The U.S. Capitol on the evening of Tuesday, Sept. 30, 2025, just hours before a federal government shutdown. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Democrats and Republicans remained at a stalemate Wednesday as government offices closed and hundreds of thousands of federal workers faced furloughs on the first day of a government shutdown that showed no sign of ending.

Proposals from each side of the aisle to fund and reopen the government failed again during morning Senate votes, mirroring the same vote breakdowns as Tuesday evening, when lawmakers could not reach a deal hours before the government ran out of money.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected up to 750,000 federal workers could be furloughed, leading to a $400 million per day impact on the economy.

Locked in their positions, Republicans failed to pick up enough Democrats to reach the 60 votes needed to advance their plan to fund the government until Nov. 21. 

Senators will break Thursday to observe Yom Kippur but will return Friday to again vote on the funding proposals.

Democratic Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, along with independent Angus King of Maine, again joined Republicans in the 55-45 vote for the House-passed stopgap spending bill. GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky voted no.

Democrats also failed to find support to move forward their bill to fund the government through Oct. 31, roll back GOP cuts on Medicaid and permanently extend subsidies that tie the cost of Affordable  Care Act health insurance premiums to an enrollee’s income level. 

The Democrats failed to advance their plan in a party-line 47-53 vote. King, who caucuses with Democrats, voted in favor.

Shutdown tied to health care tax credits

Senate and House Democrats say they will not support a GOP path to reopen the government unless Republicans agree to negotiate on rising health care costs. 

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said at a press conference that Democrats are “ready to sit down with anyone at any time and at any place in order now to reopen the government, to enact a spending agreement that meets the needs of the American people and to address the devastating Republican health care crisis that has caused extraordinary harm on people all across the country.”

The New York Democrat pointed to harms in “rural America, working class America, urban America, small-town America, the heartland of America and Black and brown communities throughout America.” 

Democratic leaders blitzed Capitol Hill with their message on health care, holding press conferences and attending an evening rally Tuesday on the lawn outside the U.S. House. 

They pointed to new data published this week showing annual insurance premiums could double on average in 2026 if the subsidies expire at year’s end, according to an analysis from the nonprofit health policy research organization KFF. 

Open enrollment for next year’s ACA health insurance plans opens Nov. 1 in most states, and Oct. 15 in Idaho.

Uptake of ACA health insurance plans has more than doubled to over 24 million, up from 11 million, since the introduction of the subsidies in 2021, according to KFF. 

During their own budget reconciliation deal in 2022, Democrats extended the insurance premium tax credits until the end of 2025. The majority of ACA enrollees currently rely on the credits.

Democrats also want assurances that the White House and Senate Republicans will not cancel any more funds that have already been approved by Congress, as was the case this year when the administration and GOP lawmakers stripped funding for medical research, foreign aid and public broadcasting, among other areas.

‘This can all end today’

GOP leaders in the House and Senate continued to blame Senate Democrats for the government shutdown at the expense of furloughed federal workers and Americans who rely on their services. 

At a Wednesday morning press conference, House Speaker Mike Johnson said “troops and border patrol agents will have to go to work, but they’ll be working without pay.”

Johnson also claimed at the press conference that veterans benefits would stop. The claim is false, as Veterans Administration medical care will continue uninterrupted and vets will also continue to receive benefits, including compensation, pension, education and housing.

“As we speak here this morning, there are hundreds of thousands of federal workers who are getting their furlough notices. Nearly half of our civilian workforce is being sent home — these are hard-working Americans who work for our federal government,” the Louisiana Republican said, flanked by fellow GOP leaders on the Upper West Terrace of the U.S. Capitol overlooking the National Mall. 

Johnson decided in late September the House will be out until Oct. 6, canceling this week’s votes. 

The speaker said he will bring House members back next week, even if the government is still shut down.

“They would be here this week, except that we did our work — we passed the bill almost two weeks ago out of the House, sent it to the Senate,” Johnson said. “The ball is literally in (Senate Minority Leader) Chuck Schumer’s court, so he determines that.” 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said “this can all end today” and “needs to end today.”

The South Dakota Republican said the funding lapse can cease when Senate Democrats vote for the GOP’s “clean” short-term funding bill. 

“We will continue to work together with our House counterparts, with the president of the United States, to get this government open again on behalf of the American people,” Thune said. 

Bipartisan deal and Trump

Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine said later in the day that a bipartisan group huddled on the floor during votes to talk about a possible path forward on “health care fixes” and ensuring that if a bipartisan deal is brokered, the Trump administration will stick to it. 

Republican senators, he said, could give Democrats assurances they won’t vote for any more rescissions requests from the White House, which ask Congress to cancel already approved government spending. But other issues, like laying off federal workers by the hundreds or thousands, have to be a promise from the president. 

“If I find a deal, should Congress have to follow it? Yes. Should the president have to follow it? Yes. Well, what if the president won’t follow it? Oh, yeah, you got a problem,” Kaine said. “So you know, rescission, impoundment, those are Senate words. But a deal is a deal — people get that.”

Kaine also emphasized that it’s not a “clean” stopgap funding bill if the Trump administration unilaterally cancels some of the spending. 

“In the past, we voted for clean (continuing resolutions), but the president has shown that he’ll take the money back,” Kaine said, referring to the technical name for a short-term funding bill. “I mean, just in Virginia, canceling $400 million to our public health, $40 million economic projects just pulled off the table, firing more Virginians than any president. 

“So we just want you to agree, if we do a deal, then you’ll honor the deal,” Kaine said. “It’s not that much to ask.”

‘People are suffering’

North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis said he doesn’t expect the shutdown will have long-term ramifications for senators’ ability to negotiate bipartisan deals — a necessity in the upper chamber, which has a 60-vote threshold to advance legislation. 

“It’s all transactional,” Tillis said. “I think there’s going to be opportunities for some bipartisan work, but none of that happens, you can’t even really consider it when you’re in a shutdown posture.”

Cortez Masto, who voted to advance Republicans’ seven-week stopgap bill, said the GOP “created this crisis” on health care and “need to address it.”

“They have no moral standing — no moral standing —- to say that this is all on the Democrats. They are in control. They’ve created this crisis,” Cortez Masto said. “People are suffering and they need to come to the table.” 

Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley, who was sworn in for the first time during the last shutdown, said he worries about longer-term effects. 

“My concern is it’s going to poison the well on negotiations going forward on a lot of things,” Hawley said. “I can’t speak for anybody but myself, but I would just say that these tactics are very destructive. And it’s destructive, not just for relationships, but for real people.”

Ariana Figueroa contributed to this report.

Donna Powell, 66, a resident of Austin, Texas, who is temporarily living in the nation's capital, holds a sign at the "Healthcare Over Billionaires" rally hosted by Fair Share America and nearly three dozen other advocacy organizations outside the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday, Sept. 30, 2025, hours before federal government funding ran out at midnight. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — A large crowd gathered on Capitol Hill Tuesday hours before a federal government shutdown to protest rising health care costs — the crux of Democrats’ stand against approving a temporary Republican funding bill.

More than a dozen Democratic lawmakers joined activists and people who shared stories of rising health insurance premium costs at the “Healthcare Over Billionaires” rally hosted by the advocacy group Fair Share America, along with nearly three dozen labor unions, political advocacy groups and other organizations. 

Senate Democrats again on Tuesday blocked Republicans’ temporary government funding bill, citing the expiration of Affordable Care Act enhanced premium tax credits that since 2021 have lowered health insurance costs tied to an enrollee’s income. 

The standoff means a federal government shutdown will begin after midnight Tuesday.

Tony Gonzales, of Indiana County, Pennsylvania, told the crowd he worries how losing the premium tax credits will affect his family’s finances as he continues treatment for thymic carcinoma, a rare cancer he was diagnosed with two years ago.

“I need these subsidies. If the rich and the Republicans can go out there and have money for tax cuts, to buy another yacht, to go out in space, why can’t I at least have health care to address my needs, my wife’s needs, and maintain a lifestyle that we deserve as an American family?” said Gonzales.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota said her constituents are “standing on a health insurance cliff right now” and she will not support a Republican funding proposal until GOP lawmakers agree to extend the health insurance subsidies.

“When I hear them say, ‘oh, we’ll look at this in December, we’ll look at this in January.’ This is not a December thing. This is not a January thing. This is a now thing,” she said.

Open enrollment for health care plans begins Nov. 1 in most states, except Idaho, where it begins Oct. 15.

Annual insurance premiums could double on average in 2026 if the subsidies expire at year’s end, according to an analysis published Tuesday by the nonprofit health policy research organization KFF.

The enhanced premium tax credits were extended through 2025 under the Democrat-led budget reconciliation law in 2022, otherwise known as the Inflation Reduction Act.

Participation in Affordable Care Act health insurance exchanges has more than doubled to over 24 million, up from 11 million, since the introduction of the tax credits, which the majority of enrollees receive, according to KFF. 

Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chair Adriano Espaillat, a New York Democrat, speaks at a press conference outside the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 30, 2025. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — A group of Democratic caucus leaders on Tuesday blasted a vulgar deepfake of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries posted by President Donald Trump on social media. 

The chairs of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, Democratic Women’s Caucus, New Democrat Coalition, Congressional Progressive Caucus and Congressional Equality Caucus also refused to back down on their health care demands as the federal government barrels toward a shutdown.

The GOP and Democratic lawmakers are in a deadlock, and funding is set to run out by midnight Tuesday, when the new fiscal year begins.

“We won’t vote for anything that doesn’t restore the cuts to Medicaid and doesn’t protect people that will be paying higher premiums,” Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chair Adriano Espaillat said at a press conference outside the U.S. Capitol, referring to Medicaid reductions made in the “big, beautiful” law enacted by Republicans earlier this year.

The New York Democrat said “we won’t mess around with Americans’ health care — people that are sick that deserve to have a first-quality health care system providing assistance to them in one of the most serious periods of their lives.” 

