The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 9, 2024. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court said Monday it will allow, for now, the Trump administration to terminate temporary protections for a group of 350,000 Venezuelans, striking down a lower court’s order that blocked the process.

The order still means the group of Venezuelans on Temporary Protected Status — a designation given to nationals from countries deemed too dangerous to return to remain in the U.S. — will be able to continue to challenge in court the end of their work permits and the possibility of removal. But they no longer have protections from deportation. 

No justices signed onto the ruling, which is typical in cases brought before the high court on an emergency basis, but liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted she would have denied the request.

TPS status for that group of Venezuelans — a portion of Venezuelans living in the United States, not all of them — was set to end on April 7 under a move by the Trump administration.

But U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California in March blocked Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s decision to vacate an extension of TPS protections that had been put in place by the Biden administration until October 2026.

The case is now before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Chen, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, blocked the Trump administration from removing protections for that group of Venezuelans on the basis that Noem’s actions were “arbitrary and capricious,” and potentially motivated by racism.

“Acting on the basis of a negative group stereotype and generalizing such stereotype to the entire group is the classic example of racism,” Chen wrote in his order.

Noem cited gang activity as her reason for not extending TPS for the group of 350,000 Venezuelans, who came to the United States in 2023.

A second group of 250,000 Venezuelans who were granted TPS in 2021 will have their work and deportation protections expire in September. Chen’s order did not apply to the second group of Venezuelans.

Those with TPS have deportation protections and are allowed to work and live in the United States for 18 months, unless extended by the DHS secretary.

Democrats criticized Monday’s decision, including Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet.

“Ending protections for Venezuelans fleeing Maduro’s regime is cruel, short-sighted, and destabilizing,” he wrote on social media.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, Democrat of Washington state, wrote on social media that Venezuelans “face extreme oppression, arbitrary detention, extrajudicial killings, and torture — the exact type of situation that requires our government to provide TPS.”

Monday’s order is one of several immigration-related emergency requests from the Trump administration before the Supreme Court.

Last week, the high court heard oral arguments that stemmed from an executive order signed by President Donald Trump to end the constitutional right to birthright citizenship.

And justices in a separate case, again, denied the Trump administration from resuming the deportations of Venezuelans under an 18th-century wartime law known as the Alien Enemies Act. 

The U.S. House will begin debate in committee this week on a bill that would cut Medicaid spending. (Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republicans plan to debate and approve the three final pieces of their “big, beautiful bill” in committee this week, including the tax measure, major spending cuts to Medicaid that will change how states run the program and an agriculture bill.

At least $880 billion over the next 10 years would be slashed under the piece of the bill that covers energy and health care, including from Medicaid. Republicans would add new Medicaid work requirements for some able-bodied adults; seek to penalize the dozen states that allow immigrants living in the U.S. without legal status in the program; and require states to more frequently check Medicaid enrollees’ eligibility, among other changes.

An estimate was not yet available for exactly how much that would save in Medicaid spending or how many people enrolled might lose coverage. Earlier projections of various other scenarios by the Congressional Budget Office had placed the numbers of displaced enrollees in the millions, and Democrats predicted the same effect from the newest plan.

House panels have already signed off on eight of the 11 bills that will make up the sweeping reconciliation legislation. And if all goes according to plan, that chamber should approve the entire package before the end of the month.

Debate is expected to begin Tuesday in each of the panels and last hours, possibly into Wednesday. Democrats will offer dozens of amendments seeking to change the bills and highlighting their disagreement with GOP policy goals.

Internal Republican disputes between centrists and far-right lawmakers over numerous tax proposals and funding changes to Medicaid will also likely lead to debate on GOP amendments.

With paper-thin majorities in the House and Senate, nearly every Republican needs to support the overall package for it to move through both chambers and to President Donald Trump.

If Republicans fail to reach agreement during the next couple months, it would put nearly every aspect of their agenda in jeopardy. GOP leaders would also need to negotiate a bipartisan debt limit agreement before the August recess, should the reconciliation package fall apart, since they plan to include debt limit language as well.

GOP divided over Medicaid cuts

Kentucky Republican Rep. Brett Guthrie, chairman of the committee that oversees energy and Medicaid, wrote in a statement last week announcing the markup that his panel’s measure would “end wasteful government spending, unleash American energy and innovation, and strengthen Medicaid for mothers, children, individuals with disabilities, and the elderly.”

But the bill released this weekend might not have support from far-right members in the House and seems to be running into opposition from some GOP senators as well. 

Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy, of the hard right, wrote on social media that he hoped “House & Senate leadership are coming up with a backup plan…. ….. because I’m not here to rack up an additional $20 trillion in debt over 10 years or to subsidize healthy, able-bodied adults, corrupt blue states, and monopoly hospital ceos…”

Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley, who has voiced concern for months about potential cuts to Medicaid, wrote an op-ed published in The New York Times on Monday highly critical of a “contingent of corporatist Republicans” who support lower federal spending on the program.”

“This wing of the party wants Republicans to build our big, beautiful bill around slashing health insurance for the working poor,” Hawley wrote. “But that argument is both morally wrong and politically suicidal.”

The entire House package will be open to amendment if the legislation makes it to the Senate, where several GOP lawmakers are expected to rework or even eliminate entire sections.

Work requirements

The Energy and Commerce Committee’s bill is the one that would cut federal spending by at least $880 billion during the next decade including on Medicaid, the state-federal health program for lower income people.

The legislation would institute work requirements nationwide for able-bodied adults between the ages of 19 and 65, with several exceptions, including for pregnant people, enrollees with certain disabilities or serious medical conditions, and parents of dependent children.

People not exempted from the requirements would need to work, engage in community service, or enroll in an education program for at least 80 hours a month.

A staffer on the panel told reporters during a background briefing Monday that Republicans tried to learn from challenges certain states had in the past when they implemented work requirements.

After discussions with current and former state Medicaid directors, the staffer said the committee wrote a bill that they are confident “states will be able to implement effectively.”

The work requirements take into account various unexpected circumstances, like if someone were to be hit by a bus and unable to complete the 80-hours-per-month requirement on time because they were hospitalized, the staffer said.

“We did try to be very thoughtful about any kind of circumstance that could happen,” they said.

Immigrant coverage, eligibility checks

The Medicaid legislation also seeks to encourage states who include undocumented immigrants in their program to stop doing so or lose some federal funding.

The federal government currently pays 90% of the cost of covering enrollees who are eligible for Medicaid under the 2010 Affordable Care Act expansion. That would decrease to 80% for the expanded population if states choose to keep covering undocumented immigrants.

The committee staffer said this would impact California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington states if they don’t change their policies regarding undocumented immigrants.

Additionally, states would need to check eligibility for all of their Medicaid enrollees every six months, instead of once a year for the expanded population. This likely would lead to some people being kicked out of the program.

Committee staff members were unable to share exactly how each of the Medicaid provisions would affect the federal budget or how many people could lose access to the program if Congress were to implement the legislation as written.

But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office wrote in a letter Monday that it estimates the Energy and Commerce Committee met its target of cutting at least $880 billion in spending “over the 2025-2034 period and would not increase on-budget deficits in any year after 2034.”

Staff on the committee said they don’t expect to have the full CBO score before the markup begins Tuesday and didn’t have an estimate for when that information will be out.

Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone, D-N.J., wrote in a statement the GOP bill would lead to millions of people losing access to Medicaid.

“This is not trimming fat from around the edges, it’s cutting to the bone,” Pallone wrote. “The overwhelming majority of the savings in this bill will come from taking health care away from millions of Americans. No where in the bill are they cutting ‘waste, fraud, and abuse’—they’re cutting people’s health care and using that money to give tax breaks to billionaires.”

Repealing clean-energy funds

The Republican proposal would repeal more than a dozen sections of Democrats’ 2022 reconciliation law related to energy and environment programs.

The law, known as the Inflation Reduction Act, included hundreds of billions in tax credits for renewable energy and energy-efficiency measures. It was considered the largest investment by the United States in tackling climate change.

The House bill would repeal sections including the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which helps finance clean-energy projects, and a $40 billion Department of Energy loan program meant to stimulate production of clean-energy infrastructure.

Sections targeting carbon emissions, air pollution, offshore wind transmission, and other programs would also rescind any unspent funds for those purposes appropriated in the Biden-era law.

The measure would allow pipeline builders to pay fees to bypass environmental review. Natural gas pipelines could pay $10 million to access an expedited approval process and liquified natural gas exports could pay $1 million for the Energy Department to deem them “in the public interest.”

Rep. Kathy Castor, the ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Energy Subcommittee, said the proposal would sabotage efforts to drive down prices for consumers.

“Cleaner, cheaper energy for consumers gets left behind,” the Florida Democrat wrote in a statement. “Dismantling our landmark Inflation Reduction Act will kill jobs, hurt businesses, and drive-up Americans’ energy costs.”

