The seven members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court hear oral arguments. (Henry Redman/Wisconsin Examiner)

In a 4-3 decision, Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the state’s 1849 law banning abortion had been “impliedly repealed” by the Legislature when it passed laws over the past half century “regulating in detail the ‘who, what, where, when, and how’” of abortion. 

The Court’s majority opinion, authored by Justice Rebecca Dallet and joined by Justices Ann Walsh Bradley, Jill Karofsky and Janet Protasiewicz, finds that the Legislature could not have passed laws regulating abortion access if the 1849 statute was believed to remain in effect. 

“This case is about giving effect to 50 years’ worth of laws passed by the Legislature about virtually every aspect of abortion including where, when, and how health-care providers may lawfully perform abortions,” Dallet wrote. “The Legislature, as the peoples’ representatives, remains free to change the laws with respect to abortion in the future. But the only way to give effect to what the Legislature has actually done over the last 50 years is to conclude that it impliedly repealed the 19th century near-total ban on abortion, and that [the statute] therefore does not prohibit abortion in the State of Wisconsin.” 

Dallet wrote that when the Legislature passed laws restricting abortion under narrower circumstances, guiding “where, when and how” health care providers could perform an abortion and outlining how public money could fund abortion providers, it was repealing the 1849 law. 

The ruling comes three years after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark Court ruling that found there was a constitutional right to abortion access and marks the conclusion of a legal dispute that helped Protasiewicz win election to the Court in 2023 and Susan Crawford win election this April. 

In response, the Court’s three conservative justices filed dissents, accusing the majority of “propaganda,” “smoke-and-mirrors legalese” and “pure policymaking.” 

“The majority’s smoke-and-mirrors legalese is nothing more than ‘painting a mule to resemble a zebra, and then going zebra hunting. But paint does not change the mule into a zebra,’” Justice Annette Ziegler wrote. “Those in the majority know better, but they do so anyway because they like the result and promised to deliver it.” 

In his dissent, Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote that the majority failed to show when the law was presumably repealed by the Legislature, saying that the opinion doesn’t properly address the Legislature’s actions in 2011 and 2015 amending the 1849 law.  

“The majority does not say when over those 40 years the Legislature once and for all repealed [the statute],” he wrote. “Was it when the Legislature passed a postviability ban? A partial-birth abortion ban? A twenty-week ban? A waiting period? A physician licensing requirement? The majority fails to say.”

23AP2362 Mandate

Following the ruling’s release, the state’s Democratic elected officials and abortion access activists celebrated the decision as a “win” for reproductive health care in the state. 

“Thanks to our lawsuit, today’s decision affirms that access to reproductive healthcare will continue to be available, helping ensure Wisconsin women today are not forced to face firsthand what it’s like to live in a state that bans nearly all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest,” Gov. Tony Evers said in a statement. “Today is a win for women and families, a win for healthcare professionals who want to provide medically accurate care to their patients, and a win for basic freedoms in Wisconsin, but our work is not over. I will continue to fight any effort that takes away Wisconsinites’ reproductive freedom or makes reproductive healthcare, whether birth control, abortion, IVF, or fertility treatments, any less accessible in Wisconsin than it is today. That is a promise.”

Attorney General Josh Kaul, who brought the lawsuit against the law, said at a Wednesday morning news conference that the decision was an important step toward ensuring all Wisconsinites have the freedom to access abortion care, but that the Legislature should step up and further clarify the law.

“I thought we were right on the law. The arguments we made have now been vindicated,” Kaul said. “But at a time when the rights of Wisconsinites and Americans are under threat, this case is a stark reminder of how important it is that we fight for our rights, that we advocate for what is in the best interest of the people of our state, and that we stand on the side of freedom. Here today, we were able to achieve a significant victory for the freedom of Wisconsinites.”

Wisconsin’s state and federal Democratic lawmakers responded to the ruling by saying it wasn’t enough, promising to continue working to codify abortion access in law. 

U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin said she will continue to work to enact her proposal to ensure women across the country have access to abortion care. 

“Today’s ruling tells women across Wisconsin that we will not go back,” Baldwin said. “Today’s ruling tells women that our government trusts you to make decisions about your own body and your future. Today’s ruling tells women in our state that they are not second-class citizens. But, this fight is not over. Every woman, in every zip code, in every state deserves the same rights and freedoms. I will not stop fighting until we make that a reality and pass my bill to restore the right to abortion nationwide and allow women to make their own health care decisions without interference from judges or politicians.”

State Sen. Lisa Subeck (D-Madison) said the Legislature must now pass a bill guaranteeing the right to an abortion. 

“Now that the courts have made it clear that Wisconsin does not have a total abortion ban, we must go further,” Subeck said. “It’s time to protect reproductive rights not just in practice, but in law. We must pass the Abortion Rights Restoration Act to guarantee the right to abortion and eliminate the medically unjustified, politically motivated restrictions that still exist in our state statutes. The people of Wisconsin deserve nothing less than full access to safe and legal reproductive health care without unnecessary barriers and free from judgement.”

In a concurring opinion, Karofsky wrote that interpreting the 1849 law as banning abortion gives the state the authority to “exert total control” over women and “strips women and pregnant people of the dignity and authority to make intimate and personal choices by exposing medical professionals who perform abortions to 15-year prison terms.” 

In her opinion, Karofsky details the history of abortion access in the U.S. and highlights four women who died because of restrictive abortion bans, including the recent deaths of two Black women in Georgia and a Honduran immigrant in Texas as well as the death of her own great-grandmother in Boston in 1929. 

“I tell the stories of Amber, Candi, Josseli, and my great-grandmother Julia to remind us that severe abortion restrictions operate like death warrants,” Karofsky wrote. “Under such restrictions women, children, and pregnant people are denied life-saving medical care while medical professionals are forced to sit idly at their bedsides, unable to do their jobs. Extreme abortion restrictions revive a time in our history driven by misogyny and racism, divorced from medical science; it is a world that must be left behind.” 

In her dissent, Justice Rebecca Bradley accused Karofsky of rewriting history to achieve a desired outcome in the case. 

“Not content with effacing the law, Chief Justice Jill Karofsky rewrites history, erases and insults women by referring to mothers as ‘pregnant people,’ slanders proponents of the pro-life perspective, and broadcasts dangerously false narratives about laws restricting abortion,” Bradley wrote. “Laden with emotion, steeped in myth, and light on the law, the concurrence reads as a parody of progressive politics rather than the opinion of a jurist.”

