Over 50 other protests are planned in Wisconsin as part of the national movement, which falls on the same day that Trump will hold a massive military parade in Washington D.C.
The post ‘No Kings’ protests will be held in communities across Wisconsin Saturday appeared first on WPR.
Protesters gather to march in Wauwatosa alongside the families of Antonio Gonzales, Jay Anderson Jr., and Alvin Cole in 2020. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)
Update: Rep. Shae Sortwell issued a statement Wednesday morning disputing claims from Democratic Reps Ryan Clancy and Andrew Hysell that the riot bill was taken off the Assembly’s executive agenda. Sortwell accused Clancy and Hysell of “spreading misinformation” regarding the bill.
“To be clear, the chair never pulled the bill because he has not officially scheduled a vote on it yet after receiving a hearing two weeks ago. I am in discussions with colleagues on the committee, which is standard practice for bill authors after a public hearing. I ask both Democrat representatives to brush up on legislative policy on how bills actually move.”
Wednesday afternoon Rep. Ron Tusler, who chairs the assembly committee, which held public hearings on the riot bill, wrote in an email statement to Wisconsin Examiner that the riot bill needs work before it can be scheduled.
Tusler wrote that the bill “is not on the agenda because, in its current form, it fails to be good legislation. I wanted to give the bill author a chance to explain the bill out of respect for Representative Sortwell and the victims of riots. But in its current form, this bill has constitutional, common-sense, and enforcement issues. Assembly Bill 88, as it exists now, was never going to be scheduled for an executive session until those problems were/are addressed.”
A Republican-sponsored bill that would have defined a riot as a gathering of at least three people that could pose a threat of property damage or injury has been removed from the Assembly Judiciary Committee’s executive session agenda. The bill has been criticized for being overly broad, and potentially chilling First Amendment protections of protest and free speech. Besides defining a riot, the bill also exposed accused rioters and riot organizers to felony charges and civil liability including restitution for attorneys’ fees and property damage, and carried a prohibition on government officials with authority over law enforcement from limiting an agency’s response to quell unrest.
Rep. Andrew Hysell (D- Sun Prairie), a member of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary, said that he criticized the bill because it “actually weakens existing law for the very people it was supposed to help.” The committee held a public hearing on the bill on May 7, at which a large number of Wisconsinites voiced opposition to the bill. Rep. Shae Sortwell (R- Two Rivers), one of the bill’s authors, testified in favor of the bill, saying that it’s needed to prevent protests from spinning out of control into riots, property destruction, and injury. Sortwell and other republican supporters of the bill referenced protests and unrest in 2020 in Kenosha and Madison.
Among those who testified against the bill was Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee). Like other critics, Clancy said the bill was written vaguely in order to be applied broadly to crack down on protest movements. “While myself and many of my Democratic colleagues are tired of wasting our time and our constituents’ resources on badly written, unconstitutional bills like AB-88, I’m ecstatic that Republicans have abandoned this one for now,” Clancy said in a statement after the bill was shelved by the Assembly committee. “It’s clear that passionate, thoughtful testimony from the public, free speech advocates and civil rights experts – along with excellent technical critiques from Rep. Andrew Hysell – has stopped this so-called ‘anti-riot’ bill dead in its tracks.”
Clancy added that “in reality, however, this isn’t an ‘anti-riot’ bill: it’s a threat to free speech, expression and assembly disguised as a public safety measure. Thankfully, it’s now unlikely to move forward this session.”
During the May 7 committee hearing where people spoke either in favor of or against the bill, one person wore a hat which used an expletive to denounce President Donald Trump. Committee Chair Ron Tusler (R- Harrison) demanded that the man remove the hat because it was offensive. Tusler threatened to have law enforcement remove the man, and called the hearing into recess. Later, when the hearing continued, the man was allowed to continue wearing the hat. Clancy told Tusler his emotional reaction to the hat and his impulse to call for police was an example of how a broad, penalty-heavy bill for protests like AB-88 is a bad idea.
In his statement, Clancy urged his colleagues to spend “less time trying to dismantle our rights and getting angry at rude hats” and more time “addressing the actual needs of Wisconsin residents. Until that changes, we must all remain vigilant to fight back their next, terrible idea.”
