health, and the Sexual Risk Avoidance and Teen Pregnancy Prevention programs.

Congress will ultimately decide how much funding to provide to federal programs, and while Republicans hold majorities in both chambers, regular funding bills will need Democratic support to move through the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster.

White House budget director Russ Vought wrote in a letter that the request proposes shifting some funding from the federal government to states and local communities.

“Just as the Federal Government has intruded on matters best left to American families, it has intruded on matters best left to the levels of government closest to the people, who understand and respect the needs and desires of their communities far better than the Federal Government ever could,” Vought wrote.

The budget request calls on Congress to cut non-defense accounts by $163 billion to $557 billion, while keeping defense funding flat at $893 billion in the dozen annual appropriations bills.

The proposal assumes the GOP Congress passes the separate reconciliation package that is currently being written in the House, bringing defense funding up to $1.01 trillion, a 13.4% increase, and reducing domestic spending to $601 billion, a 16.6% decrease.

Many domestic cuts

Under Trump’s request many federal departments and agencies would be slated for significant spending reductions, though defense, border security and veterans would be exempt. 

The cuts include:

• Agriculture: – $5 billion, or 18.3%
• Commerce: – $1.7 billion, or 16.5%
• Education: – $12 billion, or 15.3%
• Energy: – $4.7 billion, or 9.4%
• Health and Human Services: – $33 billion, or 26.2%
• Housing and Urban Development: – $33.6 billion, or 43.6%
• Interior: – $5.1 billion, or 30.5%
• Justice: – $2.7 billion, or 7.6%
• Labor: – $4.6 billion, or 34.9%
• State: – $49.1 billion, or 83.7%
• Treasury: – $2.7 billion, or 19%

Increases include:

• Defense: + $113 billion, or 13.4% with reconciliation package
• Homeland Security: + $42.3 billion, or 64.9% with reconciliation package
• Transportation: + $1.5 billion, or 5.8%
• Veterans Affairs: + $5.4 billion, or 4.1%

The budget request also asks Congress to eliminate AmeriCorps, which operates as the Corporation for National and Community Service; the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides some funding to National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service; the Institute of Museum and Library Sciences; and the 400 Years of African American History Commission.

What if Congress won’t act on the cuts?

Debate over the budget proposal will take place throughout the summer months, but will come to a head in September, when Congress must pass some sort of funding bill to avoid a partial government shutdown.

A senior White House official, speaking on background on a call with reporters to discuss details of the budget request, suggested that Trump would take unilateral action to cut funding if Congress doesn’t go along with the request.

“Obviously, we have never taken impoundment off the table, because the president and myself believe that 200 years of the president and executive branch had that ability,” the official said. “But we’re working with Congress to see what they will pass. And I believe that they have an interest in passing cuts.”

The 1974 Impoundment Control Act bars the president from canceling funding approved by Congress without consulting lawmakers via a rescissions request, which the officials said the administration plans to release “soon.”

The annual appropriations process is separate from the reconciliation process that Republicans are using to pass their massive tax cuts, border security, defense funding and spending cuts package.

Huge boost for Homeland Security

The budget proposal aligns with the Trump’s administration’s plans for mass deportations of people without permanent legal status, and would provide the Department of Homeland Security with $42.3 billion, or a 64.9% increase.

The budget proposal suggests eliminating $650 million from a program that reimburses non-governmental organizations and local governments that help with resettling and aiding newly arrived migrants released from DHS custody, known as the Shelters and Services Program.

The Trump administration also seeks to eliminate the agency that handles the care and resettlement of unaccompanied minors within Health and Human Services. The budget proposal recommends getting rid of the Refugee and Unaccompanied Alien Children Programs’ $1.97 billion budget. The budget proposal argues that because of an executive order to suspend refugee resettlement services, there is no need for the programs.

A federal judge from Washington state issued a nationwide injunction, and ruled the Trump administration must continue refugee resettlement services.

The budget proposal also calls for axing programs that help newly arrived migrant children or students for whom English is not a first language.