The U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee's Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Subcommittee Chair Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.V., talks with ranking Democrat Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin on June 3, 2025 before Education Secretary Linda McMahon testified to the panel about President Donald Trump's budget request for the Education Department.  The proposal includes a reduction in the maximum Pell Grant award. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump wants to cut nearly $1,700 from the maximum Pell Grant award as part of his fiscal 2026 budget request — a move that would leave the subsidy for low-income students at its lowest level in more than a decade.

The proposal would have a devastating effect on college affordability and drive up costs for states because they’d have to fill in the missing federal dollars, education advocates and experts say.

The request — part of the president’s wish list for appropriations in fiscal 2026 — faces steep odds in Congress, where key members of both parties responded to the proposal with alarm.

“I don’t want to cut the Pell Grant,” U.S. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a West Virginia Republican and chair of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, told States Newsroom.

“I’m concerned about that — I’m hoping that we’ll get that resolved,” she said.

Opposition from Capito, whose panel writes the annual bill to fund the Education Department, makes Trump’s wish unlikely to make its way into the upcoming legislation.

The Pell Grant is a government subsidy that helps low-income students pay for college and is the foundation of federal student aid in the United States.

Catherine Brown, senior policy and advocacy director at the National College Attainment Network, said the cut would be “absolutely devastating,” noting that “college is already out of reach for millions upon millions of low-income students.”

Funding gap

The Pell Grant program is seeing a projected budget shortfall of $2.7 billion heading into the next fiscal year, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The administration has cited the shortfall as a reason to decrease the maximum award.

The request calls for reducing the maximum Pell Grant for the 2026-2027 award year from $7,395 to $5,710. The last time the maximum award stood below this level was during the 2013-2014 award year, at $5,645. 

Trump’s fiscal 2026 budget request includes $12 billion in total cuts to the Education Department as he and his administration seek to dismantle the agency and dramatically reshape the federal role in education.

Democrats: Cut would be ‘crazy’

Democrats have raised strong opposition, while even the Republican chair of the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees Education Department funding was noncommittal about pursuing Pell Grant cuts.

“We want to make sure that (Pell Grants are) serving the people they need to,” Rep. Robert Aderholt of Alabama said when asked about any concerns he has on the proposed cut.

Aderholt said he’s hearing “a lot” from his constituents about the proposed reduction, and that it’s “certainly something we’re going to look at.”

Meanwhile, the leading Democrats on the House and Senate education spending panels were quick to blast the proposed cut.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, ranking member of the full House Appropriations Committee and the education spending subcommittee, called the nearly $1,700 reduction “crazy.”

“People are not going to be able to do it, and that’s the tragedy of what they’re doing here is dismantling all of the constructs that are there to provide people particularly with public education and a pathway to success,” the Connecticut Democrat said.

“You take away Federal Work-Study, you lower the Pell Grant, that says to me, you want to destroy public education,” DeLauro said.

The budget request proposes slashing $980 million of Federal Work-Study funding and requiring employers to pay 75% of students’ hourly wages, with the government contributing 25%.

The program gives part-time employment to students with financial need in order to help cover the cost of college. 

Sen. Tammy Baldwin, ranking member of the Senate subcommittee, said she “strongly” opposes the proposed reduction.

The Wisconsin Democrat said she also recognizes that “there’s a looming shortfall in Pell funding that we need to address.”

“I am hopeful that we’ll be able to work together to do that,” Baldwin said.

Advocates, experts weigh in

Higher education advocates and experts are also sounding the alarm on the proposed reduction, both over the harm to low-income students’ access to higher education and the impact on states and colleges.

“This would just much further exacerbate that gap and drive millions of students out of pursuing post-secondary education or set them on a different path,” Brown, with the National College Attainment Network, said.

Katharine Meyer, a governance studies fellow at the Brown Center on Education Policy at the nonpartisan Brookings Institution, described the proposed decline as “truly unprecedented.”

She added that when the Pell Grant is smaller, states have to spend more on higher education, creating a challenge for state officials potentially grappling with other cuts in federal support in the budget reconciliation package Republicans are scrambling to pass.

“States don’t necessarily have the flexibility to spend more money when they have budgets that they need to balance, and they’re facing other federal constraints, including potentially having to take on additional health care costs depending on what happens with health care negotiations in budget reconciliation,” she said.

Capito also said she thought a reduction to Pell Grants would ripple out to the state level.

At the institutional level, Meyer pointed out that if a state has a smaller bucket to allocate for higher education but wants to prioritize financial aid, it would “come at the cost of” the money appropriated to universities.

“Then institutions are not going to be able to spend as much on their operating funds,” she said. “They’re not going to be able to do capital improvement campaigns, which are often very necessary.”

Ties to reconciliation bill

House Republicans have also proposed major changes to Pell Grant eligibility as part of GOP lawmakers’ separate “big, beautiful bill.” The legislative package would slash billions of dollars in federal programs to offset the cost of other parts of Trump’s agenda, including extending the 2017 tax cuts and boosting border security funding.

GOP lawmakers are using the complex reconciliation process to move a package through Congress with simple majority votes in each chamber and avoid the Senate’s 60-vote threshold that generally requires bipartisanship.

The House narrowly passed its version of the reconciliation package in late May. That measure included a provision that would raise the minimum number of credit hours to qualify for the maximum Pell Grant award from 12 per semester to 15. The move would save $7.1 billion in federal spending over 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office estimated.

That new eligibility requirement is not included in the draft proposal for the reconciliation package that Republicans on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions released in June. 

Sen. Tammy Baldwin speaks on the Senate floor on Jan. 6, 2022 | Screenshot of video provided by Baldwin's office Wisconsin Examiner

U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin said she’ll “fight tooth and nail” to protect LGBTQ children after the administration of President Donald Trump proposed Wednesday that the national suicide and crisis lifeline would no longer support programs aimed at LGBTQ youth. 

On Wednesday, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) proposed defunding the program within the 988 suicide hotline aimed at LGBTQ children and cutting ties with the Trevor Project, a non-profit LGBTQ mental health organization. 

While the 988 number would still be available, LGBTQ children would no longer be able to request that they be directed to someone specifically trained in the area and with shared experiences. 

A survey conducted last year by the Trevor Project found that 40% of LGBTQ young people considered attempting suicide in the previous year and 12% of LGBTQ young people attempted suicide — both rates are higher than those among non-LGBTQ youth. 

Baldwin wrote the legislation to create the 988 hotline and worked to create an LGBTQ youth pilot program, which was expanded by Congress in 2023. 

Since the hotline’s creation, it has received 1.3 million contacts from LGBTQ people, according to SAMHSA data. 

“I worked hard to stand up a special line for LGBTQ+ youth because we are losing too many of our kids to suicide, and it’s well past time we did something about it,” Baldwin said. “Children facing dark times and even contemplating taking their life often have nowhere else to turn besides this 988 Lifeline, and the Trump Administration is cruelly and needlessly taking that away.” 