This article has been updated to add a statement from Rep. Shae Sortwell accusing Reps Ryan Clancy and Andrew Hysell of spreading misinformation about why the bill was taken off the executive session agenda. The article was updated again Wednesday afternoon with Committee Chair Rep. Ron Tusler’s statement regarding the riot bill. It has also been edited to correct Rep. Ron Tusler’s last name.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
Capitol Police remove a protester in a wheelchair from the House Energy And Commerce Committee hearing room during the committee markup of part of the budget reconciliation package on May 13, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Protect Our Care)
WASHINGTON — The U.S. House committee tasked with overhauling energy policy and Medicaid to achieve $880 billion in spending cuts on Tuesday began what was expected to be a long, grueling session with debate on dozens of amendments.
Republicans on the panel argued during opening statements the proposed changes are necessary to realign several programs with President Donald Trump’s campaign promises and some long-standing GOP policy goals, primarily an extension of the 2017 tax cuts.
Democrats contend the legislation, one of 11 measures that will make up the GOP’s “big, beautiful bill,” would kick millions of people out of Medicaid, the state-federal program for lower income Americans, some people with disabilities and a considerable number of nursing home patients.
Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., said the GOP bill is aimed at reducing waste, fraud and abuse within Medicaid “by beginning to rein in the loopholes, by ensuring states have the flexibility to remove ineligible recipients from their rolls and removing beneficiaries who enrolled in multiple states.”
“We make no apologies for prioritizing Americans in need over illegal immigrants and those who are capable but choose not to work,” Guthrie said. “Our priority remains the same: strengthen and sustain Medicaid for those whom the program was intended to serve — expectant mothers, children, people with disabilities and the elderly.”
Democratic New Jersey Rep. Frank Pallone, ranking member on the panel, rejected comments that the GOP bill was “moderate” and said it clearly was not aimed at addressing waste, fraud and abuse.
“Medicaid is a life-saving program that 80 million Americans count on every day,” Pallone said. “It provides health care to 1 in 3 Americans and nearly half of all children in the United States. It covers close to half of all births. And it’s the largest source of funding for long-term care for seniors and people living with disabilities. With this bill, Republicans are essentially telling millions of Americans, ‘Gotcha, no more health care for you.’”
Pallone added that Republican lawmakers were “intentionally taking health care away from millions of Americans, so they can give giant tax breaks to the ultra-rich, who frankly don’t need them.”
Just before Pallone spoke, several protesters in the room, including at least three people in wheelchairs, began chanting “No cuts to Medicaid” and were led out by U.S. Capitol Police, who charged 25 people with illegally demonstrating in the Rayburn House Office Building.
Democrats gave numerous opening statements at the start of the markup, each holding up a large photograph of one of their constituents on Medicaid and sharing stories of how the program helped them get or keep access to health care after complex diagnoses, like congestive heart failure, leukemia and cerebral palsy.
Democratic lawmakers expressed concern those people would lose access to the health care program if the GOP bill becomes law.
“You don’t just gut the largest insurer of low income Americans without real harm,” said Illinois Democratic Rep. Robin Kelly. “Call it what it is — abandonment, disinvestment and pure disregard for human life.”
Florida Republican Rep. Kat Cammack rebuked some of the Democrats’ comments, which she said sought to fearmonger and lie to people about what was in the GOP bill.
“The posters that our colleagues on the left have held up are touching. The stories, they’re very emotional. And I agree that we want to protect those most vulnerable,” Cammack said. “As a pregnant woman, I want to make sure that pregnant women, expectant mothers have access to resources around the country.”
Cammack added that “not a single person in those posters is going to be impacted by this legislation.”
Republicans have already approved eight of the reconciliation bills in committee and are scheduled to wrap up work on the remaining three measures this week. The Ways and Means Committee began debating the tax bill shortly after Energy and Commerce began its markup, and the Agriculture panel was scheduled to begin its debate Tuesday evening.
Later this week, the House Budget Committee plans to bundle all 11 bills together and send the full package to the floor. The entire House is set to vote on the legislation before Memorial Day.
GOP leaders cannot afford much disagreement over the entire package, given their paper-thin majority in the House. If all of the current members are present at the vote, just three Republicans can oppose the package and still have it pass.
The same margin exists in the Senate, which is expected to make substantial changes to the package should the House approve the measure and send it across the Capitol.
The Energy and Commerce Committee’s bill up for debate Tuesday met the panel’s goal of cutting at least $880 billion in federal spending during the next decade, according to a letter from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
Congress’ official scorekeepers, however, hadn’t released their full analysis of the panel’s bill before the start of the debate and amendment process, known in Congress as a markup.