Tax cuts

The Ways and Means Committee released its 28-page starter bill late last week and the full 389-page version Monday afternoon, but Republicans on the panel could add to it during the Tuesday markup.

House GOP tax writers propose making permanent the underlying 2017 tax law provisions while temporarily expanding several of them, including the child tax credit and standard deduction.

The child tax credit would increase to $2,500, up from $2,000, until 2028. The refundable amount of the tax credit per child — meaning how much taxpayers could get back — would now reach up to $1,400. Taxpayers claiming the credit would now have to provide a Social Security number, as well as the SSN of a spouse.

The standard deduction for single and married joint filers would temporarily increase until 2029 up to $2,000, depending on filing status.

Trump’s campaign promises, including no tax on tips, also made it into the proposal, though only until 2028. Those claiming the tax break on tips will also need to provide a Social Security number as well as the SSN of their spouse, if married.

Trump’s promise to eliminate taxes on car loan interest, also set to expire in 2028, would not apply to any vehicle that was not finally assembled in the U.S.

Tax writers increased but ultimately left a cap on the amount of state and local taxes, commonly referred to as SALT, that households can deduct, an incredibly contentious issue for lawmakers with constituents in high tax areas like New York and California. GOP lawmakers increased the SALT cap to $30,000, up from $10,000.

That level, however, might not have the support needed among Republicans’ extremely thin majorities and will likely lead to heated debate during markup, or on the floor.

Republicans from higher-tax states have repeatedly said they will not vote for the entire package unless they feel their constituents will benefit from raising the SALT cap.

The dispute has spilled over several times already, including in a statement last week from four New York Republicans, who wrote, “The Speaker and the House Ways and Means Committee unilaterally proposed a flat $30,000 SALT cap — an amount they already knew would fall short of earning our support.”

“It’s not just insulting—it risks derailing President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill,” they wrote. “New Yorkers already send far more to Washington than we get back—unlike many so-called ‘low-tax’ states that depend heavily on federal largesse.

“A higher SALT cap isn’t a luxury. It’s a matter of fairness.”

New York Republican Rep. Nick LaLota wrote on social media Monday afternoon: “Still a hell no.”

How much the tax proposal will cost has not yet been released, but government deficit watchdogs estimated a wholesale extension of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, without the enhancements, would cost north of $4 trillion over the next decade.

Erica York, vice president of federal tax policy at the Tax Foundation, said the proposal provides some certainty to individual taxpayers but it also adds complexity in many areas.

“You can clearly see the thinking here was probably just a straight-up extension (of the 2017 law), people wouldn’t feel like they got a tax cut because it’s just continuing. So they had to do something to make it feel like there’s a larger tax cut,” York said.

Ag cuts remain a mystery

The House Agriculture Committee, led by Pennsylvania Republican Glenn ‘GT’ Thompson, hadn’t released its bill as of Monday afternoon but was scheduled to begin the markup on Tuesday evening.

That panel is supposed to cut at least $230 billion in federal spending during the next decade, some of which will likely come from reworking elements of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

Committee leaders are also planning to include elements of the much overdue farm bill, though those provisions could run into issues in the Senate if they don’t have a significant impact on federal revenue or spending.

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. 

Reconciliation measures must address federal revenue, spending, or the debt limit in a way not deemed “merely incidental” by the Senate parliamentarian. That means the GOP proposals must carry some sort of price tag and cannot focus simply on changing federal policy.

Jacob Fischler and Ashley Murray contributed to this report.

U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden receives the endorsement of the Wisconsin Farm Bureau. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden says he’s working on a proposal that would alter two current work authorization programs to make it easier for businesses including farms and hotels to hire immigrant workers. 

Van Orden, who sits on the House agriculture committee, told the news outlet NOTUS that he’s working with Trump administration officials on a proposal to alter the H-2A and H-2B visa programs. Both programs currently provide temporary work visas for people working seasonally. 

The H-2A program, which is targeted at seasonal farm labor, has frustrated Wisconsin dairy farmers because year-round workers, including in dairy, are not eligible for the program. Immigrant workers comprise an estimated 70% of the labor force on Wisconsin dairy farms. 

“Rocks are heavy. Trees are made of wood. Gravity is real. There’s 20 million illegal aliens here that have been floating agriculture, hospitality and construction for decades, and we need their labor,” Van Orden told NOTUS.