The proposal to cut funds for the LGBTQ program comes as the Trump administration has become increasingly hostile to LGBTQ people and as, on Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law that prohibits transgender children from receiving gender-affirming treatments. Republicans in Wisconsin and across the country have passed or attempted to pass laws preventing transgender children from participating in sports.

“During Pride Month, a time to celebrate the progress we’ve made, the Trump Administration is taking us a step back and telling LGBTQ+ kids that they don’t matter and don’t deserve help when they are in crisis,” Baldwin said. “This is not the final chapter of this story, and I’ll fight tooth and nail to protect these children. Suicide prevention has been and should continue to be a nonpartisan issue, and I call on my Republican colleagues who have long supported this program to fight for these kids, too. The children and teens who rely on 988 need our help, and it’s our duty to protect this literal lifeline for hundreds of thousands before it’s too late.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Wisconsin State Capitol (Wisconsin Examiner photo)

Wisconsin lawmakers have requested additional security ahead of this week’s floor session in light of the attacks over the weekend on Minnesota state lawmakers, including the assassination of Democratic–Farmer–Labor House leader Melissa Hortman and her husband and the shooting of Sen. John Hoffman and his wife.

The police have identified 57-year-old Vance Luther Boelter as the suspected gunman. Boelter  had a list in his car of dozens of people including elected officials and abortion providers, according to police. Boelter was apprehended Monday and faces federal and state murder charges.

All three of Wisconsin’s federal Democratic lawmakers and 11 state lawmakers were identified as being named in documents left behind by Boelter.

According to Politico, U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin spokesperson Eli Rosen said Monday she was notified by law enforcement she was included on the alleged shooter’s list of names and “is grateful for law enforcement’s swift action to keep the community safe.” 

Rosen also said Baldwin “remains focused on the things that matter most here: honoring the legacy and life of Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, praying for the other victims who are fighting for their lives, and condemning this abhorrent, senseless political violence.”

U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore wrote on social media that she was aware her name was on one of the documents recovered from the vehicle of the suspect in Minnesota. 

“I thank law enforcement for their swift notification and subsequent response,” Moore said. “My prayers are with all those impacted by these horrific acts.” 

U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan has said he is “appreciative that law enforcement apprehended the suspect” in the shooting and he had heard that his name was in the Minnesota shooting suspect’s notebooks.

“I will not back down in the face of terror, however, we as elected officials must do better to lower the temperature,” Pocan said. “That said, my schedule remains unchanged.”

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 11 Wisconsin state lawmakers were named in lists left behind by Boelter. 

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) has requested additional security for the Assembly floor session this week, according to Vos’ communications director Luke Wolff. Vos’ office  declined to provide additional details about the new security plan Tuesday afternoon.

The Wisconsin State Senate Sergeant at Arms Timothy La Sage announced Monday a series of enhanced security protocols at the State Capitol being taken in coordination with Capitol police, including “increased situational awareness practices, strengthened access control points, and updated emergency response protocols.” Specific security details are not being disclosed publicly, according to the statement.

The steps are meant to provide a secure and responsive environment and maintain public accessibility and civic engagement.

“The safety of those who serve, work, and visit the Capitol is my top priority,” La Sage said. “We remain vigilant and prepared. These enhancements are part of our ongoing commitment to security and public service.”

The week prior to the Minnesota attacks, Wisconsin Democrats on the budget committee spoke about increasing political violence across the country and, specifically, the targeting of judges and justices as they defended a budget request to add specific security for the state Supreme Court. State lawmakers have passed bipartisan laws in the past to help protect judges. Republicans on the committee, however, rejected this proposal, saying that the Capitol police is doing a good job and there isn’t a need for separate security.

At a press conference following the budget committee’s Tuesday meeting, Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) said she thinks increasing security at the Capitol is part of a “broader conversation that state legislatures are having all around the country.”

“I’m hopeful that we’re going to have some of that in Wisconsin,” Roys said. “Obviously, our thoughts are with all of our colleagues in Minnesota.”

Sen. Chris Kapenga (R-Delafield) told WISN-12 reporter Matt Smith that he wants increased security around the Capitol, including metal detectors and a ban on members of the public (but not lawmakers) carrying guns into the building.

“I have not been through another Capitol that has not had metal detectors,” Kapenga said. “We need to have a higher level of security just because of, unfortunately, ingenuity with how you can hurt people.”

Security at the state Capitol was a point of concern previously in 2023 after a man entered the building twice with a gun in search of Gov. Tony Evers. At the time, Evers said about increasing security that he was “sure they are looking at that” but that it was “not something we talk about [or] something police talk about.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

“We’ve got a lot of work to do,” Remiker told the convention after he won. “And I want to figure out how we can all work together to best support Democrats in every corner of this state.” (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

The Democratic Party of Wisconsin met over the weekend at a waterpark resort in the Wisconsin Dells to kickstart its work to compete for crucial seats in government in 2026. Delegates elected  Devin Remiker as chair, a senior advisor to the party who was endorsed by outgoing party chair Ben Wikler. In sessions throughout the weekend state Democrats considered what needs to change for the party to succeed and speakers talked about what Democrats would do if they won a trifecta in state government. 

Remiker chosen in three-way race 

The state party elected Remiker over Joe Zepecki and William Garcia in the race for chair Sunday afternoon. The party used ranked choice voting to choose the winner after  delegates watched a video on how the process worked on Saturday evening.Voting took place the next day. 

Remiker received 485 votes, including 437 first choice votes and 48 second choice votes, putting him over the other candidates. Zepecki, a communications professional, received 415 votes, including 330 first choice and 85 second choice votes and Garcia, chair of the La Crosse County party, received 139 first choice votes, resulting in his elimination in the first round.

“We’ve got a lot of work to do,” Remiker told the convention after he won. “And I want to figure out how we can all work together to best support Democrats in every corner of this state.” 

Remiker, a 32-year-old Two Rivers native, will succeed Chair Ben Wikler, who has led the party since 2019 and decided not to run for another term. He most recently served as a senior advisor for the state party, though he’s been involved with the party in various capacities, including as executive director for a time, since 2018. 

Remiker said he was glad that the party was unifying around  a vision to build on what works, which will allow the party to “hit the gas” into 2026 when elections for the state Supreme Court, governor, Congress and the state Legislature take place.

“There is one thing that we can do, and it is elect Democrats at all levels to send a message to Donald Trump and Republicans in this state that we will not stand for their divide and conquer politics any longer. We will win big,” Remiker said. “We are just 18 months away from a trifecta and 18 months away from history. Let’s hit the gas, and when we win, it won’t be an accident. It will be because we put in the work.”