Once those details are made public, lawmakers and the voters who elected them will have a much more detailed look at how each of the proposed changes will affect federal revenue, spending and the number of people who could lose access to Medicaid.
Democrats released a CBO analysis last week showing the impact of various proposals, though Energy and Commerce GOP staff cautioned Monday during a background briefing that what they proposed in the actual bill didn’t completely align with those scenarios.
The bill would make considerable changes to Medicaid if the House and Senate approve the legislation as written, which seems highly unlikely, given objections from several GOP senators, including Missouri’s Josh Hawley.
The House legislation would require able-bodied people between the ages of 19 and 65 to work, participate in community service, or attend an education program for at least 80 hours a month. There would be exceptions for pregnant people, Medicaid enrollees with dependent children and people with complex medical issues, among other exclusions.
That provision would take effect on Jan. 1, 2029, according to an explainer on the bill from nonpartisan health research organization KFF.
States would be required to check eligibility for all Medicaid patients every six months, lowering the threshold from one year for people eligible for the program under the expansion in the 2010 Affordable Care Act. That would need to begin by Oct. 1, 2027.
Republicans are seeking to get the 12 states that allow immigrants without legal status into their Medicaid programs to change course by lowering the percent the federal government pays for those states’ expansion population enrollees from 90% to 80%. That would take effect Oct. 1, 2027.
The legislation seeks to block Medicaid funding for a narrow subset of health care providers who offer abortion services, which appeared to target Planned Parenthood.
The prohibition would apply to “providers that are nonprofit organizations, that are essential community providers that are primarily engaged in family planning services or reproductive services, provide for abortions other than for Hyde Amendment exceptions, and which received $1,000,000 or more (to either the provider or the provider’s affiliates) in payments from Medicaid payments in 2024,” according to a summary of the GOP bill. It would take effect as soon as the bill becomes law and last for a decade.
The Hyde Amendment allows federal funding for abortions that are the result of rape, or incest, or that endanger the life of the pregnant patient.
Planned Parenthood Action Fund President and CEO Alexis McGill wrote in a statement that defunding the organization and overhauling Medicaid would mean that “cancers will go undetected; it will be harder than ever to get birth control; the nation’s (sexually transmitted infection) crisis will worsen; Planned Parenthood health centers will close, making it significantly harder to get abortion care; and people across the country will suffer — all so the supremely wealthy can become even richer.”
SBA Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser applauded the potential change to federal funding.
“It’s time to stop forcing taxpayers to fund the Big Abortion industry. Thanks to Speaker (Mike) Johnson and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie, this year’s budget reconciliation bill contains the commonsense language to make that happen,” Dannenfelser wrote. “Taxpayers should never be mandated to prop up an industry that profits from ending lives and harming women and girls.”
More than 80 organizations, including the National Women’s Law Center and the Center for Reproductive Rights, wrote in a letter to congressional leaders that cutting off Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood “would be catastrophic, shutting down health centers and stripping millions of patients across the country of access to essential and affordable health care.”
“In many communities, Planned Parenthood health centers are the only affordable provider with expertise in sexual and reproductive health,” the organizations wrote. “For those communities, the gap left by Planned Parenthood health centers would mean that many patients would have nowhere to turn for care.”
President of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Stella Dantas wrote in a statement the GOP’s changes to Medicaid might create challenges for pregnant patients seeking to access care and that some states may roll back their expansion of postpartum coverage from a full year.
“Pregnant patients who keep their coverage under Medicaid will still face challenges accessing care as labor and delivery unit closures escalate as a result of Medicaid cuts, leaving patients to travel longer distances to give birth,” Dantas wrote. “Ob-gyns are also concerned that the cuts will threaten the 12 months of postpartum coverage that we have fought so hard to achieve, and which will leave so many without access to medical care during the year after delivery when two-thirds of maternal deaths occur.
“Backsliding on our recent progress in increasing access to postpartum coverage puts lives at risk.”
American Public Health Association Executive Director Georges Benjamin wrote in a statement that House Republicans’ planned overhaul of Medicaid “does nothing to improve public health.”
“Instead, it would undermine much of the progress we have made to expand access to affordable, quality health insurance and implement other evidence-based measures to protect the public’s health,” Benjamin wrote. “We urge the House to reject this bill and instead work in a bipartisan manner on legislation to improve public health and expand access to health care for all Americans.”
Login