Van Orden said the proposal is in line with the Trump administration’s increased immigration enforcement efforts because it doesn’t offer a pathway to citizenship or encourage an increase in unauthorized crossings of the border while making it easier for people to come to the U.S. to work. 

“That’s why people come here illegally, because it’s so hard to come here legally,” Van Orden said. “We’re all working towards the goal of making sure that our economy can maintain its relevancy.”

White House Border Czar Tom Homan talks with reporters on the driveway outside the White House West Wing on March 17, 2025. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — White House border czar Tom Homan on Monday blamed the parents of U.S. citizen children the Trump administration sent to Honduras over the weekend.

At a Monday morning press conference, Homan defended the government’s actions to remove three young children from two different families alongside their mothers who were in the country without legal authorization but participated in a program that allows otherwise law-abiding migrants to stay in their communities.

“If you enter this country illegally, it’s a crime,” Homan said. “Knowing you’re in this country illegally, you put yourself in that position. You put your family in that position.”

The children, all under the age of 10, were placed on deportation flights to Honduras on Friday after their mothers checked in with a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in New Orleans as part of the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program, which allows immigrants to stay in their communities while undergoing immigration court proceedings.

An attorney for one of the children, Gracie Willis at the National Immigration Project, said the 4-year-old U.S. citizen with Stage 4 cancer was deported without access to his medication.

Homan has argued the mothers requested to be deported with their children, but attorneys for the families argue they were “denied access to legal counsel, and swiftly deported without due process.”

Due process concerns

U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty, whom Trump appointed to a seat on the Louisiana federal bench in 2018, expressed concern that a 2-year-old U.S. citizen had been deported, despite her father’s wishes she remain in the U.S., according to court filings.

Doughty scheduled a May 16 hearing because of his “strong suspicion that the government just deported a U.S. citizen with no meaningful process.”

“The government contends that this is all okay because the mother wishes that the child be deported with her,” Doughty wrote in his order. “But the court doesn’t know that.”

Willis, from the National Immigration Project, raised concerns about a lack of due process and how the deportations have separated families.

“What we saw from ICE over the last several days is horrifying and baffling,” she said in a statement. “These mothers had no opportunity to speak with their co-parents to make the kinds of choices that parents are entitled to make for their children, the kinds of decisions that millions of parents make every day: ‘what is best for our child?’”

Homan has argued the children were deported at the request of the mothers and that the Trump administration was “keeping families together.”

“What we did is remove children with their mothers who requested their children depart with them,” he said. “When a parent says, ‘I want my 2-year-old baby to go with me,’ we made that happen. They weren’t deported. We don’t deport U.S. citizens. The parents made that decision, not the United States government.”

Wisconsin judge

Monday’s remarks from Homan come the day before President Donald Trump will mark the 100th day of his second term. His early days in office have centered on carrying out his campaign promise of mass deportations of millions of people in the U.S. without permanent legal status.

Trump will sign two executive orders on immigration late Monday: one relating to border security and another to require the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security to publicly list so-called sanctuary cities that do not coordinate with federal immigration law enforcement.

Homan also stood by the Trump administration’s decision to arrest a federal judge in Wisconsin on the grounds she obstructed immigration officials from detaining a man attending his court hearing. It marked an escalation between the Trump administration and the judiciary branch, raising concerns from Democrats.

The arrest of Judge Hannah Dugan was highly publicized after she was handcuffed in public and FBI Director Kash Patel bragged about the arrest on social media.

Attorney General Pam Bondi said on Fox News that the Trump administration was going to continue to go after judges who “think they’re above the law.”

“When you cross that line to impediment or knowingly harboring, concealing an illegal alien from ICE, you will be prosecuted, judge or not,” Homan said. 

A doctor holding T-shaped intrauterine birth control device. (Getty Photos) 

WASHINGTON — The National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in federal court Thursday challenging the Trump administration’s decision to withhold Title X family planning grants.

The 35-page filing alleges the Department of Health and Human Services, which administers the reproductive health program with funding approved by Congress, has withheld $65.8 million over disagreements about organizations’ “opposition to racism” and “providing care to undocumented immigrants.”

“The Affected Members and their subrecipients operate hundreds of Title X service sites across these states, which together provide family planning care to hundreds of thousands of low-income patients, many of whom would not otherwise be able to afford such care,” the complaint says. 

“Depriving these individuals of the high-quality, essential health care provided by Title X-funded health centers reduces access to (sexually transmitted infection) screening and treatment, cancer screening, and contraception, threatens the health and wellbeing of the individuals who rely on Title X for care, and undermines public health.”