While Republicans want a “clean” stopgap funding bill to keep the government open, Democrats are calling for the extension of enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credits set to expire at the end of 2025 and the reversal of sweeping health care changes brought by the GOP’s mega tax and spending cuts law, including the massive funding cuts to Medicaid. 

‘Racist meme’ by Trump slammed

Trump posted the deepfake on his social media platform Truth Social just hours after his White House meeting with Schumer, Jeffries, Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota and House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana, which failed to yield any funding deal. The Congressional Budget Office estimated Tuesday that some 750,000 federal employees could be furloughed if the government shuts down. 

The 35-second video appears to be AI-generated and uses the setting of Schumer and Jeffries, both New York Democrats, speaking to reporters outside the White House after their meeting with Trump. 

The fake video shows Jeffries with a sombrero and mustache and Schumer ranting that “if we give all these illegal aliens free health care, we might be able to get them on our side so they can vote for us.” 

Espaillat of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus described the video as “insulting,” saying it shows Trump is “out of touch with the health care challenges of the American people.” 

The New York Democrat said “with your health care on the line, all he could do is put out this deepfake racist meme — not funny at all, not for any of us here, particularly for people that are ill and fighting for their lives that need health care.” 

Democratic Women’s Caucus Chair Teresa Leger Fernández also blasted the video, saying “that’s not how you get to a deal.” Instead, the New Mexico Democrat said Trump’s decision to post it “looks like a little 6-year-old having a temper tantrum.” 

‘Bigotry will get you nowhere’

Congressional Black Caucus Chair Yvette Clarke, a New York Democrat, said “the juvenile behavior coming out of the White House should not be dignified by any American.”   

Clarke noted that her caucus “will not support a partisan spending bill that slashes health care, guts federal jobs and raises costs, all while targeting the very communities that keep this country running.” 

In a social media post Monday responding to the fabricated video, Schumer said “if you think your shutdown is a joke, it just proves what we all know: You can’t negotiate. You can only throw tantrums.” 

Jeffries also responded to Trump on social media Monday, saying “bigotry will get you nowhere” and “we are NOT backing down.” 

Rep. Mark Pocan and Sen. Tammy Baldwin | Collage of screenshots via Zoom

Last time the government was on the brink of a shutdown, Democratic leaders rushed to negotiate with Republicans and reached a deal to keep federal agencies open and basic services flowing. Now that deal is about to expire and there seems to be little appetite for compromise in Washington. 

President Donald Trump has directed Republicans “don’t even bother dealing with” Democrats, and the House rammed through a near-party-line resolution to keep the government open that ignored Democratic demands and had no Democratic input at all. 

“We’re not sure how serious they are about actually trying to have something done by September 30,” Wisconsin Democratic U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan, who sits on the House Appropriations Committee, told reporters in his Madison office Wednesday. Trump had just canceled a meeting with Democratic leaders of the House and Senate, and the House isn’t even in session during the last days of September, as the shutdown clock winds down. 

Still, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) called the Democratic caucus back anyway, “so I’ll be flying Monday out to Washington,” Pocan said.  “Hopefully they’ll decide we’ve got work to do. But you know, this is something where we don’t run the House or the Senate or the White House.” In other words, if the government shuts down, it’s the Republicans’ fault. Republicans, who don’t appear worried about a shutdown, say the opposite, rolling their eyes at Democrats’ demands that a stopgap government funding bill must reverse Medicaid cuts and extend Affordable Care Act premium tax credits, which are set to expire at the end of the year and without which an estimated 5 million Americans will no longer be able to afford any health insurance at all.

A shutdown means hardship for people who depend on government services and could harm the whole economy, “But at the same time,” Pocan said, “we’re trying to fight for people who lost their health care and other things from what we call the Big, Ugly Law.”

Pocan cited data from the nonpartisan health research organization KFF on likely health insurance premium hikes in Wisconsin if the ACA tax credits are not extended. A KFF calculator estimates premium increases for families of different sizes and income levels in every state. A family of four earning $130,000 per year in Wisconsin could see premiums jump by as much as $1,588 per month or $19,081 per year, according to the calculator.

Nationwide, premiums will soar by more than 75% if the credits expire, according to KFF.

Wisconsin Sen. Tammy Baldwin has called for legislation she introduced earlier this year to make the enhanced premium tax credits permanent to be included in any stopgap bill to avert a shutdown.

In a joint statement, Democratic leaders of the House and Senate criticized House Republicans for ignoring their pleas to address the expiring ACA tax credits, writing, “at a time when families are already being squeezed by higher costs, Republicans refuse to stop Americans from facing double-digit hikes in their health insurance premiums.” 

The sudden jump in health insurance premiums, combined with high costs for consumer goods because of Trump’s tariffs, will hit voters just ahead of the midterm elections, which take place right after the ACA tax credits are set to expire. Politics alone should make the idea of forestalling the sudden cliff appealing. But this is no ordinary Republican party. Back in their districts, ducking in-person meetings with constituents, members of Congress who voted for the Big Beautiful Bill Act to slash health care, food assistance and federal agencies that serve their constituents are still in lockstep with Trump. No wonder they don’t care if the entire government grinds to a halt.

A shutdown will be bad. But what Trump and the Republicans have in store for Americans is worse. 

More than the effects of a shutdown, said Pocan, “I’m far more concerned about what they just did to people that we need to try to fix, and if they’re not willing to have those conversations with us — that’s a big problem.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Elementary school students arrive for the first day of school in September in Minnesota. About 3 in 4 children nationwide relied on government-subsidized health care, and 2 in 5 experience disruptions in health coverage during their childhood, according to a study by researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. (Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

A majority of children in the United States rely on Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program at some point by their 18th birthday, and many experience periods of coverage loss, according to a study published Wednesday in the journal JAMA.

By their 18th birthday, about 3 in 4 children nationwide relied on Medicaid, CHIP (which subsidizes health care for children and pregnant women in families that earn too much for Medicaid), or the subsidized insurance marketplaces established through the 2010 Affordable Care Act — or experienced a period during their childhood without health insurance, the study found.

Researchers from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health conducted estimates based on analyses of national data from 2015 to 2019, looking at cumulative coverage rates over the course of childhood. 

The study comes as states grapple with federal Medicaid cuts under President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The tax and spending law will reduce Medicaid funding by $1 trillion and cut enrollment by 10 million to 15 million people over the next decade, according to projections by the Congressional Budget Office.

About 42% of children suffered a period of losing health coverage at any point in time by their 18th birthday, the Harvard researchers found, and 61% had at some point enrolled in Medicaid or CHIP. About 78.5% were at some point enrolled in employment-based insurance.

Rates of children who lost insurance coverage were higher in states that hadn’t expanded Medicaid income eligibility under the Affordable Care Act, often known as Obamacare. Roughly 59% of children in non-expansion states had periods without any insurance coverage — compared with 36% in expansion states. Overall, about 2 in 5 children experienced periods without health insurance, the study found.

And states with the strictest income thresholds saw the highest share of kids losing coverage who previously were covered by Medicaid or CHIP at birth.

“Upcoming changes to Medicaid could affect a significant portion of children and worsen already substantial insurance gaps,” senior author Nicolas Menzies, an  associate professor of global health and faculty member in the school’s Center for Health Decision Science, said in a statement. 

“We’re particularly worried about explicit loss of public insurance eligibility for noncitizen children; spillover effects through parental Medicaid coverage losses due to work requirements and more eligibility checks; and state-level cuts to Medicaid.”

Stateline reporter Nada Hassanein can be reached at nhassanein@stateline.org.

President Donald Trump signs an executive order on Sept. 19, 2025, introducing a $100,000 fee for H-1B visas that allows foreign nationals permanent residency and a pathway to U.S. citizenship. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

A proclamation signed by President Donald Trump last week seeking to restrict entry of non-immigrant workers to the U.S. and apply a $100,000 fee to H-1B visa applications created confusion and concern within the tech industry over the weekend. 

Immediately after Friday’s announcement, companies of all sizes, including tech giants Microsoft and Amazon and smaller startups, began calling any workers with H-1B visas who were traveling outside the U.S. to return to the country by the proclamation’s deadline of midnight Sunday. 

“It’s been seismic, to say the least,” said Nicole Gunara, a principal immigration lawyer with Manifest Law. “People are trying to fight to get out of planes, cancel flights, fly back as quickly as possible, privately chartering boats and planes in the night.”

The Trump administration has since clarified that only new H-1B visa applications would be subject to the fee. Officials also said the proclamation would not impact the ability of visa holders to travel to and from the U.S., but the announcement sent many companies and their foreign workers into a “panic,” Gunara said.

H-1B visas are given to non-immigrant foreign candidates with college degrees who fill highly skilled positions that U.S. companies struggle to hire for. Each year, the U.S. caps the number of new visas to about 85,000, and there were about 730,000 H-1B workers in the U.S. at the start of 2025. 

The visas have traditionally cost between just under $1,000 to a few thousand dollars a year, and are paid by the companies. Companies must pay their H-1B workers at least an average wage for their geographical area, to not undercut the cost of wages for other workers. In 2023, the median wage for H-1B workers was $118,000, on par with the 90th percentile ($121,000) of all U.S. wages.

Many of these roles are in information technology, with Amazon, Microsoft and Meta leading the top Fortune 500 companies with the most H-1B visa workers, with 12,391 workers, 5,189 workers and 5,123 workers respectively. About 70% of H-1B visas went to Indian workers and nearly 12% went to Chinese workers last year. 

Trump’s proclamation calls for American companies to rely on American workers for these roles, saying there is “abuse” of the H-1B program. But domestic educational institutions just aren’t preparing Americans for the type of skilled labor that many of the tech companies are seeking, said Elizabeth Ricci, immigration attorney and partner at Rambana & Ricci.

Trump has cut science funding to its lowest level in at least 35 years, and his cuts to the National Science Foundation and other research organizations are having direct effects on K-12 and college tech education. 