For the Education Department, the budget proposal suggests eliminating $890 million in funding for the English Language Acquisition and $428 million for the Migrant Education and Special Programs for Migrant Students.

Key GOP senator rejects defense request

Members of Congress had mixed reactions to the budget request, with some GOP lawmakers praising its spending cuts, while others took issue with the defense budget.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., outright rejected the defense funding level, writing in a statement that relying on the reconciliation package to get military spending above $1 trillion was unacceptable. 

“OMB is not requesting a trillion-dollar budget. It is requesting a budget of $892.6 billion, which is a cut in real terms. This budget would decrease President Trump’s military options and his negotiating leverage,” Wicker wrote. “We face an Axis of Aggressors led by the Chinese Communist Party, who have already started a trade war rather than negotiate in good faith. We need a real Peace Through Strength agenda to ensure Xi Jinping does not launch a military war against us in Asia, beyond his existing military support to the Russians, the Iranians, Hamas, and the Houthis.”

The senior White House official who spoke on a call with reporters to discuss details of the budget request said that splitting the defense increase between the regular Pentagon spending bill and the reconciliation package was a more “durable” proposal.

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, wrote the panel will have “an aggressive hearing schedule to learn more about the President’s proposal and assess funding needs for the coming year.”

“This request has come to Congress late, and key details still remain outstanding,” Collins wrote. “Based on my initial review, however, I have serious objections to the proposed freeze in our defense funding given the security challenges we face and to the proposed funding cuts to – and in some cases elimination of – programs like LIHEAP, TRIO, and those that support biomedical research. 

“Ultimately, it is Congress that holds the power of the purse.”

Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash., wrote in a statement she will work with others in Congress to block the domestic funding cuts from taking effect.

“Trump wants to rip away funding to safeguard Americans’ health, protect our environment, and to help rural communities and our farmers thrive. This president wants to turn our country’s back on Tribes—and let trash pile up at our national parks,” Murray wrote. “Trump is even proposing to cut investments to prevent violent crime, go after drug traffickers, and tackle the opioids and mental health crises.”

A press release from Murray’s office noted the budget request lacked details on certain programs, including Head Start.

House Speaker Mike Johnson R-La, praised the budget proposal in a statement and pledged that House GOP lawmakers are “ready to work alongside President Trump to implement a responsible budget that puts America first.”

“President Trump’s plan ensures every federal taxpayer dollar spent is used to serve the American people, not a bloated bureaucracy or partisan pet projects,” Johnson wrote.

Spending decisions coming

The House and Senate Appropriations committees are set to begin hearings with Cabinet secretaries and agency heads next week, where Trump administration officials will explain their individual funding requests and answer lawmakers’ questions.

The members on those committees will ultimately write the dozen annual appropriations bills in the months ahead, determining funding levels and policy for numerous programs, including those at the departments of Agriculture, Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Interior, Justice, State and Transportation.

The House panel’s bills will skew more toward Republican funding levels and priorities, though the Senate committee has a long history of writing broadly bipartisan bills. 

The leaders of the two committees — House Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., House ranking member Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., Senate Chairwoman Collins and Senate ranking member Murray — will ultimately work out a final deal later in the year alongside congressional leaders.

Differences over the full-year bills are supposed to be solved before the start of the new fiscal year on Oct. 1, but members of Congress regularly rely on a stopgap spending bill through mid-December to give themselves more time to complete negotiations.

Failure to pass some sort of government funding measure, either a stopgap bill or all 12 full-year spending bills, before the funding deadline, would lead to a partial government shutdown.

This round of appropriations bills will be the first debated during Trump’s second-term presidency and will likely bring about considerable disagreement over the unilateral actions the administration has already taken to freeze or cancel federal spending, many of which are the subject of lawsuits arguing the president doesn’t have that impoundment authority. 

Protesters gather to march in Milwaukee on May Day, voicing opposition to President Donald Trump's policies. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

A massive May Day protest stretched along multiple city blocks in Milwaukee, as marchers walked from the South Side to Zeidler Union Square Park in downtown. The annual protest brought union organizers, immigrant rights advocates, Indigenous community activists, students from across Wisconsin and other members of the public together to make a stand against the policies of President Donald Trump.