The chair campaign over the weekend 

The candidates for chair spent the weekend working to make their case for the position, including addressing the convention in speeches Saturday evening. During his speech, Remiker said questions about whether Democrats are fighting back and why the party is broken don’t apply in Wisconsin. 

“In Wisconsin, the Democratic party works,” Remiker told the convention. “We don’t need to fix what isn’t broken. We need to build on what works and, folks, we know what works. Success isn’t an accident: year-round organizing, showing up everywhere, fighting tooth and nail in every election — spring, fall, special — taking nothing for granted. Now is not the time to reset. Now is the time to double down.”

Remiker had the support of out-going chair Wikler, who spoke on his behalf as well. During his campaign he also garnered the support of U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore and the Democratic leaders of the state Senate and Assembly.

“It was Devin who made the plan to fight back when Elon Musk came to town. It was Devin who figured out how to make it backfire,” Wikler told the convention on Saturday evening. “He’s brilliant. He’s an organizer. He’s kind. He gets rural. He gets grassroots, and he knows how to fight in a moment when we need a fighter.”

Remiker told reporters Sunday afternoon that he would have won the election even without Wikler’s support. 

“Even prior to that, I had tons of endorsement and public support from around the state from elected officials, party leadership,” Remiker said. “It was just a little added boost as we had it into the final shot.” 

Garcia had made his case to the convention that the party would win a trifecta in 2026 and he would help do that by strengthening the county parties and ensuring they have the tools, resources, information, and training they need to succeed. 

“County parties need the support to welcome new members and organize new voters to the Democratic side,” Garcia said. “Building local parties means talking to voters everywhere and winning votes everywhere… The path to victory is making our community stronger.” 

Garcia also emphasized that he would reach out to young people, a message that resonated with some.

Jasmine Puls, a senior at UW-Green Bay, said Garcia became her top pick because of that. She said he appeared to be meeting with everyone during his Saturday evening event and told her that he would be willing to visit her campus. Each candidate had a “hospitality suite” after the close of business on Saturday where they could speak with delegates. 

Puls said Garcia felt “like he’s the more personal choice, especially for youth voters,” Puls said. She also noted that Remiker’s event felt a little “show-outy.”

“There was like prime rib and everything was like extreme, and we were getting free cups, free drinks, free everything,” Puls said. “It was huge, but it felt like a show and it just didn’t seem real and authentic.”

Asked about how much he spent on his campaign and about the food served at his campaign events, which also included escargot, Remiker said he “spent enough to win” and said the food was part of Wisconsin tradition.

“I was delighted to have a Wisconsin supper club theme at my hospitality suite last night. We did have prime rib, but it was a Saturday night, and that’s a Saturday night special here in Wisconsin,” Remiker said. “I had a ton of fun. It was a great campaign. I’m really proud of the campaign.” 

Zepecki, meanwhile, ran a campaign that focused on helping make changes to the party that could help seal gaps he identified as a problem.  As he spoke to the convention, he said Wikler has done a great job strengthening the party, but Trump and U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson’s election victories in Wisconsin are proof the party has work to do.

Brenda Vinall-Mogel, a member of the Burnett County party, told the Examiner that Zepecki showing up in her county helped make him her top choice for chair. Zepecki told the convention on Saturday that he traveled 5,000 miles across Wisconsin to listen to people and to make the case for his candidacy.  “We should actually be out in the bars, talking to the people, getting to know them,” Vinall-Mogel said, “asking questions going to the farm days, whatever, and talking to people there and find what their questions are. We need to do a lot of listening.” 

Remiker said that he will help the party work to improve its communications as chair. He said the party specifically needs to be clear that it represents the working class and is working to defend people’s rights and freedoms as well as democracy. 

“We’re going to repeat it in as many mediums as we can and get more messengers that are able to carry that message. The information age kind of divides people’s attention into different groups, into different buckets and niche interests,” Remiker said, adding that Democrats need to work on “connecting the dots about how politics impacts nearly everything in everyone’s lives.”

Wikler preparing to depart as chair

Wikler received major props for his work from elected officials and other Democrats throughout his last convention as chair. Under his leadership, Wisconsin Democrats have won 13 of the last 16 statewide elections under his leadership, flipped the ideological balance of the state Supreme Court and won back seats in the state Legislature after new, fair maps were implemented in 2024. 

“Ben Wikler — what an incredible run!” U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan said. “It is great to be here at the convention of the strongest state political party in the United States of America. Thank you Ben for everything you’ve done.” 

U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin said Wikler has been an “extraordinary leader of this party” and added that she wouldn’t have secured another term in office without the work of him and the party. 

As he opened the convention, Wikler celebrated the “No Kings” protests across the country on Saturday ahead of the convention. Thousands of Wisconsinites and millions of Americans protested against Trump, Wikler noted,  adding that they pushed back against a president who thinks “he is above the law, who arrests judges, including in Wisconsin and members of Congress, including U.S, Senators, who sends Marines into U.S cities, who wants to rip health care from millions of people to hand tens of billions or billions of dollars to his royal courtiers, a man who doesn’t see himself as an elected official, but as a king.” 

Wikler said the party convention is a time for Democrats to reconnect, choose new leaders and train each other for the work ahead, saying that “activism and courage” and “willingness to stand up for what is right” is how he knows the country will survive Trump’s presidency. 

“We will get past these years under a would-be Mad King and tin-pot dictator held in check by Democratic values that President [George] Washington sowed into the fabric of our government,” Wikler said. “The Trump administration will end one day.”

Wikler told the convention during a conversation with Baldwin that he plans to go on vacation with his family after his term ends and is working on developing a pitch for a book that may look at the lessons that can be learned from Wisconsin. He also reassured the room that this won’t be the end of his political involvement. 

“I want to stay involved in the fight,” Wikler said. “We’ll see what that will look like.”

In accordance with the state party’s constitution, the outgoing state party chair remains on the governing body for an additional year.

Wikler told reporters that he “absolutely” wants to help support Remiker and the party in its work to win a trifecta. The last time Wisconsin Democrats held a trifecta was from 2009 to 2010.

“There’s an enormous opportunity for a breakthrough in our state over this next 18 months,” Wikler said. “At the same time, I want to take time with my family, and I’m working on a book proposal… then I’ll figure out how I can be useful.” 

Party members say they’d support Evers running again 

One of Democrats’ goals for 2026 is to maintain control of the governor’s mansion in Wisconsin. 

Gov. Tony Evers is still weighing whether he’ll run for a third term in office, but party members appeared supportive of a third run. 

When Evers addressed the convention, he highlighted the work that he’s done over the last several years and emphasized that the work towards winning in the future has to start immediately.