“It’ll have a huge effect,” Ricci said of the cost of fees on the industry. “We can’t have it both ways, where we’re not educating the people we need and also having such an incredibly high fee to be able to get a visa to bring someone in to do work for places like Apple and Google.”

U.S. companies have faced a shortage of skilled tech workers for years. Recruiting and talent firm Robert Half reported 87% of tech leaders said they faced challenges finding skilled talent earlier this year. And Silicon Valley tech giants have long sought global talent to help build American companies.  

“There is a dire shortage of extremely talented and motivated engineers in America,” X CEO Elon Musk posted on the platform, earlier this year. He compared tech companies to a pro sports team scouting players. 

“If you force the world’s best talent to play for the other side, America will LOSE,” he wrote.

But large tech companies will not be the only ones to feel the effects of the change if it is upheld. Startup companies, many of whom are responsible for new technology advances, also rely on H-1B visa workers. 

Pedro David Espinoza, a Peruvian-American entrepreneur and investor, said that many of the startups he works with in the Bay Area have hired H-1B workers to their small teams of 20 or 30 people. 

“We probably are going to skip on many foreign hires altogether, because it’s really expensive, and this will definitely, to a certain degree, stifle innovation,” he said.

Ricci said she thinks the $100,000 fee will result in fewer jobs, and may make America’s global competitors more attractive to these highly-skilled workers. 

“People aren’t going to want to come here if the rules are changing day by day, and they’re going to be put in jeopardy just by going home for a vacation or to see a loved one and not know if they’re going to be able to come back. It’s too tenuous,” she said. “And if they can have promises of continuity in places like the UK, they’re going to go there, and they’re going to make those countries better.”

Gunara said she’s unsure that Trump’s proclamation will have the desired effect of hiring more American workers. In the last few days, she’s heard from clients that they’re considering offshoring tech teams, or setting up entities outside of the U.S., maybe in Canada or somewhere with similar time zones. Companies may also pursue alternative plans for these foreign workers, like a J1 visa, which allows people to research in the U.S. for a temporary period of time. 

Gunara said she believes many people are aligned on the idea that America needs the “best and brightest” talent, but that we could be more mindful of cultivating domestic talent where possible. She suspects there will be legal challenges to the action, but that it speaks to the larger Trump administration attitude toward immigration. 

“Innovation moves immediately, right? Innovation doesn’t wait for that talent to already be trained,” Gunara said. “And I think that that’s going to be the inflection point between the initiatives of the government versus what companies are going to be able to do.”

Workers install fiber optic cables for a school in Harrisburg, Pa. The Trump administration’s changes to a federal grant program meant to expand broadband access have disqualified hundreds of thousands of locations — including homes, businesses and community buildings — from receiving internet access. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

LEFT HAND, W. Va. — The residents of Roane County, West Virginia, enjoy living among the rolling mountains and winding, two-lane roads. Situated between Charleston and Parkersburg, two of the state’s largest cities, the rural county is known for its small towns and historic buildings.

That’s how Sherry Husted, the director of the Roane County Public Libraries, described her native community as she worked last week at Geary Public Library in Left Hand, West Virginia. Each of the county’s three library branches has at least three public computers and free internet access, among other services.

These services are essential to residents living in Roane — where less than 32% of the county’s households, businesses and community buildings — have reliable internet connectivity, according to the Federal Communications Commission’s National Broadband Map.

“We love our rural area,” Husted said. “But there’s always the catch. You love your rural area, but then access to things is always more limited there.”

Members of the library staff regularly help patrons fill out job applications and build resumes. They also help those who have never used a desktop computer before — many of the county’s residents rely on their cellular devices and spotty mobile service, Husted said. Most residents still use landline phones, she added.

And those with internet access at home are paying a steep price. Husted’s plan with Frontier, which includes fiber internet and a landline, comes to $170 a month.

“If you work from home, you need reliable internet,” she said. “Frontier does the best they can. But this is a very rural area, so the trees and terrain are constantly messing up the internet. And because of the demand on these older lines, your internet may not be reliable enough to host things like meetings or classes.”

Roane County is one of the areas federal officials hoped to support through the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program, or BEAD, a federal grant program meant to expand broadband access. The $42.45 billion initiative, created under the Biden administration’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, aimed to close the digital divide — with a focus on rural communities.

The Trump administration’s changes to the program, however, have disqualified hundreds of thousands of locations — including homes, businesses and community buildings — from receiving internet access. And the program’s new technology-neutral approach will also shift a large portion of the federal funds toward satellite internet companies, including Elon Musk’s Starlink, that cost less to build but have more uneven service than underground fiber optic cable.  That means households and businesses that were looking forward to reliable, high-speed internet will no longer get support from the BEAD program.

While some experts were initially skeptical about the program’s goals, every state utilized its allocated funds to develop plans to provide high-speed fiber internet to nearly every home and business in the country, said Christopher Mitchell, the director of the Community Broadband Networks Initiative with the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, an anti-corporate advocacy group.

Most states are expected to get started on deployment projects in 2026. But the Trump administration’s changes have undermined the major investment for rural areas, Mitchell said.

“I think everyone should care about it — even though most people don’t live in rural America — because when we electrified the entire country, the entire economy grew,” Mitchell said. “We will all benefit from this when everyone has more options to share their knowledge, their gifts and their productivity in the economy.”

Even West Virginia, ranking last in internet connectivity, would have effectively achieved universal broadband under the state’s original proposal, according to an unreleased draft of the state’s plan obtained by The Benton Institute for Broadband and Society, a policy group. West Virginia has about 78% connectivity, the only state with less than 80%.

But under West Virginia’s updated final proposal, submitted to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration earlier this month, tens of thousands of households and businesses will no longer have access to BEAD funding.

West Virginia Republican Gov. Patrick Morrisey said he is still optimistic about the rollout, telling reporters recently that some of the decrease in coverage was because of inaccurate information. Some areas had just a few homes, or addresses only had a barn on the property, he and an aide said.

“We’ve been trying to target all the available locations that are eligible,” the governor said Sept. 18 at a news conference at the West Virginia State Capitol. “It’s a pretty fulsome application, and so obviously there were some changes made to accommodate some of the responses from the administration. And in a positive way, they’re trying to save money.”

There are other changes: States and Washington, D.C., may no longer set rates for low-cost residential service options, raising worries that internet providers will put forward plans they say meet the low-cost requirement, no matter the price. And under the “technology-neutral” approach, some locations will no longer be receiving fiber internet, which the federal government previously emphasized due to its speed and durability.

The new guidelines also remove provisions that encouraged states to work with companies and representatives from minority communities. Requirements related to labor, the environment and climate change also were cut.

West Virginia isn’t alone. Under the new rules, thousands of households, businesses and community buildings across the country will be disqualified from the federal government’s push to provide internet access to the areas that need itmost. And those locations that are still eligible for funding may not receive the best service available — or be able to afford it.

West Virginia has one of the country’s worst workforce participation rates. Internet access is key to changing that, said Bill Bissett, chairman of the West Virginia Broadband Enhancement Council.

“We are hopeful that this new proposal will be supported because we need to get started on this development as soon as possible,” Bissett said. “Because the longer we wait, the less people will be connected because of increased costs in deployment and infrastructure.”

Following the required revisions, West Virginia fared well compared with other states, said Drew Garner, the director of policy engagement at the Benton Institute. But Garner said he expects frustration in other states.

“West Virginia, because it did a good job with its restructuring, is still going to have a lot of strong outcomes,” Garner said. “But across the country in some of these other states, I think there’s going to be a lot of frustration with these changes and the way it walked back from what was going to be a very promising outcome.”

BEAD restructuring

In June, the Trump administration revised the rules of the BEAD program in what the U.S. Department of Commerce said was an effort to lessen regulatory burdens, reduce costs and streamline the process.

As of Sept. 18, 41 states had submitted their updated final proposals, according to a database from Connected Nation, a nonprofit that advocates for expanded broadband access.

In December 2022, when the FCC released its updated National Broadband Map, nearly 12 million locations across the country were in need of internet service. Over the years, that number has decreased because of private investments, continued deployment by existing internet providers and additional support from other federal programs.

States originally identified 4.86 million locations that would be eligible for getting internet connectivity through BEAD funds. But that number is projected to fall to 4.19 million locations following revisions initiated by the Trump administration, according to an analysis from Broadband Expanded, a project from the New York Law School.

West Virginia was originally slated to deploy broadband to approximately 110,000 locations. Now, 73,560 of those locations will receive BEAD funding, according to the state’s new proposal. Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, Nebraska and Rhode Island could see more than half of the locations in their state disqualified from the program.

But some of those locations may still be in need of internet, said Garner, of the Benton Institute.

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), which is part of the U.S. Department of Commerce, directed states to remove certain locations from the BEAD program because they’d acquired internet access from another source.

But, in an effort to save taxpayer money, states also had the option to say they were “financially incapable” of serving a location.

“One of the changes the administration made to the BEAD program is that states and the NTIA now have a way to simply say that these locations are just too expensive,” Garner said. “They can say, ‘It is just going to cost too much, so now we’re going to say they’re ineligible.’”

The BEAD program’s new technology-neutral approach poses another challenge. The original program favored fiber because of its speed, reliability and ability to reach remote locations. But some argue that other technologies would be cheaper.

This change has opened the door for satellite internet providers, including Elon Musk’s Starlink, to receive money from the program. Starlink could be awarded approximately $10 billion, according to The Wall Street Journal.

In West Virginia, Starlink will serve more than 4,100 locations, according to the governor’s office.

“Based on the technology and based on all the evidence we have, some of these technologies — unlicensed fixed wireless especially — are not really a reliable internet service that’s going to meet the needs of a 21st century household,” Garner said.

Rural advocates speak up

In Nebraska, more than half of the counties in the state have signed onto letters to federal officials objecting to the changes, including the disqualification of nearly half the state’s eligible locations.