The lawsuit contends California, Hawaiʻi, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, and Utah have been completely cut off from Title X family planning grants, while Alaska, Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia have had their access to the funding reduced.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia but hadn’t been assigned to a judge as of Thursday afternoon.

HHS did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

Another suit

The lawsuit is the latest filed by organizations and Democratic state attorneys general challenging the Trump administration’s efforts to freeze funding for dozens of programs.

Some, but not all, of the cases are subject to injunctions from district courts that so far have prevented the spending cuts from taking effect while the cases proceed.

The Impoundment Control Act, a 1970s-era law that requires the president to spend the money Congress appropriates, is the subject of many of the disagreements between those filing lawsuits and the Trump administration.

The National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association wrote in the lawsuit that it represents nearly 900 members, including state, county and local health departments.

Its members “operate or administer more than 3,000 health centers that provide family planning services to more than 2.2 million patients each year.”

HHS sent letters to some of the association’s members in late March, notifying them that their Title X family planning grant funding was “being temporarily withheld based on possible violations of the terms and conditions set forth in the notice of award,” according to the complaint.

The lawsuit alleges HHS’ decision to freeze the funding stems from its members having statements on their websites “indicating support for diversity, equity, and inclusion and opposition to racism, which, HHS claims, ‘suggests’ that the Affected Members are or may be engaged in conduct that violates federal civil rights laws.”

The federal government also chose to withhold the Title X funding over “a single public statement that HHS claims gives it ‘reason to believe’ that some of the Affected Members may be providing care to undocumented immigrants, in violation of Executive Order 14218 ‘Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders.’”

The lawsuit says that HHS never actually told any of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association’s members that they had violated federal regulations, executive orders, or the law. The letters from HHS referenced only “possible violations.” 

Do unauthorized immigrant workers pay taxes?

It’s a question that is widely misunderstood, but yes, unauthorized immigrants do pay taxes. 

While many immigrants are still paid “under the table” for their work, the majority pay income and payroll taxes on their wages, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. While an exact number is difficult to determine, a 2013 estimate from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy suggested at least half of all unauthorized workers in the United States pay income taxes.

An estimated 70,000 unauthorized immigrants live in Wisconsin, about 47,000 of whom are employed, according to the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute. About two-thirds of those had lived in the U.S. for 10 years or more. But that information, while the most recent available, is now over five years old. The Department of Homeland Security estimated that there were 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the country as of 2022.

In 2018, unauthorized immigrants in Wisconsin paid an estimated $157 million in federal taxes and $101 million in state and local taxes, totaling nearly $258 million, according to the American Immigration Council. That estimate dropped slightly to a total of $240 million in federal, state and local taxes as of 2022.

Unauthorized immigrant workers nationwide paid an estimated $97 billion in federal, state and local taxes in 2022, according to a July 2024 report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

But how do they pay taxes without being identified by authorities? 

Unauthorized workers who lack a Social Security number can instead apply for an individual taxpayer identification number through the Internal Revenue Service — a system created in 1996 — to file their income taxes. As of December 2022, there were an estimated 5.8 million active ITINs in the United States, according to the Administration of the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number Program. 

Taxpayer ID numbers allow unauthorized workers to file tax returns. All that is required to obtain an ITIN is an application that does not require proof of work authorization or proof that you reside in the United States legally. 

ITIN holders’ tax information has historically been legally protected and could not be shared with the Department of Homeland Security or Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Unauthorized immigrant workers had been able to get one without threat of the information being shared with authorities who may find and deport them.

But on April 7, the IRS and the Department of Homeland Security struck a deal on behalf of the Trump administration to share taxpayer data on unauthorized individuals under final removal orders. The agreement faces legal challenges.

Some unauthorized immigrants provide employers with fake Social Security numbers, someone else’s number or a previously valid number. When they’re hired, most employers do not and are not required to verify the identification numbers with any government entity, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center. 

But when tax return season comes around, the IRS will not accept filings that include a fake, stolen or invalid Social Security number. If unauthorized workers want to file their taxes and create a paper trail, then they will often obtain an ITIN.

The Social Security Administration may alert an employer when an employee’s name and Social Security number on a W-2 form do not match, but it cannot enforce any penalties. The IRS rarely ever investigates employers with a high number of W-2 forms that don’t match. According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, this is due to limited resources and employers’ ability to simply claim they asked an employee for the correct number, which is all that is required of them by law.