Despite rainy weather, hundreds of participants turned out for Milwaukee’s May Day march, with another protest planned in Madison on Friday. Prior to the march, the morning began with prayers and words from community leaders. Mark Denning, a member of the Oneida Nation, said to the crowd on Thursday that “all prayer goes to the same place” and that “all creation stories are true.” Denning said, “as we stand here together under this sheltering sky that’s giving us this beautiful rain…I want to share that your ancestors are forever. Your future is forever.” 

“Natives stand as a lesson to each and every one of you that the injustices of the past cannot be the injustices of the future,” said Denning, calling himself “a remnant of the wars that have been done on my people” and the May Day marchers “a remnant of the wars that must be corrected.” Denning went on to tell the crowd “you are now of this place! You are now of this land, and of these waters! And you will not be denied because this is where your children will be born and have a future!” The crowd cheered in response.

Although the May 1 march for immigrant workers’ rights is an annual tradition in Milwaukee, this year brought with it a new sense of fear buffered by local determination. Waves of arrests have swept communities nationwide, populating social media feeds with images of immigrants and  international students detained by masked, plain-clothes federal agents.

In Milwaukee, local advocates recently learned that agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have been paying visits to the homes of sponsors of unaccompanied immigrant minors, causing fear of possible deportations. After ICE raids at the Milwaukee County Courthouse provoked outrage, Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested and accused of obstructing federal agents who arrived outside her courtroom to arrest a man appearing for a hearing. Protests erupted the weekend after Dugan was arrested, building momentum leading up to the May Day march.

Milwaukee marchers  joined a larger network of groups organizing May Day protests in at least 32 states. Rain showers came and went as the marchers traversed the city. People of all ages came out, including  high school students and their young siblings and grey-haired elders. Different sections of the march had different chants and atmospheres. Palestinian flags waved in the breeze alongside American flags (some of which were upside down), Mexican flags, LGBTQ+ flags, and numerous other banners. Milwaukee police officers escorted the demonstration on motorcycles and bicycles, while unmarked surveillance vans patrolled  the perimeter. 

Within an hour, the marchers arrived at Zeidler Union Square Park in the downtown area. Gathering around a central pavilion, the crowd listened to Christine Neumann-Ortiz, executive director of Voces de la Frontera, who said people had come from as far away as Arcadia in Trempealeau County to be part of the event. “We know that when we unite we are stronger, and we can achieve what seems impossible,” said Neumann-Ortiz.

Speakers called for the charges to be dropped against Dugan, for ICE to stay out of local courts, for constitutional rights to be defended and for people to take a stand against fear. Missy Zombor, president of the Milwaukee Public School Board, said that the school district is ready to honor and fight for the ideals and sense of hope that her own grandparents sought when they immigrated to America. 

Zombor said that the school district will honor its safe haven resolution. “Our schools are and will always be safe havens for children,” she said, “regardless of their background, their immigration status, their identity, or their circumstance.” The Milwaukee Public School District, Zombor said, is strengthened by the diverse languages, cultures and backgrounds of  the student body, which includes many student activists. “Our schools are going to continue to promote a curriculum that gives students the knowledge and power to question the world in a way that helps students uproot the causes of racism and inequality,” said Zombor. “Our schools are going to teach the next generation of change-makers.” 

Former Milwaukee judge Jim Gramling Jr. called Dugan’s arrest “a very unfortunate and very dangerous thing.” Gramling said that the unusual, public arrest of a judge at the courthouse “was clearly designed to intimidate other judges and those who seek justice in our courts.” He added  that federal authorities had a week to invite Dugan into the U.S. Attorney’s Office to discuss the case. Instead, Gramling said, “they wanted a public display to embarrass her, to humiliate her, and to intimidate others in the justice system from resolving immigration matters.” 