“It’s very frustrating. We have all these holes in our county, and BEAD was going to bring service to those areas,” Milford County Commissioner Misty Ahmic told the Nebraska Examiner.

Critics in Pennsylvania have said directing funds toward satellite companies is “shortsighted.” Satellite companies Starlink and Project Kuiper, an Amazon subsidiary, were awarded a combined $19.2 million to expand internet access in Pennsylvania.

And in Oklahoma, critics noticed the updated plan would not be using $225 million of the state’s allocated BEAD funds.

The state’s head broadband official said the new proposal would still serve everyone, but critics told the Oklahoma Voice that it would be wrong to send back any federal money while people across the state continue to struggle with internet access.

Originally, states were allowed to use these leftover funds to pay for things other than broadband deployment, such as West Virginia’s plans to improve cellular service and streamline the permitting process for broadband projects. But the federal telecommunications agency has not released guidance on how the leftover funds are to be used under the restructured program.

“There’s a lot of fear right now that NTIA may try to call that money back, which would be a big shame,” Garner said. “That leftover money is the state’s, according to the law. And these ancillary funds would play a huge role to support the BEAD program.”

Affordability also will be a barrier for some households. States may no longer set low-cost service option rates for low-income households. And the federal Affordable Connectivity Program ended last year without additional funding from Congress.

Morrisey said his administration is being aggressive, collaborating with the Trump administration to get internet access to eligible areas.

“I applaud the Trump administration for working with us, but once again, I am not going to do a victory lap until we actually get this all done,” the governor said.

Providing internet to every person in West Virginia was always a lofty goal, said Husted, the Roane County Public Library director.  Other initiatives have promised to connect rural residents over the years, Husted said, and she remains skeptical about this outcome.

“In rural areas, you’re going to need to plan for things, and sometimes that puts us at a disadvantage compared to the cities,” Husted said. “With the internet or with other supplies, sometimes we have to decide what is more important to us.”

Editor’s note: This story has been corrected to read that internet providers will have to offer low-cost residential service options under the revised BEAD program, but that states and Washington, D.C., may no longer set those low-cost rates.

Stateline reporter Madyson Fitzgerald can be reached at mfitzgerald@stateline.org. West Virginia Watch reporter Amelia Ferrell Knisely can be reached at aknisely@westvirginiawatch.com.

Main Street in the Wisconsin community of Cambridge. (Photo by Henry Redman/Wisconsin Examiner)

As we begin our seventh year as a carwash marketing agency in Wisconsin, we’re daily confronted with challenges like scaling, taking on investors and staying competitive in a saturated market. Yet consistently the toughest issue to navigate has been how to approach health care for our employees amid national uncertainty.

Since health care is largely tied to employment, one of our earliest priorities was to make sure that we could be in a position to offer affordable, comprehensive coverage to our employees. And here we are, a few years later, still unable to swing it.

With the current federal administration and the recent passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA, as we go forward, for brevity and so I don’t need to use those words together), our lofty goal of offering the most basic benefits to our employees seems more of a pipe dream than ever. While we wait for the tax breaks that are promised to trickle down from the top earners who benefit most,  we’re facing a very near-term future of funding cuts and even higher daily costs — and in the realm of health care, an uncertain few months of even higher premiums and more difficult access to basic care. Our Republican representatives are still parading the passage of the OBBBA as a win, but when it comes to the reality of the tax breaks and subsidies that are set to expire within the next few months, the silence from our Republican reps is deafening.

The OBBBA does offer tax breaks and incentives, but outside of a few breaks on  large equipment purchases in our industry, neither our customers, who are mostly small, mom and pop operators, nor we will see any benefit. We’re not in a position to fully depreciate the purchase of a private jet. In fact, because of the OBBBA and  the economic instability associated with tariff threats, we’re now facing the potential of our first year of non-growth.

As small business owners in Wisconsin, we’re watching the numbers come out on the OBBBA and realizing just how uneven this deal really is. More than 70% of the tax breaks will go to the wealthiest one-fifth of households, while the middle class gets just 10%. Here in Wisconsin, the top 1% of earners will walk away with average breaks close to $70,000. For families making under $80,000 a year, the break is less than $1,600.

When we weigh the minimal tax breaks we may see against the drastic losses in support, it’s clear this law shifts the burden onto families, state budgets and small businesses already at their limit. Medicaid cuts, in particular, threaten jobs, health care access and community well-being. The OBBBA is hailed as a win, but truly, it undermines our efforts to provide for our employees and community.

On health care, we’re coming up to a harsh deadline — the lapse of premium tax credits for the Affordable Care Act, an action propagated entirely by Republican lawmakers. With 90% of Americans relying on these subsidies to make coverage affordable, we’re looking at sharp increases in premiums. As a family, we’re already paying nearly $900 per month for non-substantial coverage. This is nearly the cost of our mortgage for coverage that does nothing of the sort — our out-of-pocket payments are ridiculous.

Already, insurance providers are pulling out of key markets in Wisconsin as it is no longer profitable to serve certain areas of the state. How are Wisconsinites supposed to counter this? How do people survive when premiums rise so high, it’s more cost-effective to gamble with one’s health rather than pay rates for coverage that only really serve to prevent complete financial catastrophe after one gets sick?

Ultimately, as small business owners, we can easily see the ripples from the OBBBA and the lapsing of ACA tax credits.

• Premiums will continue to rise to untenable levels.
• Businesses and individuals will have less money to spend.
• Entrepreneurship will stall due to more hesitation to give up benefits in corporate environments.

This legislation does not help small business owners, Wisconsinites, or working families — nor does it promote a healthy local economy. Instead, it burdens those already struggling while directing gains to the top. The damaging effects of these policies will only become more obvious as the new law  unfolds.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: < 1 minute

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) awarded almost $5 billion less in research grants to U.S. institutions in the 2025 fiscal year than the year prior, a 13.6% reduction, according to an Association of American Medical Colleges report released in August. 

The NIH committed $30 billion for research from July 2024 through June 2025, down from the $34.7 billion it obligated from July 2023 to June 2024. More than $3.5 billion of that funding difference was specifically in medical research and development while another half-billion was lost in career training for scientists.

Wisconsin’s share dropped by $84.4 million, or about 14%.

Disruptions in NIH research support have caused most states to lose tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars. They have also halted multiple clinical trials and research projects, including studies on post-tuberculosis lung disease and reducing infectious diseases spread by water.

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

Sources

• Association of American Medical Colleges: NIH Awards Billions of Dollars Less in Research Funds
• National Institutes of Health: Funding Categories
• Partners in Health: What Research Funding Cuts Mean for the Future of Health Care

Has the National Institutes of Health distributed $5 billion less in grants in 2025? 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.

A Planned Parenthood clinic in Salt Lake City is pictured on Wednesday, July 31, 2024. (Photo by McKenzie Romero/Utah News Dispatch)

WASHINGTON — Planned Parenthood clinics throughout the country began telling Medicaid patients Friday that their routine health care appointments will no longer be covered as a federal court order takes effect. 

The change, which could remain in place for months, if not longer, will likely impact the hundreds of thousands of Medicaid enrollees who go to Planned Parenthood clinics for health care not related to abortion. 

“This decision is devastating to patients here in the state and across this country. And it is compounding what is an already broken and overstretched health care system,” said Shireen Ghorbani, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Association of Utah. “We know that cancers will go undetected, STIs will go untreated.”

Dominique Lee, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said there is no plan for other health care providers to absorb the Medicaid enrollees. 

“There’s no one waiting in the wings to take care of our patients,” Lee said. “Planned Parenthood is the safety net.”

Planned Parenthood has identified at least 200 clinics out of about 600 that could close if they cannot treat Medicaid patients and receive reimbursements from the state-federal health program for lower-income people and some people with disabilities.

“We are working, you know, feverishly with our colleagues and teams to mitigate that number,” Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said. “We have to remember 50% of Planned Parenthood patients use Medicaid for their health care insurance. And so that is a very meaningful impact to the health centers that also rely on reimbursement in the same way every other single health care provider relies on reimbursement for the services provided.” 

GOP law targets Planned Parenthood

Federal law for decades has barred funding from going toward abortion services with limited exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the pregnant patient. 

Earlier this year, Republicans in Congress included a provision in their “big, beautiful” law that prevents Medicaid funding from going to certain health care organizations that provide abortions and received more than $800,000 in reimbursements from the program during a recent fiscal year. 

The language, which originally applied for 10 years but was reduced to one year in the final version of the bill, appeared to specifically target Planned Parenthood. It prevents the organization from receiving any Medicaid funding for health care services unrelated to abortion, like annual physicals, cancer screenings and STI testing.

Planned Parenthood quickly filed a lawsuit in the federal district court in Massachusetts in July, shortly after President Donald Trump signed the legislation.  

A district court judge issued a temporary restraining order and then a preliminary injunction that month, blocking the Department of Health and Human Services from implementing that one aspect of the law and allowing Medicaid patients to continue going to Planned Parenthood for routine health care services.

On Thursday, a three-judge panel from the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lower court’s ruling, clearing the way for the Trump administration to stop reimbursing Planned Parenthood for Medicaid patients while the case continues. 

Peyton Humphreville, senior staff attorney at Planned Parenthood Federation of America and one of the lawyers handling the lawsuit, said on a call with reporters Friday the organization is evaluating all of its options but doesn’t expect additional rulings until later this year at the earliest. 

“The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals has entered a briefing schedule on the preliminary injunction appeal that will be fully briefed by mid-November,” Humphreville said. “From there, the court will schedule oral argument and will at some point after the oral argument rule on the preliminary injunction appeal.”

Planned Parenthood signage is seen in New York City on April 16, 2021. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration can block Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood after an appeals court on Thursday overturned a lower court’s preliminary injunction. 

Republicans in Congress included the one-year funding prohibition in their “big, beautiful” law, which President Donald Trump signed in early July. 