The financial penalty for each W-2 discrepancy is so small that the federal government often will not investigate it. Legally, a mismatched name and number cannot be considered proof that a worker is in the country illegally.

Why would unauthorized workers decide to pay and file taxes? 

According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, many unauthorized workers choose to pay taxes in the hopes that it will eventually help them gain citizenship. Should a pathway to citizenship ever be established through a comprehensive immigration bill, a history of paying taxes can be viewed as a way to show “good faith.” 

While many unauthorized immigrants pay taxes, they do not qualify for many benefits like Social Security retirement, Medicare coverage and the federal earned income tax credit — despite contributing billions of dollars in federal payroll taxes that help fund these programs. 

If they purchase goods and services in a community, unauthorized immigrants pay sales taxes just like others do. When buying a home, they will pay state and local property taxes as well.

Wisconsin Watch readers have submitted questions to our statehouse team, and we’ll answer them in our series, Ask Wisconsin Watch. Have a question about state government? Ask it here.

How do unauthorized immigrant workers pay taxes? 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.

Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

No.

Official proof of three things — identity, age and citizenship or qualifying immigration status — is required to obtain a Social Security number.

For U.S.-born adults, required documents include a U.S. birth certificate or a U.S. passport, though most U.S.-born citizens are issued a Social Security number at birth.

Noncitizens can apply if they have U.S. permission to work in the U.S. or permanent resident status (U.S.-issued green card). Less common are nonworking immigrants, such as those issued a student visa, who need a Social Security number.

“Merely showing a bill or a school ID is not sufficient,” Kathleen Romig, a former senior adviser at the Social Security Administration, told Wisconsin Watch.

Elon Musk claimed March 30 in Green Bay, Wisconsin, that “basically, you can show … a medical bill and a school ID and get a Social Security number.”

Trump administration officials did not reply to emails seeking comment.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

• Social Security Administration: Original Card for a U.S. Born Adult and Noncitizen
• Paul Van de Water, Social Security expert retired from Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: Email
• Kathleen Romig, former senior adviser at the Social Security Administration: Email
• Forbes: Breaking News: Elon Musk Takes Question After Question At Town Hall Event In Green Bay, Wisconsin
• Washington Post: Musk floats falsehoods about Social Security, immigrants as DOGE seeks changes

Are a medical bill and school identification legally enough to be issued a Social Security number? 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.

Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

No.

There’s no readily available evidence Susan Crawford has supported stopping deportations of illegal immigrants or protecting sanctuary cities, as a Republican attack ad claims.

Sanctuary communities limit how much they help authorities with deportations.

Crawford, a liberal, faces conservative Brad Schimel in the nonpartisan April 1 Wisconsin Supreme Court election.

The attack on Crawford was made by the Republican State Leadership Committee, a national group that works to elect Republicans to state offices.

The group provided Wisconsin Watch no evidence to back its claim. A spokesperson cited Democratic support for Crawford and Democratic opposition to cooperating with deportations, but nothing Crawford said on the topics. Searches of past Crawford statements found nothing.

The ad also claims Crawford would “let criminals roam free,” referring to a man convicted of touching girls’ private parts in a club swimming pool. Crawford sentenced the man in 2020 to four years in prison; a prosecutor had requested 10 years.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

• Republican State Leadership Committee: "Crazy" ad
• Ballotpedia: Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, 2025
• Wisconsin Examiner: Wisconsin Democrats seek to prohibit state and local cooperation with ICE and deportation efforts
• Reuters: Trump deporting people at a slower rate than Biden's last year in office
• Wisconsin Watch: Did Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Susan Crawford sentence a child sex offender to four years after a prosecutor requested 10?
• Republican State Leadership Committee: Email, Feb. 25, 2025
• Wisconsin Republican Party: Crawford etched in stone, she’s a pro-illegal immigration and anti-ICE Democrat

Has Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Susan Crawford supported stopping deportations and protecting sanctuary cities? 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.

Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

No.

Most inmates in Wisconsin’s federal prison, and in federal prisons nationally, are U.S. citizens.

Following Trump administration arrests of immigrants suspected or convicted of crimes, Republican U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden of western Wisconsin claimed Jan. 27 that over 50% of inmates at the Federal Correctional Institution in Oxford, Wisconsin, are “illegal aliens.”

Oxford is a low-security prison 60 miles north of Madison that houses 1,100 male offenders.