Gramling stressed that judges need to be free of pressure from outside influences, so that they can decide cases based on the facts before them. “And yet we have a president who’s threatening the firing of judges, because of decisions that he doesn’t like,” said Gramling. “And now we have a judge treated like a common criminal by that president’s agents.” Dugan is a long-time and respected member of the community, Gramling said, having served in  leadership roles at local non-profits  and that she doesn’t deserve what’s happened to her. 

Milwaukee student activists also spoke, saying that student voices should not be stifled, and that free speech means little when young people fear retaliation. The students called for Milwaukee police officers to be taken out of Milwaukee Public Schools. Removing school resources officers was a decision made by the school board after years of student organizing. But the state Legislature has demanded that Milwaukee return police to schools as a condition of state aid.  

Immigration operations add a new layer of fear for students who already dread the return of school resource officers. Milwaukee police have a standard operating procedure which limits the department’s  involvement in immigration matters, stating that “proactive immigration enforcement by local police can be detrimental to our mission and policing philosophy when doing so deters some individuals from participating in their civic obligation to assist the police.” 

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) students joined the May Day march, denouncing ICE and encouraging people to stand in solidarity with immigrants. “Don’t let fear imprison you in the shadows,” one student said from the stage. “Join us. We will keep each other safe.”

Since Elon Musk aligned himself with President Donald Trump and began cutting funding and jobs through the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), attacks and protests targeting Tesla have surged. Earlier this week, another Tesla vehicle was hit, and by Wednesday, the accused suspect had already been indicted by a federal grand jury.

On Monday, Ian William Moses was accused of starting a fire at a Tesla dealership n Mesa, Arizona. According to federal prosecutors, Moses placed fire-starter logs near the building, soaked them in gasoline, and sparked a blaze that damaged the showroom and destroyed a Cybertruck parked outside.

Read: Cybertruck Owner’s Nazi Salutes Destroy His Business Overnight After Brutal Yelp Firestorm

Security footage reportedly caught someone in a black mask, hooded sweatshirt, and baseball cap near the scene. About 90 minutes later, local police arrested Moses, who was allegedly wearing the same outfit. Authorities say he also had a hand-drawn map of the dealership in his pocket, which sounds like something out of a low-budget spy movie, minus the intrigue.

He’s now been charged with five counts of maliciously damaging property and vehicles in interstate commerce by means of fire. Each count carries a fine of up to $250,000 and a prison term between five and 20 years.

“There is nothing American about burning down someone else’s business because you disagree with them politically,” US Attorney Timothy Couchaine said in the case. “These ongoing attacks against Tesla are not protests, they are acts of violence that have no place in Arizona or anywhere else. If someone targets Tesla with violence, they will be found and confronted with the full force of the law.”

This indictment comes less than a month after U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi issued a public warning to would-be attackers of Tesla facilities or vehicles: “We will arrest you, we will prosecute you, and we will not negotiate. Crimes have consequences.”

Photos DOJ

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers said Friday that every American should be concerned about “chilling” suggestions from President Donald Trump’s top border adviser that he could be arrested over guidance the Democrat issued to state employees about what to do if confronted by federal immigration agents.

“I’m not afraid,” Evers said in the extraordinary video posted on YouTube. “I’ve never once been discouraged from doing the right thing and I will not start today.”

At issue is guidance Evers’ administration issued last month in response to state workers who asked what they should do if agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement show up at their offices.

Evers’ guidance advised them to contact an attorney immediately and ask the officers to return if an attorney is unavailable. The memo also advises state workers not to turn over paper files or give ICE officers access to computers without first consulting the state agency’s attorney and not to answer questions from the agents.

The recommendations are similar to guidance that Connecticut’s Democratic governor issued in January. The guidelines also mirror what the National Immigration Law Center and other advocacy groups have said should be done when immigration officials show up at a workplace.

Republican critics argued that the guidance was an order from Evers not to cooperate with ICE agents, an accusation the governor vehemently denied in Friday’s video. The goal of the guidance was to give state employees “clear, consistent instructions” to ensure they have a lawyer present to help them comply with all applicable laws, Evers said.