The Department of Health and Human Services, however, has not been able to implement that policy change after a district court judge blocked it from taking effect in a lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood. 

The Trump administration appealed that ruling to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which released a two-page order Thursday without explaining its decision. 

The three-judge panel comprised Gustavo A. Gelpí, Lara E. Montecalvo and Seth R. Aframe, all of whom were nominated to their current position by former President Joe Biden. 

“The July 21, 2025 preliminary injunction and the July 28, 2025 preliminary injunction are hereby stayed pending disposition of the respective appeals,” they wrote.  

The Trump administration did not immediately return messages seeking comment.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America President and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson wrote in a statement the court’s decision means that patients, “who rely on the essential health care that Planned Parenthood health centers provide, can’t plan for their futures, decide where they go for care, or control their lives, bodies, and futures — all because the Trump administration and its backers want to attack Planned Parenthood and shut down health centers. 

“This is a blow, but the fight isn’t over. For over 100 years, Planned Parenthood has faced unrelenting attacks, but we’re still here providing care, information, and resources. We will continue to fight this unconstitutional law, even though this court has allowed it to impact patients.”  

Federal law for decades has barred funding for abortion services with exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the pregnant patient. 

The new law blocks Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood for other types of health services, like annual physicals, cancer screenings, or birth control.

A customer enters a CVS store in October 2023 in Los Angeles. Pharmacies in Black and Latino neighborhoods and those with more residents on Medicaid are less likely to regularly dispense buprenorphine — one of the main medications used to treat opioid use disorder. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

Pharmacies in Black and Latino neighborhoods are less likely to dispense buprenorphine — one of the main treatments for opioid use disorder — even though people of color are more likely to die from opioid overdoses.

The drug helps reduce cravings for opioids and the likelihood of a fatal overdose.

While the nation as a whole has seen decreases in opioid overdose deaths in recent years, overdose deaths among Black, Latino and Indigenous people have continued to increase.

Many medical and health policy experts fear the broad domestic policy law President Donald Trump signed in July will worsen the problem by increasing the number of people without health insurance. As a result of the law, the number of people without coverage will increase by about 10 million by 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

About 7.5 million of the people who will lose coverage under the new law are covered by Medicaid. Shortly before Trump signed the bill into law, researchers from the University of Pennsylvania and Boston University estimated that roughly 156,000 Medicaid recipients will lose access to medications for opioid addiction because of the cuts, resulting in approximately 1,000 more overdose deaths annually.

Because Black and Hispanic people are overrepresented on the rolls, the Medicaid cuts will have a disproportionate effect on communities that already face higher barriers to getting medications to treat addiction.

From 2017 to 2023, the percentage of U.S. retail pharmacies regularly dispensing buprenorphine increased from 33% to 39%, according to a study published last week in Health Affairs.

But researchers found the drug was much less likely to be available in pharmacies in mostly Black (18% of pharmacies) and Hispanic neighborhoods (17%), compared with mostly white ones (46%).

In some states, the disparity was even worse. In California, for example, only about 9% of pharmacies in Black neighborhoods dispensed buprenorphine, compared with 52% in white neighborhoods.

The researchers found buprenorphine was least available in Black and Latino neighborhoods across nearly all states.

Barriers to treatment

Dr. Rebecca Trotzky-Sirr, a family physician who specializes in addiction medicine, said many communities of color are “pharmacy deserts.” Even the pharmacies that do exist in those neighborhoods tend to “have additional barriers to obtain buprenorphine and other controlled substances out of a concern for historic overuse of some treatments,” said Trotzky-Sirr, who wasn’t involved in the study.

In addition to its federal classification as a controlled substance, buprenorphine is also subject to state regulations to prevent illegal use. Pharmacies that carry it know that wholesalers and distributors audit their orders, which dissuades some from stocking or dispensing it.

Dima Qato, associate professor of clinical pharmacy at the University of Southern California and an author of the Health Affairs study, said that without changes in policy, Black and Hispanic people will continue to have an especially hard time getting buprenorphine.

“If you don’t address these dispensing regulations, or regulate buprenorphine from the aspect of pharmacy regulations, people are still going to encounter barriers accessing it,” she said.

In neighborhoods where at least a fifth of the population is on Medicaid, just 35% of pharmacies dispensed buprenorphine, Qato and her team found. But in neighborhoods with fewer residents on Medicaid, about 42% of pharmacies carried the drug.

Medicaid covers nearly half — 47% — of nonelderly adults who suffer from opioid use disorder. In states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, another recent study found an increase in people getting prescriptions for buprenorphine.

“Medicaid is the backbone of care for people struggling with opioid use disorder,” said Cherlette McCullough, a Florida-based mental health therapist. “We’re going to see people in relapse. We’re going to see more overdoses. We’re going to see more people in the ER.”

Qato said the shortage of pharmacies in minority communities is likely to get worse, as many independent pharmacists are already struggling to stay open.

“We know they’re more likely to close in neighborhoods of color, so there’s going to be even fewer pharmacies that carry it in the neighborhoods that really need it,” she said.

‘There needs to be urgency’

Qato and her colleagues say states and local governments should mandate that pharmacies carry a minimum stock of buprenorphine and dispense it to anyone coming in with a legitimate prescription. As examples, they point to a Philadelphia ordinance mandating that pharmacies carry the opioid overdose-reversal drug naloxone and similar emergency contraception requirements in Massachusetts.

“We need to create expectations. We need to encourage our pharmacies to carry this to make it accessible, same day, and there needs to be urgency,” said Arianna Campbell, a physician assistant and co-founder of the Bridge Center, a California-based organization that aims to help increase addiction treatment in emergency rooms.

“In many of the conversations I have with pharmacies, when I’m getting some pushback, I have to say: ‘Hey, this person’s at the highest risk of dying right now. They need this medication right now.’”

She said patients frequently become discouraged due to barriers they face in getting prescriptions filled. The Bridge Center has been expanding its patient navigator program across the state, and helping other states start their own. The program helps patients identify pharmacies where they can fill their prescription fastest.

“There’s a medication that can help you, but at every turn it’s really hard to get it,” she said, calling the disparities in access to medication treatment “unacceptable.”

Trotzky-Sirr, the California doctor, fears the looming Medicaid cuts will cause many of her patients to discontinue treatment and relapse. Many of her patients are covered by Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program.

“A lot of our patients are able to obtain medications for treatment of addiction like buprenorphine, because of the state covering the cost of the medication,” said Trotzky-Sirr, who also is a regional coordinator at the Bridge Center.

“They don’t have the resources to pay for it, cash, out of pocket.”

Some low-income patients switch between multiple providers or clinics as they try to find care and coverage, she added. These could be interpreted as red flags to a pharmacy.

Trotzky-Sirr argued buprenorphine does not need to be monitored as carefully as opioids and other drugs that are easier to misuse or overuse.

“Buprenorphine does not have those features and really needs to be in a class by itself,” she said. “Unfortunately, it’s hard to explain that to a pharmacist in 30 seconds over the phone.”

More is known about the medication now than when it was placed on the controlled substances list about two decades ago, said Brendan Saloner, a professor at the Brown University School of Public Health.

Pharmacies are fearful of regulatory scrutiny and don’t have “countervailing pressure” to ensure patients get the treatments, he said.

On top of that fear, Medicaid managed care plans’ prior authorization processes may also be adding to the pharmacy bottleneck, he said.

“Black and Latino communities have higher rates of Medicaid enrollment, so to the extent that Medicaid prior authorization techniques are a hassle to pharmacies, that may also kind of discourage them [pharmacies] from stocking buprenorphine,” he said.

In some states, buprenorphine is much more readily available. In Maine, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah and Vermont, more than 70% of pharmacies carried the drug, according to the study. Buprenorphine availability was highest in states such as Oregon that have the least restrictive regulations for dispensing it.

In contrast, less than a quarter of pharmacies in Iowa, North Dakota, Texas, Virginia and Washington, D.C., carried the medication.

“We’re going to see more people becoming unhoused, because without treatment, they’re going to go back to those old habits,” McCullough, the Florida therapist, said. “When we talk about marginalized communities, these are the populations that are going to suffer the most because they already have challenges with access to care.”

Stateline reporter Nada Hassanein can be reached at nhassanein@stateline.org.

This story was updated to include Brendan Saloner’s current academic affiliation.

U.S. President Donald Trump stands with Secretary of Education Linda McMahon after signing an executive order to reduce the size and scope of the Education Department during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House on March 20, 2025 in Washington, D.C. The order instructs McMahon to shrink the department, which cannot be dissolved without congressional approval. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s aim to shutter the Education Department faces steep hurdles in Congress, where Republicans’ legislative efforts to abolish the agency remain stalled and appropriators have rejected many of his proposed cuts to education spending.

After campaigning last year on a pledge to shut down the department, Trump came into office promising to follow through, and made some preliminary moves.

He said he wanted Education Secretary Linda McMahon to “put herself out of a job” and signed a sweeping executive order in March calling on her to facilitate the closure of the Education Department to the extent she is permitted to by law.

He won a key victory in the U.S. Supreme Court in July that temporarily cleared the way for the administration to move ahead with mass layoffs at the agency, a plan to dramatically downsize the department outlined in that March executive order and his directive to transfer certain services to other agencies. 

Court documents show that the department is planning to bring back more than 260 Office for Civil Rights staff affected by those sweeping layoffs stemming from a separate legal challenge against the administration’s actions earlier this year. 

But after a dizzying array of cuts and changes in the months since Trump took office looking to dismantle the agency, the GOP-controlled Congress — the only body that can abolish the 45-year-old department it created — is throwing up roadblocks to elimination.

Bills stalled

For starters, the handful of GOP bills in Congress to close down the department face a difficult path in the Senate, which requires at least 60 senators to advance most legislation. 

Republicans hold just 53 Senate seats. 