As of Jan. 25, 59% of Oxford inmates, and 85% of federal inmates nationally, were U.S. citizens. The Federal Bureau of Prisons does not readily have data on what percentage of inmates are unauthorized immigrants.

Nationally:

U.S. citizens constituted two-thirds of recently federally sentenced individuals.

The most serious offense for 76% of noncitizens sentenced for a federal crime in recent years was immigration-related, such as unlawful U.S. entry or smuggling noncitizens (14% were drug-related).

Donald Trump’s administration has called unauthorized immigrants criminals, but being undocumented is a civil violation.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

• U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: News Releases and Statements
• X: Derrick Van Orden post
• Federal Bureau of Prisons: Email, Jan. 29, 2025
• Federal Bureau of Prisons: Inmate citizenship
• U.S. Sentencing Commission: Federally Sentenced Non-U.S. Citizens
• U.S. Government Accountability Office: Noncitizens in the U.S.: Public Information on Federal Incarcerations
• Axios: All undocumented immigrants are "criminals," Trump administration says

Did most federal prison inmates in Wisconsin and the U.S. enter the country illegally? 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.

Fernanda Jimenez, a 24-year-old Racine resident, came to the United States from Mexico with her mother and siblings when she was just 5 years old. It’s the only home she can remember.

For almost a decade, Jimenez has been protected from deportation by the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program, launched under the Obama administration. The program allows people who came to the country illegally as children to get work permits and continue living in America.

Earlier this year, Jimenez graduated from Alverno College in Milwaukee. She currently works as a grant writer, helping nonprofits apply for funding. But she’s also in the process of applying to law school.

“I like helping nonprofits get funding to do the work that we need in our country and especially our communities, but I’m more passionate about community organizing,” she said. “I’d like to eventually use legal skills after law school for community organizing.”

Jimenez has big dreams, but she says she’s been feeling a looming anxiety since former President Donald Trump won his bid to return to the White House in this year’s presidential race.

She was still in high school when Trump was first elected in 2016, but she says she still remembers feeling “terrified” about what his election would mean for her parents who don’t have permanent legal status and what it would mean for DACA’s future.

Those fears have come roaring back in recent weeks. 

“Our community is terrified. They’re uncertain of their futures, they’re concerned for their family members who are undocumented and not protected under DACA,” Jimenez said. “A lot of naturalized citizens are concerned as well. The mass deportation threat is being taken seriously.”

On the campaign trail, Trump promised to lead the largest deportation effort in U.S. history. Shortly after the election, he announced that Tom Homan, former acting director of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, would serve as his administration’s “border czar.”

In interviews with Fox News last week, Homan said he would prioritize deporting people who threaten public safety or pose risks to national security. But he also told the network that anyone in the country illegally is “not off the table,” and the administration would perform workplace immigration raids. 

Immigrant rights group plans organizing efforts

Following Trump’s reelection, Voces de La Frontera, a Milwaukee-based immigrant rights group, has been holding community meetings in Green Bay, Milwaukee and Dane County to plan next steps, according to Christine Neumann-Ortiz, the organization’s founding executive director.

She said many of the immigrants in Wisconsin without permanent legal status are fearful of the prospect of mass deportations, but she doesn’t believe they will leave the country preemptively. Rather, she said they may leave Wisconsin for states that provide more protections to immigrants.

Neumann-Ortiz said Voces is using the regional meetings to brainstorm ways it can organize around protecting immigrants without permanent legal status. She said the group plans to raise awareness through mass strikes, protests and civil disobedience. 

“We really are going to have to very strongly be a movement that stands for human decency, solidarity, and we’re going to have to do that in the streets,” she said. 

Neumann-Ortiz also said she believes most Trump voters cast ballots for him because of economic concerns, not because they wanted to see people forcibly removed from their communities.

“I do think as things unfold, there’s going to be shock waves that are going to happen that are going to have many people open their eyes, regret their decisions and see what they can do to help,” she said.

David Najera, Hispanic outreach coordinator for the Republican Party of Wisconsin, does not share the concerns about mass deportations.

“My parents came from Mexico and Texas. They came the right way, and that’s the way I’d like to see people come,” he said.

Najera said he supports Trump’s immigration policies, citing concerns about crime, infectious disease and government resources.

“The immigrants are just overwhelming the hospitals, schools and everything else, and taking our tax money,” Najera said. “I’m not saying they’re all bad, but there’s a majority of them that are just getting out of their jails over there in different countries, and coming here with bad intentions.”