“Everyone stopped calling me two-term or three-term Tony, and now they just call me 400-year Tony,” he said, referencing his partial veto of the last state budget in 2023 that extended a school revenue increase for 400 years. The State Supreme Court recently ruled the veto was constitutional to the anger of Republicans.

The crowd broke out into chants of “Tony, Tony, Tony.” 

Evers also chastised the Trump administration and Republicans for being “at work to obliterate our constitutional checks and balances,” and noted that Republicans fired thousands of federal employees and are trying to cut Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act.

But he said that Democrats are “raising hell too.” 

“When the Trump Administration tried to gut billions of dollars of federal funding that Congress approved and Wisconsin was counting on for our schools’ health care infrastructure, we sued,” Evers said. “When they tried to fire tens of thousands of federal workers, leaving them and their families in a lurch, we sued them. When they tried to gut AmeriCorps, which would affect the services and communities [in] more than half of Wisconsin’s 72 counties, we sued.” 

Evers’ AmeriCorps lawsuit is part of what makes Puls of UW-Green Bay supportive of a third campaign.

“I really hope that he actually makes some changes, especially because I just lost my job from the AmeriCorps funding cuts,” Puls said. “He promised to help with that and fix things, so I’m really — I’m hoping for the best. I’m hoping that he stays true to his word.” 

Margetta Souder of the Eau Claire County Democratic Party also said Evers needs to run again. 

“[Evers is] one of the better governors we’ve ever had, and I think he’s effective if he’s allowed to do what he does best,” Souder said, adding that flipping the Legislature would help him get things done. “If I were him, I would be depressed because of how much harder he has to work in order to get anything done,” Souder said. “He needs support.” 

Mark Unak, an economist and member of the Milwaukee County Democratic Party, said he also wants Evers to run again, and appreciates that he is a “straight-shooter.” 

“His hands are tied with the Legislature, but what he has done has been good,” Unak said. “He comes out of the education department. He knows what the numbers look like. He knows what the demographics look like, so I think he’s a realist.” 

When it comes to other names that have been thrown around, Unak said he wasn’t sure there was a candidate who could fill Evers’ shoes. 

“No offense to [Lt. Gov.] Sara [Rodriguez] and no offense to [AG] Josh Kaul. I don’t think either of them are strong enough to win as governor,” Unak said. 

Sam Laude, a UW-Green Bay student, said some people have been discussing the issue of Evers’ age. He is 73 and would be 75 at the start of a third term if he were to run and win. He said Democrats have had a trend of older candidates and said former President Joe Biden dropped out of the 2024 campaign too late. However, he said Evers is still extremely popular and would likely win another term.

“As long as he maintains that energy, he can absolutely go for it,” Laude said. Watching Evers at the convention, he said he  “definitely still had the energy,” adding that he had hundreds of conversations with people waiting in line to talk to him at an ice cream event Saturday evening. “I think he’s still got it and I hope that continues in the future.”

Laude said that if Evers decided not to run, he would want Wikler to run for governor. 

“He deserves a break. Let him hang out with his family this summer, but we do need a presence like Ben Wikler,” Laude said, adding that he has built bridges in the party and thinks his background, including his background as a student at Harvard, would serve him well.

“He’s plenty smart for the position — would be probably more qualified than most Republican governors to be blunt — and does genuinely care about all these big issues that are impacting Wisconsin,” Laude said. “He would support education, health care access, all those things.”

“I’m on Team Tony for a third term,” U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan wrote on social media ahead of the convention. “There is truly no one more quintessentially WI than [Evers]. Bring on the Addam’s Family island of misfit candidates in the GOP. Evers wins because he’s the best for WI.” 

Rep. Jodi Emerson (D-Eau Claire) told the Examiner that she would support Evers’ decision either way, though she said she would love to see him run. She declined to comment on who she would want to run if Evers decides otherwise, but said there are some “really strong people who are kind of waiting in the wings if he doesn’t want to.” 

“We haven’t seen a Democrat with this high of ratings in a long time. I think he is beloved when he goes out into my district — everybody is so happy to see him. I would love it if he ran for a third term. I also understand if he’s, like, well, you know, I’ve had quite a few years in public service. It’s time to go on,” Emerson said. “The important thing to me is that we get this trifecta next year.”

During his speech, Evers said Republicans “better start getting used to Democrats being in power in the state,” noting that 2026 will be the first time that every member of the Legislature will have had to run under the fair maps he signed into law in 2024.

“With a Democratic trifecta, Wisconsin could expand Badger Care, pass paid family leave, get contaminants out of our water and get our kids and schools the resources they need, and yes, we could finally legalize marijuana,” Evers said to the cheers and whistles from the convention. 

Evers said Democrats need to begin building the foundation to win elections now. 

“We have to win… we’re going to fight like hell to make sure we do because the stakes could not be higher or not,” he said.

Lawmakers eye majorities

A Democratic trifecta would also rely on the party holding the line and making gains in the state Assembly, where Democrats are five seats away from a majority, and in the state Senate, where they are two seats from a majority.

Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) appeared confident that Democrats can win the Senate in 2026. Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine) did not speak at the convention.

“We will get it done,” Hesselbein said. 

Hesselbein said Republicans have been holding the state back from progressing, calling attention to Wisconsin Republicans’ support of enforcing a criminal 1849 law to ban abortion and and their gutting of Evers’ state budget, removing items that would have invested in child care programs, school meals for all and tax exemptions for diapers and over-the-counter medications. 

“When we’re in the majority in the state Senate — and it will happen soon — here’s what the budget will look like. We will put our kids first by finally fully funding our K-12 education… We will make historic investments in the UW and the university system, and we will stop meddling in the colleges and universities. We will make sure that the rich pay their fair share taxes,” Hesselbein said. “That’s just the budget.” 

Hesselbein said Democrats would also work to ensure women have reproductive rights and pass paid medical and family leave. 

Emerson said she thinks the prospect for a majority looks “really, really good for next year.” 

“I’m a perpetual optimist when it comes to elections, though I’ve had my heart broken many times, but I really do think it is within our grasp.” 

Emerson said Democrats could see a boost with Trump in office.

“I think we are gonna see a lot of people who are either only Trump voters and will not come out for a non-Trump election or they’re people who are seeing what’s happening not only in their community but across the country and across the world because of Trump and are saying, ‘nope, not anymore, we’re not going to put up with it,’” Emerson said. 

Emerson said that Democrats are working to actively recruit candidates to run and are focused on holding Republicans accountable and encouraging constituents to do the same. She noted that Democrats have been holding town halls, including in Republican represented areas, as well as working to communicate with people about what is going on in the state Legislature.