In the House, at least four Republicans — Thomas Massie of Kentucky, David Rouzer of North Carolina, Barry Moore of Alabama and Nathaniel Moran of Texas — have introduced bills this year to eliminate the department. Those bills were referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce, which has not voted on any of them. 

In a brief interview at the Capitol on Sept. 3, the committee’s chair, Michigan Republican Tim Walberg, said he still intended to eventually dismantle the agency, but had not committed to any particular bill.

“Our intentions are to ultimately dissolve the Department of Education — we know we have to do that in a way that makes sense and so, we’ll take a look at all bills,” Walberg told States Newsroom. 

“I can’t say whether they will all come up or not, but we know that, working with the secretary of Education, we’re going to right-size it, and some things we’ll eliminate, other things we’ll shift, as we’ve done already, over to the Department of Labor to take on some workforce areas,” the Michigan Republican said. 

The chair acknowledged that there would not be enough votes in the Senate to abolish the agency. 

“So what we can do that seems right for our students, for our parents and for our teachers, we’ll do,” Walberg said. 

GOP efforts to dismantle the department are also underway in the Senate. 

Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota, alongside Sens. Jim Banks of Indiana and Tim Sheehy of Montana, reintroduced a measure in April to abolish the agency. 

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul also reintroduced a bill in March with Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Bernie Moreno of Ohio to shutter the department. The measure is a companion bill to Massie’s legislation. 

A spokesperson for Sen. Bill Cassidy, who chairs the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, said the Louisiana Republican is “working with the administration and colleagues on how Congress can best codify the President’s reforms into law,” in a statement to States Newsroom.

The spokesperson noted that “President Trump and Republicans are committed to returning education authority to local communities best equipped to meet the needs of students and families.” 

Senate rebuffs Trump spending cuts

The administration’s attempts to dramatically scale back funding for the department in fiscal 2026 have not been met with much enthusiasm by appropriators in the Senate. 

The House and Senate Appropriations committees share jurisdiction over the bill to fund the department for the coming fiscal year. 

The Senate committee advanced a bipartisan bill in July, which largely rejects Trump’s proposed cuts to education spending and his attempt to dismantle the department. 

The bill tightens requirements for the department to have the necessary staffing levels to fulfill its statutory responsibilities and prevents the agency from transferring certain programs to other federal agencies. 

The legislation also allocates $79 billion in discretionary funding for the coming fiscal year, roughly the same as the current level, which could be seen as a slap in the face to the administration’s budget request that called for $12 billion in spending cuts at the agency. 

House includes deep cuts but keeps Pell spending

Meanwhile, the House Appropriations subcommittee dealing with education spending advanced its spending proposal for the agency on Sept. 2, sending the bill to the broader panel. 

The bill aligns much more with the administration’s spending cut priorities and education agenda, calling for $67 billion in discretionary funding at the department.

Part of the bill also reduces funding for Title I grants — which support school districts with high percentages of students who come from low-income families — by $5.2 billion, according to a summary from committee Republicans. 

The majority notes that “despite outsized investment, America’s public schools continue to fail children and families.”

But spending proposals in both the House and Senate reject the administration’s request to significantly reduce the maximum award for the Pell Grant, a government subsidy that helps low-income students pay for college. 

Instead, each proposal maintains the maximum award at $7,395. 

House and Senate appropriators have several steps to go before they can even reach the negotiating phase on the bill — which also includes spending on other agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services — and get it closer to becoming law.

It’s possible there might not even be a final agreement for months as lawmakers struggle to come to an overall agreement on how much to spend in the coming fiscal year, but the Senate’s bipartisan plan might give that chamber more of an advantage if those negotiations take place. 

A man waits for health care at a temporary health clinic in Terre Haute, Ind. President Donald Trump’s new tax and spending law will likely force more than half the states to reduce payments to doctors and hospitals that treat Medicaid patients, a change critics warn could reduce health care options for people in rural areas. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump’s new tax and spending law will likely force more than half the states to reduce payments to doctors and hospitals that treat Medicaid patients, a change critics warn will be particularly harmful to rural hospitals struggling to stay afloat.

Medicaid, the joint state-federal health insurance program for low-income people, reimburses doctors, hospitals and nursing facilities for treating enrollees. But in many cases, the program doesn’t fully cover the cost of care, straining providers that serve a large share of Medicaid patients.

To help providers cover losses and continue to serve poorer populations, the federal government allows the 41 states, plus the District of Columbia, that have contracted with Medicaid managed care organizations (MCOs) to run their Medicaid programs to direct them to pay providers more — in some cases, as much as commercial plans.

Ultimately, taxpayers cover the costs of these so-called state directed payments — and those costs are growing. As of August 2024, the higher payments were projected to add $110.2 billion per year to Medicaid spending, nearly 60% more than the previous year’s projection.

That higher spending attracted the attention of conservatives on Capitol Hill.

Beginning in 2028, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will cap the payments, forcing state Medicaid programs to reduce reimbursement rates by 10 percentage points each year until they reach either 100% or 110% of what Medicare pays. States that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act would be capped at the lower rate.

The new law will reduce Medicaid spending by $149 billion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and reduce Medicaid provider payments in as many as 31 states, according to KFF, a health policy research group. A separate analysis by The Commonwealth Fund, another research group, found that Medicaid payments to hospitals would drop by at least 20% in 19 of the 25 states that had publicly available data.

Critics say the change could be disastrous for hospitals, many of them in rural areas, that see a large share of Medicaid patients.

“This is all on top of an already pretty strained financial situation for rural hospitals,” Alexa McKinley Abel, director of government affairs and policy at the National Rural Health Association, a group representing rural health care providers, said in an interview. “We are worried about seeing service line closures at hospitals in an environment where OB-GYN and chemotherapy service lines are already being cut.”

Covering the cost of care

Supporters of the change say the extra payments inflate federal spending on the Medicaid program, giving hospitals “windfall profits.”

“Not only do these programs sidestep the truly needy on Medicaid and favor special interests instead, but all this is financed by growing the federal debt, leading to inflation and higher interest rates for all Americans,” the Paragon Health Institute, a conservative think tank that helped draft the bill, stated in a policy brief.

Hospital leaders dispute that. Earlier this year, the American Hospital Association asserted that without the extra payments, Medicaid managed care organizations in 2023 only covered about two-thirds of the actual cost of care.

Cindy Samuelson, senior vice president of the Kansas Hospital Association, said the additional payments are especially critical in a rural state such as Kansas, where some researchers have found that 87% of rural hospitals are in the red. Kansas is one of 10 states that did not expand Medicaid, and like other nonexpansion states, it will have to begin reducing direct payments to 110% of what Medicare pays starting in 2028.

“Over time, commercial payers are paying less and less,” Samuelson said. “Many hospitals in our state are at risk of closure.”

Samuelson said that in rural areas, health care providers see fewer patients, which makes it hard to spread out the cost of care and make up for losses that come from serving underinsured, Medicaid and Medicare patients. One result is that rural hospitals are trimming services. A report published this year by Chartis, a health care consulting firm, found that between 2011 and 2023, nearly 300 rural hospitals across the country stopped offering obstetrics care, and 424 rural hospitals ceased chemotherapy services.

In Hutchinson, Kansas, Benjamin Anderson, CEO of the rural and community-owned Hutchinson Regional Health System, said his hospital barely broke even this year, and lower Medicaid payments will take a toll. The 190-bed hospital serves more than 65,000 people in the central Kansas region, and sees a lot of patients who are struggling with mental health issues and substance use disorders.

“We are closely managing our workforce expenses. We’re going to be relying more heavily on philanthropy,” Anderson said, adding that the hospital wouldn’t lay off staff but would reduce the number of workers by not filling open positions.

He said his hospital has some cash reserves that should enable it to keep going, but that many other rural hospitals lack such a cushion.

“When we think about the cuts to Medicaid, it isn’t simply about cutting services to the poor. It’s threatening services to everyone, because in a rural community, we all get care in the same place,” he said. “If we cut out the safety net that’s sustaining these hospitals, everyone’s health care is threatened.”

Searching for answers

Three hours northeast of Hutchinson is the rural town of Holton, where about 3,400 people live. Holton Community Hospital is a 14-bed critical access hospital, meaning that it provides emergency care around the clock for a rural community. For the past two years, it has been struggling, according to Carrie Lutz, the hospital’s CEO.

Lutz said the hospital is not part of a broader health care group, and it relies on philanthropy and local taxes. Due to financial strains, it’s in the process of selling off its home and hospice services to another health care facility. The cap on extra payments will be an additional barrier, she said.

Samuelson said Kansas is applying for money under the five-year, $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Program, which Congress added to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act amid concerns about its impact on rural hospitals. She expects Kansas to get at least $500 million between 2026 and 2030.

Rural hospitals in Mississippi also hope to tap into those funds. The Mississippi Hospital Association, which is advising state leaders on their application, said it expects Mississippi to get at least $500 million over the next five years.

Like Kansas, Mississippi did not expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care, a decision that deprived it of additional Medicaid patients and thus extra revenue.

“A few years ago, we had several rural hospitals that were facing some imminent closure challenges, and so our enhanced supplemental payment based on the average commercial rate has been a lifeline,” said Richard Roberson, president and CEO of the Mississippi Hospital Association.

“What we’re concerned about is that when those payments start to decrease, then we’re going to be right back to where we were in 2022, with concerns about rural hospitals again.”

Roberson said Medicaid, with the additional payments, had become “one of the best payers, if not the best payer, for our hospitals over the last two years,” and helped a lot of hospitals stay out of the red.

He said the new rural health care fund is promising, but noted that Mississippi will decide where to spend any money it gets, and some rural hospitals might miss out.

“We want to make sure we’re working with the state to provide sustainable solutions, not one-time fixes,” Roberson said. “The big wild card is the Rural Health Transformation fund and what the state chooses to do with that money.”

Stateline reporter Shalina Chatlani can be reached at schatlani@stateline.org.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Americans who earn less than $18,000 are estimated to see a slight federal tax cut under President Donald Trump’s big bill, but the net effect of the bill is likely to lead to a loss in household resources.