He accused Republicans of lying about the guidance and spreading misinformation to fuel a “fake controversy of their own creation.”

“I haven’t broken the law,” Evers said. “I haven’t committed a crime and I’ve never encouraged or directed anyone to break any laws or commit any crimes.”

Tom Homan, Trump’s top border adviser, was asked about the Evers memo by reporters outside the White House on Thursday. Homan said, “Wait to see what’s coming,” when asked about the memo.

“You cannot support what we’re doing, and you can support sanctuary cities if that’s what you want to do, but if you cross that line to impediment or knowingly harboring and concealing an illegal alien, that’s a felony and we’re treating it as such,” Homan said.

Some Republicans embraced the possibility of Evers being arrested. Republican Wisconsin state Rep. Calvin Callahan posted a fake image on social media showing Trump in a police uniform behind a grim-faced Evers in handcuffs outside of the state Capitol.

The comments from Homan and Evers’ response come a week after Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested at the courthouse on two felony charges. She is accused of helping a man evade immigration authorities by escorting him and his attorney out of her courtroom through the jury door last week after learning that federal officers were seeking his arrest.

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

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers says he’s ‘not afraid’ after Trump official suggests possible arrest 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.

Mike Waltz, national security adviser, looks at his phone as he prepares for a TV interview at the White House on May 01, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Mike Waltz, a former Florida congressman who became known for sharing U.S. plans to strike Yemen on a Signal group chat, was out as White House national security adviser on Thursday.

President Donald Trump announced he will instead nominate Waltz to be the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, a position that requires U.S. Senate confirmation.

“From his time in uniform on the battlefield, in Congress and, as my National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz has worked hard to put our Nation’s Interests first. I know he will do the same in his new role,” Trump wrote on his social media site, Truth Social.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a former U.S. senator from Florida, will step into the role of national security adviser, according to Trump.

“Together, we will continue to fight tirelessly to Make America, and the World, SAFE AGAIN. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” the president wrote.

Strikes on Houthi rebels

Waltz’s apparent ouster from the National Security Council occurred five weeks after what became known as Signalgate.

The Atlantic magazine’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, revealed Waltz had invited him, presumably by mistake, to a group chat of high-level officials that included Vice President J.D. Vance, discussing specific plans for strikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other Cabinet members denied that any classified information was shared in the chat on the commercially available app Signal, prompting Goldberg to release the chat transcript that detailed specific times and locations of the military strikes ahead of their scheduled launch.

In the group chat on March 15, Waltz wrote “amazing job,” minutes after missiles landed, followed by emojis for a fist, an American flag and fire, according to Goldberg, who watched the Signal group messages in real time minutes before news of U.S. bombs in Yemen became public.

The New York Times has since revealed that Hegseth shared details about the same Yemen strikes in a separate Signal group chat that included his wife, brother and personal lawyer. Hegseth has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.

When contacted for details surrounding Waltz’s departure from the NSC, the White House directed States Newsroom to the president’s Truth Social account.

Senate confirmation votes ahead

Waltz will now face hearings and votes before senators for a post that Trump originally designated for New York U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik. Stefanik withdrew from the running to remain among the House Republican ranks as insurance against the party’s razor-thin margin.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, the top Democrat on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, characterized Waltz’s exit as an “abrupt dismissal” that is “further proof of the chaos and incompetence that has reigned over President Trump’s White House and national security team during his first 100 days in office.”

“The stunning amount of turnover of senior staff at both the National Security Council and at the Pentagon is alarming. Purges of senior military officers, mass firings of top career officials for perceived political disloyalty and the illegal dismantling of America’s foreign policy institutions only hurts our security and signals weakness to our foes,” Shaheen, of New Hampshire, said in a statement Thursday, while calling for accountability for those sharing information on unsecured channels.

Shaheen further added, “We should remember that it was Secretary Hegseth who initially shared this material and did so a second time with his family. He too must be held accountable.”