Emerson said she has a “whole spreadsheet” of priorities if Democrats win the majorities. She said Democrats are prepared to be  in the majority and are using the current session as a “dress rehearsal” even as they play defense against Republicans. 

“There’s so many [Assembly Bill] ideas out there. For me, I think it really does need to be codify Roe into law,” Emerson said, adding that while there is a lot of chatter about economic policy, the decision on whether someone has a child is an economic decision. “If you’re not in charge of your own body, you really have no freedom at all.” 

Party members respond to attacks on Minnesota lawmakers 

The convention took place right after the apparently politically-motivated assasination of Minnesota Democratic House leader Melissa Hortman and her husband by a man impersonating a police officer. Minnesota Democratic Sen. John Hoffman and his wife were also shot multiple times prior to Hortman.

The party worked to increase the level of security at the convention after the news broke. 

As Wikler called the convention into order, he said the party was meeting in a time of “shock and grief.” 

“I conveyed our support to leaders in Minnesota for swift justice and for this horror to end now and today, amidst the fear and grief, I want to reaffirm our appreciation, our gratitude for all those who have the courage to serve in public office,” Wikler said.

While talking about the attack, U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin mentioned the arrest of her colleague U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla of California, saying both incidents represent attempts to silence people. 

“We will not be silenced,” Baldwin said. “Let’s keep that in our heart, in our minds, in our prayers and let’s carry on in their memories. 

State Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, Hesselbein, and Neubauer released a joint statement about the attacks on Saturday. 

“No one should ever fear for their lives because of their service to their community. Political violence accomplishes nothing, and is never the answer,” the lawmakers stated. “We hope that the assailant is apprehended swiftly.”

During her speech at the convention, Hesselbein said the country and Wisconsin must “resolve political differences with conversation and debate — not at the point of a gun and not with violence.”

Hesselbein said her “heart breaks” for Minnesota colleagues and their families, noting that she is in consistent contact with colleagues all over the county, especially in the Midwest.

“We’re a close-knit community, and we’re trying to keep track and to keep each other safe,” Hesselbein said. “All of us in the Wisconsin Legislature will do what we can to help Minnesota, to help them heal and to prevent this from ever happening again and to continue to seek a safe and respectful world.”

Emerson said the attacks made the convention feel different this year. 

“Any time somebody is targeted for the job that they hold, we’ve failed as a society,” Emerson said. “I was really devastated to see that happen, just like it was really devastating to see the assassination attempt on President Trump last summer, too. None of this should happen and it shouldn’t be a partisan thing.” 

“How do we work really, really hard for our values, while not ostracizing other people, and I think it’s a fine line to walk, but it’s really important. We can argue vehemently about the policies that separate us and the approaches that separate us,” Emerson said. “But in the end, I really, truly, believe that all 99 Assembly people and all 33 Senators are doing what they do because they think that their approach makes Wisconsin a better place.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

National Institutes of Health Director Jayanta Bhattacharya speaks at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions on Capitol Hill on March 5, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya testified Tuesday that he will work with Congress to potentially reverse a steep cut to the agency’s funding the White House proposed earlier this year in its budget request.

Bhattacharya told highly critical Republicans and Democrats on the Senate panel that writes the NIH’s annual spending bill that he’s “happy” to work with lawmakers to find a funding level that everyone can support in the months ahead.

“This is my first time through this budget fight and so I’m still learning. But I’ll tell you, what I understand is that the budget is a collaborative effort between Congress and the administration,” Bhattacharya said. “I look forward to working with you all to advance the real health needs — not just the folks here in the room who represent Alzheimer’s patients, but also the health needs of all Americans.”

Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, R-Maine, said it was “disturbing” that the president’s budget request suggested lawmakers cut NIH funding by about $18 billion, or 40%, in the upcoming spending bill.

“It would undo years of congressional investment in NIH,” Collins said. “And it would delay or stop effective treatments and cures from being developed for diseases like Alzheimer’s, cancer, type one diabetes. I could go on and on.

“We also risk falling behind China and other countries that are increasing their investment in biomedical research.”

Collins said the committee planned to work with Bhattacharya “to remedy these problems and the deficiencies” in the budget request in the months ahead as the committee writes the annual government funding bills.

Collins also rebuked Bhattacharya for seeking to reduce how much the NIH pays grantees for facilities and administrative costs, which go toward paying bills that aren’t directly associated with just one research project.

NIH efforts to cap those indirect costs at 15% are on hold as lawsuits from Democratic attorneys general, the Association of American Medical Colleges and the Association of American Universities work through the federal court system.

“This proposed cap is so poorly conceived,” Collins said. “And I have seen firsthand how harmful it is. It is leading to scientists leaving the United States for opportunities in other countries. It’s causing clinical trials to be halted and promising medical research to be abandoned. It’s also against federal law. Since 2018, we in Congress have specifically included language to prevent NIH from arbitrarily imposing such a cap.”

Collins told Bhattacharya to talk with Kelvin K. Droegemeier, who worked as President Donald Trump’s science adviser during his first term. Droegemeier is chairman of a group put together by the Association of Public and Land Grant Universities to propose changes to the indirect costs model.

‘Frankly, catastrophic’

Washington state Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, pressed Bhattacharya to defend the actions he’s taken so far and those proposed in the budget request.

“What the Trump administration is doing to NIH right now is, frankly, catastrophic,” Murray said. “Over the past few months, this administration has fired and pushed out nearly 5,000 critical employees across NIH, prevented nearly $3 billion in grant funding from being awarded and terminated nearly 2,500 grants totaling almost $5 billion for life-saving research that is ongoing that includes clinical trials for HIV and Alzheimer’s disease.”

Murray added that no one in America wants less research into treatments and cures for cancer, or Alzheimer’s disease.

West Virginia Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, chairwoman of the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations subcommittee that held the hearing, expressed concern about NIH’s proposed budget cuts, saying they have raised alarms at numerous research universities.

“These institutions are the reason America has kept the edge in biomedical research and innovation,” Capito said. “As with many changes in leadership, there seems to be a heightened set of concern and confusion that diverting resources from research will result in a less healthy America.”

Capito emphasized she expects NIH to continue to focus research efforts on Alzheimer’s, a disease that affects more than 7 million Americans.

“For almost a decade, this committee has supported research towards the goals of finding treatments and a cure for Alzheimer’s disease,” Capito said. “This goal is very personal to me, as you know, since both of my parents lived with and eventually succumbed to this disease. And I could look out behind you and see in the audience that many folks here are extremely interested in that area of research.”

Delayed funding in the states

Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin, ranking member on the subcommittee, also reprimanded Bhattacharya for cutting off funding for projects looking into Alzheimer’s and several other illnesses.