The average federal tax change from current levels for the bottom 20% of American earners is a reduction of $150 by 2026 and a reduction of $160 by 2030, according to estimates from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. In contrast, the average income earner will receive a $2,860 cut while the top 1% of earners will see a $75,410 cut on average. 

Lower income earners already pay little in taxes. Reductions in Medicaid and SNAP benefits are likely to affect lower income earners disproportionately, resulting in a projected net decline of 2.9% in their household resources.

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

Sources

• Tax Policy Center: T25-0231 – Reconciliation Bill, One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), As Passed by the House and Senate, Distribution by ECI Percentile, 2026
• The Budget Lab at Yale: Tax Provisions in the Reconciliation Bill: Combined Distributional Impacts
• Penn Wharton Budget Model: President Trump-Signed Reconciliation Bill: Budget, Economic, and Distributional Effects
• The Budget Lab at Yale: Distributional Effects of Selected Provisions of the House and Senate Reconciliation Bills

Will the bottom 20% of American income earners pay more in taxes under Trump’s big bill? 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.

Vice President J.D. Vance addresses a crowd at Mid-City Steel in La Crosse on Thursday. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

Vice President J.D. Vance decried what he described as the crime-ridden streets of American cities and Democrats’ alleged efforts to take health care away from U.S. citizens and give it to undocumented immigrants at an event Thursday afternoon at a steel fabrication facility in La Crosse. 

At the event, which took place on the bank of the Mississippi River at Mid-City Steel, Vance and Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum touted the benefits that Republicans’ budget reconciliation law, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, will deliver for working class Wisconsinites. 

The night before Vance’s visit, Democratic elected officials and candidates for state and federal office mingled with voters at state Sen. Brad Pfaff’s (D-Onalaska) annual corn roast. State Dems came to meet voters at the La Crosse County Fairgrounds in West Salem and to search for a path back to power nationally, trifecta of control of  state government and an effective counter to the authoritarian impulses of President Donald Trump.

The back-to-back events highlighted how politically important western Wisconsin is set to become over the next year as attention focuses on the competitive 3rd Congressional District, represented by Republican Rep. Derrick Van Orden, and the open race for governor. 

At the fairgrounds on Wednesday, Pfaff’s staff members handed out 350 brats, 150 hot dogs and 500 ears of corn slathered with 13 pounds of butter as a polka band played and candidates for statewide office made their way down long picnic tables with cups of Spotted Cow and Miller Lite, stopping to chat with voters. In attendance were Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, who is running for governor, Secretary of State Sarah Godlewski, who is running for lieutenant governor, and Appeals Court Judge Chris Taylor, who is running for a seat on the state Supreme Court. Also in attendance were state Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) and Wisconsin Economic Development Coordinator Missy Hughes, both of whom have been testing the waters as possible gubernatorial candidates. 

Pfaff, who ran unsuccessfully against Van Orden for the 3rd District congressional seat in 2022, repeatedly touted the importance of Democrats listening to rural voters and speaking to issues that matter to their lives.

That message played well in front of the group of about 120 attendees who complained that Van Orden does not often face disgruntled constituents. Democrats have frequently highlighted the fact that Van Orden has not held any in-person town halls or debated his Democratic election opponents.

“It’s extremely frustrating. The thing is that we as Democrats, we’ve got a brand that we’ve got to rebuild,” Pfaff said. “And I’m a Democrat. I’m a proud rural Democrat. I was raised with the values of hard work, dedication and resilience. I was raised in the fact that, you know, you need to get up every morning and go to work, and you need to be able to provide for your family and put away for the future. But you need to be able to be part of a community and build a community that is inclusive and welcoming.” 

Pfaff added that Van Orden has not been accessible to his voters or answered for his votes on legislation such as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. 

“You need to be accessible to your constituents, and when you’re not accessible to your constituents, you’re not serving yourself, and definitely you’re not in touch with the people of the district,” he said. “So it’s very concerning. But …  we will have a very competitive congressional race in 2026 and Derek’s gonna have to explain his votes and his actions.” 

Rebecca Cooke, who lost to Van Orden in last year’s election and is running again to unseat him next year, said she’s trying to spend this time, about 14 months before the midterm elections, traveling the district and understanding voters’ concerns. 

“My campaign has always been really focused around working families and working class people, which I think Senator Pfaff too, we have a very similar thought and understanding, because we talk to people, right?” Cooke said. “Brad hosts open events like this so that he can hear from people directly. And I think that that’s the difference with Van Orden, who brings in J.D. Vance, the big guns, because he can’t deliver the message himself. I think we are of and from western Wisconsin, and so we know how to communicate with people in our community, and we listen to them.”

On Thursday, both Burgum and Vance celebrated Van Orden’s vote on the budget reconciliation bill, inspiring Van Orden  to stand from his front row seat and pump his fist. Prior to his vote on the legislation, Van Orden said he wouldn’t support a bill that cut funds from food assistance programs, but ultimately he cast a deciding vote for the legislation that, analysis shows, will boot 90,000 Wisconsinites off food assistance programs and cause 30,000 rural Wisconsinites to lose their health care. 

Burgum also said the Trump administration is working to bring steel manufacturing and shipbuilding back to America. But on Thursday, U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin raised the alarm for shipbuilders in Marinette after Trump announced the purchase of ships built in South Korea. 

“I am deeply concerned by recent reports that indicate the Trump Administration is looking to have U.S. ships made overseas in South Korea,” Baldwin said in a statement. “We need to see the details of this agreement because at the end of the day, America cannot compromise here – we are already losing to China and we have no time to waste. We must be firm on our commitment to supporting our maritime workforce, keeping our country safe, and revitalizing America’s shipbuilding capacity. I have long fought to strengthen our shipbuilding industry, and it can’t be done with shortcuts or quick fixes. The President must prioritize American workers by investing in our shipbuilding industry here at home and buying American-made ships.”

Despite the massive cuts the reconciliation law is making to federal assistance programs, Vance said that the Democratic Party is lying about its effects, claiming Democrats voted against the bill because they wanted to raise taxes and give health care to people who are in the country without legal authorization. 

Vance touted the extension of tax cuts passed by Republicans in 2017 during the first Trump administration, saying they will put money back into the pockets of American workers like the ones at Mid-City Steel. He also celebrated Trump’s tariffs calling them a lever to protect American industry. 

“What the working families tax cuts did is very simple, ladies and gentlemen, it let you keep more money in your pocket, it rewarded you for building a business, for working at a business right here in the United States of America, it makes it easy for you to take home more of your hard earned pay and it makes it easier if you’re an American manufacturer, an American business, it makes it easier for you to build your facility or expand your facility,” Vance said. 

But the cost of the tariffs is being borne by American consumers in the form of higher prices, and the tax cuts have largely gone to benefit the wealthiest Americans. 

An analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy found that 69% of the benefits of the tax cuts will go to the richest 15% of Wisconsinites.

The vice president also painted American cities as crime-infested slums where everyday Americans cannot walk down the street without being accosted by a person “screaming on a street corner.” The Trump administration has deployed the National Guard and Marines in Washington D.C. and Los Angeles in a show  of force, and Trump has threatened to send soldiers to fight crime in other Democratic cities — even though the highest crime rates in the country are in Republican-controlled states. 

On Thursday Vance said that even though Milwaukee has what he said is a crime problem, the president doesn’t want to send troops in to address it unless he’s asked to by local officials. 

“Very simply, we want governors and mayors to ask for the help. The president of the United States is not going out there forcing this on anybody, though we do think we have the legal right to clean up America’s streets if we want to,” Vance said. “What the president of the United States has said is, “Why don’t you invite us in?’”

William Garcia, the chair of the 3rd Congressional District Democratic Party, said that Vance’s visit showed that Republicans are out of touch with western Wisconsin, noting that a speech at a steel fabricator isn’t representative of what actually drives the local economy and delivering that speech to a hand-selected crowd glosses over the pain the Trump administration’s policies are bringing to local communities.

“If you really wanted to talk to people out here, you would talk about agriculture, and you would try and justify why Canadian fertilizer has a massive tariff on it now, so we have to spend so much more money to just grow our own food,” Garcia said. “Then you have to talk about your immigration policies that are preventing our harvest from being picked after they’ve grown. And so that’s why he’s having to narrow the people he’s talking to, to this super small crowd, because by and large, conservative, liberal, whatever, are being hurt by these policies, and he doesn’t want to hear any pushback about that.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Gov. Tony Evers said in a statement that the bill is “bad for Wisconsin taxpayers, who will be forced to help foot the bill for Republicans’ red-tape requirements.” Evers delivers his 2025 state budget address. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Gov. Tony Evers’ administration released new estimates Thursday showing that President Donald Trump’s recently approved federal tax cut and spending megabill will cost Wisconsin $284 million — $142 million annually — due to shifting costs and new “red-tape” requirements for social programs. 

The “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act — as it is officially named — makes a number of policy changes to federal social safety net programs, including Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), that will be implemented gradually until completion in 2028. The cuts to the programs were aimed at balancing out the continuation of Trump’s 2017 tax cuts and significant increases in military as well as immigration and border spending, though the law is projected to add $3 trillion to the national debt. 

The estimate from the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS) comes as Vice President J.D. Vance is scheduled to speak in La Crosse on Thursday to tout the legislation. 

Evers said in a statement that the bill is “bad for Wisconsin taxpayers, who will be forced to help foot the bill for Republicans’ red-tape requirements just to make it harder for folks to get the care they need and food to eat.”

“Wisconsinites shouldn’t have to pay the price for a reckless Republican bill that’s going to add trillions of dollars to our federal deficit and shift hundreds of millions of dollars in costs to hard-working taxpayers, all so Republicans could pay for tax breaks for billionaires and big corporations,” Evers said. “Wisconsinites aren’t getting a fair shake from Republicans in Washington — that’s plain as day.”