Multiple studies have shown immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans. And Wisconsin’s immigrants without permanent legal status paid $240 million in federal, state and local taxes in 2022, according to the American Immigration Council.

How are Wisconsin immigration attorneys advising clients?

Marc Christopher, an immigration attorney based in Milwaukee, represents clients in federal immigration court who are facing deportation or seeking asylum. Christopher said he doesn’t expect the Trump administration’s deportation effort to be limited to people with serious criminal convictions or those who pose security concerns.

He said he expects increased targeting of individuals who haven’t committed crimes or have been charged with minor offenses, like driving without a license. Immigrants living in Wisconsin without proof of citizenship or legal residency can’t get driver’s licenses.

“What I’m telling my clients to do is make sure that you follow the law to a tee,” Christopher said. “If you do not have a driver’s license, do not drive. If you can have someone else drive you to work or drive your children to school, make sure and do that because that’s the most common way that they get thrown into the immigration court process.”

Aissa Olivarez, managing attorney for the Community Immigration Law Center in Madison, said she expects the incoming administration to expand the use of “expedited removal.” It’s a process that allows the government to deport people without presenting their case to an immigration judge if the person has been in the country for less than two years.

“I’m also advising people to start gathering proof that they’ve been here for more than two years — phone bills, light bills, leases, school information — to be able to show in case they are stopped and questioned by immigration authorities,” Olivarez said.

Second Trump term reignites fears over DACA’s future, impact on mixed-status families

Christopher and Olivarez both said the DACA program, and other federal programs giving immigrants temporary protected statuses, could end in the coming years.

Trump previously tried to end the DACA program, but it was upheld in a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with four liberal justices. The current court has a 6-3 conservative majority, meaning Roberts would no longer be the deciding vote.

“It’s (DACA) all but assuredly going to be found unconstitutional by the current Supreme Court,” Christopher said of the DACA program. 

Jimenez, the DACA recipient from Racine, said she’s afraid being a participant in the program will make her a target for deportation by the federal government.

“We have to provide, every two years, an updated information application of where we live, our biometrics, our pictures, and they have to be recent pictures,” she said. “They have our entire information. And that’s really where our fear is at. They know who we are. They know we’re undocumented.”

Immigrant rights advocates are also concerned that a mass deportation effort could devastate the estimated 28,000 families in Wisconsin with mixed-immigration status. Those families include households where one spouse may be a U.S. citizen married to someone who doesn’t have permanent legal status, or where the parents of U.S. citizen children lack legal status.

Jimenez said her brother is part of a mixed-status family. She says he is a DACA recipient, his girlfriend is a legal resident, and his children are U.S. citizens.

“If he is to be deported, his kids would suffer the most not having their father with them, and my parents, who I fear (for) the most, have no protection,” she said. “They have to work. They have to drive to work. They have to drive without a license.”

What could a second Trump term mean for asylum seekers in Wisconsin?

Christopher, the immigration attorney from Milwaukee, said individuals seeking asylum in Wisconsin are in the country legally as they wait to make their case to the government that they should be granted asylum in the United States. 

Under the last Trump administration, Christopher said the federal government narrowed the qualifications to be granted asylum. He said the previous Trump administration made it so those fleeing cartel or gang violence in their home country did not qualify and rolled back protections for those fleeing gender-based violence.

If Trump tightens restrictions on the qualifications on asylum again, Christopher said those new restrictions would apply to people already in Wisconsin waiting to make their case to immigration officials.

“You’re not protected by the rules at the time that you apply,” he said. “It’s going to be a major shift.”

Byron Chavez, a 28-year-old asylum seeker from Nicaragua, has been living in Whitewater since 2022. He applied for asylum and is waiting to make his case to the government. 

He said he fled government oppression and human rights violations in Nicaragua. Since coming to Wisconsin, Chavez said he’s fallen in love with Whitewater and wants to make it his permanent home.

“The community is very friendly. … You got everything you need and everything is close,” he said. “The diversity you have here, it’s what makes Whitewater a really nice place.”

If he gets an asylum hearing after Trump takes office, Chavez says he’s hopeful the government will hear him out and grant him asylum. 

“I’m a little bit more concerned because I think the immigration law will be stricter,” he said. “But other than that, I like to go by the book. I’m doing things the way they should, and hopefully that talks about my desire of being here. I want to do things the right way.”

This story was originally published by WPR.

‘Our community is terrified’: Wisconsin immigrants brace for threat of mass deportations 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.