“NIH has delayed $65 million in funding for 14 Alzheimer’s disease research centers in nine states, including at the University of Wisconsin-Madison,” Baldwin said. “It has delayed $47 million in cancer center support grants at nine cancer centers in eight states, it has delayed $55 million for 11 rare disease clinical research network grants in eight states.

“Let that sink in: This administration is making a conscious choice not to fund research into Alzheimer’s disease, cancer and rare diseases. And NIH has terminated grants for maternal morbidity and mortality centers, a grant developing new digital imaging techniques for cervical cancer screening and a clinical trial studying a potential cure for infants born with HIV, just to name a few.”

Alabama Republican Sen. Katie Britt called on Bhattacharya to ensure NIH refocuses on maternal health research and ways to decrease the country’s high maternal mortality rate.

“Look, far too many women in this country are dying from pregnancy-related causes,” Britt said. “You look at Alabama, we have one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the nation. It disproportionately affects Black women, Native American women, those women in rural areas.”

From left, parents Jessica Seawright and Brooke Wampole talk with Sen. Tammy Baldwin about their concerns over the impact of Medicaid cuts on families with children such as theirs who have disabilities. (Screenshot/Zoom)

As members of Congress continue to debate the Republican budget reconciliation bill that includes hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicaid, Jessica Seawright ponders what that could mean for her young son.

Seawright is a social worker in Southeast Wisconsin. She’s also the mother of a 9-year-old boy with complex medical needs resulting from a genetic condition.

She and her husband — a college professor — have medical coverage through work, but with her son’s condition, which includes cerebral palsy, their health plans could never cover the degree of care he requires.

Medicaid has made the difference, Seawright said Wednesday. It’s helped through the Katie Beckett  program, which enables children with disabilities to have Medicaid coverage while living at home instead of being in an institution; the Medicaid children’s long-term support coverage; and Medicaid support that public schools receive to cover certain services that students with disabilities require.

Her son has been able to thrive living with her and her husband, Seawright said — but worry clouds the future.

“We look toward his adulthood, knowing that disability and aging programs that would support him staying in the community — where we, our family and our community, know he belongs — are being dismantled and defunded,” Seawright said. “Forcing us and others like us into medical bankruptcy is not a solution.”

Seawright was one of two parents who said Wednesday that their lives and their children’s lives could be profoundly upended by the Medicaid reductions that are included in the budget reconciliation proposal.

They spoke during a webinar conducted by Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin), who has been an outspoken critic of the budget bill’s Medicaid cuts.

“Our neighbors, our friends and our colleagues at work who rely on Medicaid and are scared, really scared,” Baldwin said. She cited estimates produced by Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee that with cuts to Medicaid as well as to the Affordable Care Act, the legislation could reduce health care for nearly  14 million Americans, including almost 230,000 Wisconsin residents.

The money saved, she added, would be used to extend and expand tax cuts enacted in 2017, during the first Trump administration. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has said the tax cuts primarily favor the wealthy and corporations.

“It’s giveaways for their wealthy friends at the cost of Americans’ health and lives,” Baldwin said. “That’s the deal.”

Baldwin said the choice that U.S. House Republicans made to advance the bill in committee in the early hours of Wednesday morning was a sign that “Republicans know what they’re doing is deeply unpopular.”

She dismissed claims that the objective of the bill’s authors was to address waste, fraud or abuse in Medicaid and other safety net programs.

“I would be happy to come to the table to write a bill that truly gets at fraud and abuse,” Baldwin said. “We want that out of Medicaid. We want that out of Medicare. But that is not what this bill does. This bill terminates health care for Wisconsin families.”

Besides being a mother of a child who has been helped by Medicaid’s programs, Seawright has experienced Medicaid through two other lenses.

When she and her sister were growing up, their mother was relying on Medicaid for the family’s health care. That helped give the family stability so that her mom could go to community college, become a medical assistant and get full-time work in health care with insurance through her employer, Seawright said.

In her own job as a social worker, she added, some of the clients she works with have Medicaid.

Both her childhood experience and her role as a mental health provider have made her critical of proposals to cut Medicaid, Seawright said — especially one to add work requirements as a condition for adults considered “able-bodied” to enroll in Medicaid.  

“Creating more barriers for people to access the care they need … individuals losing their primary care providers and their specialists, from my perspective, is just a cruel response that is steeped in distrust of those of us who are doing the work day to day,” Seawright said.

Also on the webinar was Brooke Wampole, who lives in northern Wisconsin. She and her husband have a 4-year-old son who was found to have long delays in his development.

About two years ago he was screened and qualified for services and therapies covered by Medicaid programs for children with disabilities, and over time, his clinicians helped him first to “exist, to self-regulate, to see the world around him and not find it to be a threat,” Wampole said.

The family’s regular health insurance “could never cover the cost” those treatments required. “ Medicaid programs “have been absolutely instrumental in our lives.”

In the last year, her son has begun speaking one-syllable words. “My favorites or Mommy and Dada,” Wampole said, then added with a smile, “however, he is pretty partial to talking about trapezoids. And raisins.”

The thought of losing Medicaid coverage “is terrifying,” Wampole said — both because of the loss of services for her son, but also because of its impact on other families.

“I worry what our world looks like without Medicaid,” Wampole said. “Other families, they could be way worse off … and cutting Medicaid could hurt them even more than my family. I don’t want to be part of a system that contributes to that.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A protester holds a sign in support of funding for public media during a May 1, 2025, rally at the Kansas Statehouse in Topeka as part of a 50501 national day of action. (Photo by Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump urged Congress to eliminate funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting during his first term, but was largely unsuccessful.

Now, in his second go-around, Trump is once again asking lawmakers to scrap federal spending on the private, nonprofit corporation that Congress established in the 1960s.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting allocates funding to National Public Radio, or NPR, and the Public Broadcasting Service, or PBS, as well as more than 1,500 local radio and television stations throughout the country.

Trump’s renewed focus on public media — in his budget proposal, an executive order and an expected rescissions request — has led the organizations that benefit from the CPB to start talking more than they have in recent years about their funding and their journalism.

Katherine Maher, president and CEO of NPR, rejected the idea that ending funding for the CPB would have a significant impact on the federal ledger, since the “appropriation for public broadcasting, including NPR and PBS, represents less than 0.0001% of the federal budget.”

Maher also opposed what she viewed as the Trump administration seeking to influence journalists and news organizations.

“The President’s order is an affront to the First Amendment rights of NPR and locally owned and operated stations throughout America to produce and air programming that meets the needs of their communities,” Maher wrote in a statement. “It is also an affront to the First Amendment rights of station listeners and donors who support independent news and information.”

Paula Kerger, CEO and president at PBS, also defended the CBP as well as the news programs that receive its funding.

“There’s nothing more American than PBS, and our work is only possible because of the bipartisan support we have always received from Congress,” Kerger said. “This public-private partnership allows us to help prepare millions of children for success in school and in life and also supports enriching and inspiring programs of the highest quality.”

NPR receives about 1% of its direct funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, while PBS receives about 15%. Those numbers fluctuate for the local stations, which tend to get more, but not all, of their operating budgets from CPB funding.

Senate likely to balk

House Republicans, who have sought to zero out funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in recent appropriations bills, are likely to get on board. But senators, who write broadly bipartisan bills, haven’t taken that step and appear unlikely to do so this year — possibly helping public media resist Trump’s cutback attempts, as it did during his first term.

The differences between the House and Senate will lead to heated debate for months to come about future spending on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as well as the dozens of other programs Trump told lawmakers to stop funding in his budget request.

Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin, ranking member on the panel that funds CPB, told States Newsroom during a brief interview she hopes lawmakers “can effectively fight back against that proposed budget.”

“I find that some of my Republican colleagues, especially those from rural states, hear from their constituents that they are reliant on public broadcasting, especially radio for local information, news, etcetera,” Baldwin said. “And there’s not a lot of other radio resources out there. But I think the same can be said about the public television offerings.”

Opinions among Republicans vary, though.

Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy, who sits on the spending panel, said funding for CPB “may have made sense at one time, but the American taxpayer has no business spending half a billion dollars a year subsidizing media.”

Kennedy said he doesn’t expect rural residents will lose access to local television and radio programming should Congress eliminate the funding.

“Rural communities have the same access as everybody else to cable, to streaming, to getting their news off of this thing,” Kennedy said, pointing to his cell phone. “It’s just an argument by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to hold on to a government subsidy.”

Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, pushed back against defunding.

She wrote in an op-ed published in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner that while she shares “the desire to reduce government spending, defunding the CPB, and particularly the essential reporting it allows locally owned radio and television stations to provide in Alaska, is not the place to start.”

Alaska’s local stations received $12 million last year from CPB, which made up between 30% and 70% of their total budget, in addition to individual donation and state funding, according to the op-ed.

“Not only would a large portion of Alaska communities lose their local programming, but warning systems for natural disasters, power outages, boil water advisories, and other alerts would be severely hampered,” Murkowski wrote. “What may seem like a frivolous expense to some has proven to be an invaluable resource that saves lives in Alaska.”

CPB has a state-by-state breakdown on its website detailing how much it provided during each of the past six years. The individual profiles show what portion of each state’s funding went to different programs, like the Next Generation Warning System, radio programming, Ready to Learn and Television Community Service Grants.

Public media among multiple Trump targets

Trump’s skinny budget request, released last week, calls on Congress to cease funding the CPB as well as dozens of other organizations, including the National Endowment for Democracy and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP.

The section on CPB says the request is “consistent with the President’s efforts to decrease the size of the Federal Government to enhance accountability, reduce waste, and reduce unnecessary governmental entities.”

Trump has also signed an executive order directing the CPB Board of Directors as well as executive departments and agencies to halt funding NPR and PBS.

The order stated that the “viewpoints NPR and PBS promote does not matter. What does matter is that neither entity presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens.”

Patricia Harrison, president and CEO of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, wrote in a statement responding to the executive order that Trump didn’t have the authority he was trying to wield.

“CPB is not a federal executive agency subject to the President’s authority,” Harrison wrote. “Congress directly authorized and funded CPB to be a private nonprofit corporation wholly independent of the federal government.

“In creating CPB, Congress expressly forbade ‘any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over educational television or radio broadcasting, or over [CPB] or any of its grantees or contractors…’ 47 U.S.C. § 398(c).”

There are also several news reports that the Trump administration will send a rescissions request to Capitol Hill, asking lawmakers to pull back funding already approved for CPB. But the Office of Management and Budget hasn’t yet taken that step.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting received steady funding from Congress starting at its founding, before the last Trump administration asked lawmakers to phase out its appropriation.

The last Trump administration’s first budget request called on lawmakers to “conduct an orderly closeout” by providing $30 million for CPB that would have gone toward salaries, rent and other costs.

The proposal argued that “private fundraising has proven durable, negating the need for continued Federal subsidies.”

“Services such as PBS and NPR, which receive funding from the CPB, could make up the shortfall by increasing revenues from corporate sponsors, foundations, and members. In addition, alternatives to PBS and NPR programming have grown substantially since CPB was first established in 1967, greatly reducing the need for publicly funded programming options.”

Funding increased despite Trump

Congress didn’t go along with the fiscal 2018 budget request for the CPB, and it wouldn’t for the rest of Trump’s first term.

In March 2018, lawmakers approved $445 million, followed by the same amount in the next year’s bill. Congress then lifted spending to $465 million in December 2019 and then again just before Trump left office for a total funding level of $475 million.

Those allocations continued rising during the Biden administration, reaching a $535 million appropriation in March 2024, the last full-year spending law enacted before Trump returned to the Oval Office. 

House Republicans did, however, try to phase out funding for CPB during the second half of President Joe Biden’s term. The House GOP provided a two-year advanced appropriation until 2023, when Republicans announced they wanted “the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to compete with other programs in the bill for annual funding.”

Those efforts didn’t work and the final spending bill, which became law in March 2024, included funding for CPB.

Senate Democrats wrote after negotiating the bipartisan agreement that it “protects funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to support more than 1,500 locally owned TV and radio stations nationwide—rejecting House Republicans’ proposal to zero out funding and weaken Americans’ access to local reporting.

“The bill maintains a critical investment of $60 million for digital interconnection and $535 million as a two-year advance appropriation, of which roughly 70% is provided directly to local public TV and radio stations.”

Final resolution far off

Congress is expected to begin work on its dozen annual appropriations bills sometime this summer, which collectively total about $1.8 trillion and make up about one-third of all federal spending. 

The House Appropriations Committee will likely propose phasing out CPB funding, or at least its advanced appropriation, in its bill.

The Senate Appropriations Committee tends to write more bipartisan bills, so as long as several of the panel’s members advocate for CPB in its funding measure, the program will likely receive its advanced funding in that bill.

Final agreement between the House and Senate is supposed to come before the start of the next fiscal year on Oct. 1. But that rarely happens and lawmakers often use a stopgap spending bill to push off final negotiations until mid-December.

That’s likely the earliest this year the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and those who rely on it will learn if Congress will reduce or eliminate its funding. That is, unless lawmakers fail to reach agreement on that particular funding bill.

Congress would then have to use a stopgap spending bill, which mostly keeps funding levels on autopilot, until it can enact a full-year bill.