Some of the cost-cutting in the law comes from adding additional requirements to qualify for safety net programs that will reduce the number of people benefiting from them and offload some of the federal government’s costs to state and local governments. 

Wisconsin DHS has estimated that the requirements could put more than 270,000 Wisconsinites at risk of losing health insurance and as many as 43,700 could lose access to food assistance. 

Starting on December 31, 2026, childless members of BadgerCare Plus who are between the ages of 19 and 64 will have to report 80 hours of work, training or volunteering per month or risk losing coverage.

The analysis notes that it is now “fiscally and operationally unfeasible” for Wisconsin to expand its Medicaid program due to new provisions in the law. Wisconsin could get an additional $1.3 billion from the federal government if it expanded Medicaid, but the provision that made that a possibility will sunset in 2026. Expansion states will also now be required to redetermine eligibility at the six-month marks for its adult population covered under expansion.

When it comes to the SNAP program, the federal government will only cover 25% of administrative costs under the new law. It previously covered 50%. The shifting of the additional 25% to the states will cost Wisconsin about $43.5 million annually starting in 2027. That cost is also expected to grow in the future. 

The federal law also eliminates funding for SNAP education programs with Wisconsin losing $12 million annually starting in October. DHS said it would need additional funding in the 2027-29 state budget to implement and sustain Medicaid and FoodShare employment and training programs. 

The federal law could also mean additional costs for states if its annual payment error rate for the SNAP program is over 6%. The payment error rate measures mistakes by states in assessing eligibility and payments and, according to the Evers administration, Wisconsin has typically had a low rate. Last year, the state’s error rate was about 4.5%, but the agency said rates fluctuate and new policies and standards could make rates fluctuate more. 

States with a rate over 6% starting in October 2027 will be required to pay 5 to 15% of SNAP costs. 

“Achieving and maintaining Wisconsin’s historically low error rate while implementing the other provisions in the reconciliation bill will require additional state and county quality control staff,” the analysis states. “Failing to do so will have even larger consequences for the state and Wisconsin taxpayers.” 

The agency estimates that if an error rate were over 6%, it could cost the state as much as $205.5 million annually. 

DHS said it will not be able to absorb all of the increased costs associated with the law and additional state funding will be necessary, including $69.2 million to cover additional administrative costs including an  additional 56 state employees and county quality control positions to consistently achieve and maintain a FoodShare payment error rate in Wisconsin below 6% over the long term. The agency  said it would also need additional funding in the 2027-29 state budget to implement and sustain Medicaid and FoodShare employment and training programs. The agency estimated that it would cost the state roughly $72.4 million each year to provide employment and training services to help Medicaid members meet the new requirements. 

DHS Sec. Kirsten Johnson said the potential costs covered in the analysis are “just the tip of the iceberg.” 

“From increases in uncompensated care for hospitals to lost revenue for Wisconsin’s farmers, grocers, and local economies and thousands of Wisconsinites losing Medicaid and FoodShare, these cuts will cause a ripple effect throughout the state and put a financial strain on all of us,” Johnson said. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds (center) and tribal leaders speak to the media after a public safety roundtable on Aug. 14, 2024, in Wagner, South Dakota. With Rounds, from left, are Cheyenne River Chairman Ryman LeBeau, Lower Brule Chairman Clyde Estes, Sisseton Wahpeton Secretary Curtis Bissonette, Wayne Boyd of Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Yankton Chairman Robert Flying Hawk, Oglala President Frank Star Comes out and Crow Creek Chairman Peter Lengkeek. (Photo by Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight)

WASHINGTON — Tribal radio stations that are supposed to receive millions to fill the hole created when Congress eliminated funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting haven’t heard anything from the Trump administration about when it will send the money or how much in grants they’ll receive.

Unlike most government spending deals, the handshake agreement South Dakota Republican Sen. Mike Rounds negotiated with the White House budget director in exchange for Rounds’ vote on the rescissions bill wasn’t placed in the legislation, so it never became law. 

Instead, Rounds is trusting the Trump administration to move $9.4 million in funding from an undisclosed account to more than two dozen tribal radio stations in rural areas of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota and Wisconsin that receive community service grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. 

But neither Rounds’ office, the Office of Management and Budget, nor the Bureau of Indian Affairs responded to emails from States Newsroom asking when the grants would be sent to those radio stations and whether the funding levels would be equal to what they currently receive. 

Loris Taylor, president and CEO of Native Public Media, a network of more than 60 broadcast stations that’s headquartered in Arizona, said she’s written to Rounds and the Bureau of Indian Affairs about the handshake deal reached in July but hasn’t heard back. 

“I can’t place my expectations on something that hasn’t been concretely shared with the stations,” Taylor said. “And so all I can say is that our expectations are to raise money for the stations to make sure that they have operational dollars for FY 2026, and that’s exactly where we’re placing our focus.”

Taylor pointed out that Rounds’ informal deal with White House budget director Russ Vought doesn’t cover all of the tribal stations in the network and will only last for one year, leaving questions about long-term budgeting.

An Interior Department spokesperson wrote in an email after this story originally published that “Indian Affairs has received a list of 37 stations and is working to distribute about $9.4 million in funding to support them. 

“We know how important these stations are for public safety and are moving quickly to get the money out. Before we can set a timeline, we need to coordinate with the stations, tribes and other partners to ensure the funds are delivered efficiently and meet the needs of Indian Country. We will share updates when we have more to share publicly.”

The spokesperson did not provide a list of those stations or information on how the department plans to divvy up the funding. 

‘The little stations like us’  

Dave Patty, general manager at KIYU-FM in Galena, Alaska, said he isn’t planning to receive any federal funding during the upcoming fiscal year, in part because he hasn’t heard anything from the administration. The 2026 federal fiscal year begins on Oct. 1.

“Well, I certainly can’t budget anything that I don’t know is coming, so I’m definitely not planning for it now,” he said. 

President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers’ decision to eliminate all funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting because of their belief of left-leaning bias at National Public Radio wasn’t the right way to address those frustrations, Patty said. 

“The narrative was definitely centered around NPR and that was definitely wrong because NPR aren’t the ones in trouble,” he said. “NPR is well funded from philanthropists all over the country, and as a mothership, NPR is not going anywhere. It’s the little stations like us that are going to go away because, for instance, about 60% of our budget came from the CPB grant.”

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting announced in early August it will shutter most of its operations by the end of September, with some staff working through January. 

NPR and the Public Broadcasting Service have made no such announcements, but local stations throughout the country have announced budget cuts since Congress approved the bill rescinding $1.1 billion in funding it previously approved for CPB. That money was supposed to cover costs during fiscal 2026 and 2027. 

Lawsuit feared 

Karl Habeck, general manager at WOJB in Hayward, Wisconsin, said he’s only heard “gossip” and “rumors” about how exactly the handshake agreement will work in practice but is concerned that someone may challenge the Trump administration’s authority to move money around since it wasn’t in the bill and never became law. 

“What gives them the right to take these funds that were allocated for environmental projects and send them towards Native American radio stations?” Habeck said. 

Typically, the administration would need sign-off from appropriators in Congress before moving large sums of money from one account to another. 

Officials haven’t said publicly where exactly they plan on taking the money from and it’s unclear if the Trump administration is trying to create a new account for grants to rural tribal radio stations out of thin air, without an actual appropriation from Congress. 

Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, chairwoman of the Interior-Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, and Oregon Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley, ranking member on the panel, didn’t immediately respond to a request for details.  

Habeck said he expects WOJB will be okay financially for the next year, but that he and many others don’t know what the future will hold after that. 

“It’s going to be hard,” Habeck said. “I guess people don’t understand. You know, they try to compare us to commercial radio and it’s two different things.”

Local broadcasting stations, he said, have fewer employees and are often a nexus for their communities, providing information about everything from lost dogs to emergency alerts to high school sports updates. 

“That doesn’t happen everywhere. It’d be a shame to lose that,” Habeck said. “I think we’re an integral part of the community and people have come to rely on us and appreciate that. And I’m talking everybody. I don’t care what their political stance is. “

A different mission for tribal radio stations

Sue Matters, station manager at KWSO in Warm Springs, Oregon, said she reached out to one of her home-state senators, Ron Wyden, who contacted Rounds’ office to ask how the funding would be allocated and when. But Wyden was unable to share any concrete information.

Matters also spoke with someone she knows at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, who was similarly unable to provide information about how the agreement will actually work.

“I’m just assuming there’s not anything,” Matters said, adding she’s now focusing on securing a grant from the bridge fund that’s supposed to help the more at-risk public broadcasting stations.

Tribal stations, she said, often have substantially different missions than commercial stations, focusing on language and cultural programs as well as preserving their traditional life.

“That’s endangered,” Matters said. “We won’t let anything stop us. But it’s sad that for whatever reason this funding has been taken away.”

Former AmeriCorps service member Daniel Zare, 27, visits Project Change at Sligo Middle School on Monday, Aug. 11, 2025 in Silver Spring, Maryland, where he mentored students before federal government cuts in April. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

SILVER SPRING, Md. — Daniel Zare worked one-on-one as an AmeriCorps member with students going through rough times in school, lightening teachers’ workload in the classroom.

At AmeriCorps Project CHANGE, based in Silver Spring’s Sligo Middle School, Zare was one of several in his group who tracked adolescents’ emotional and social wellbeing over months using a system dubbed “My Score.” They then helped support the kids who were struggling the most.

In April, though, the program screeched to a halt. That’s when the Trump administration abruptly canceled nearly $400 million in active AmeriCorps grants across the United States that fund volunteers who embed in communities, in exchange for a small stipend and education award.

“All the work that we had culminating toward the end of the year, the relationships that we built with teachers and students and officials, it just completely went kaput because we were told we weren’t allowed to go to work at all,” Zare, 27, told States Newsroom.

Like so many longstanding federal programs and institutions severely reduced or dismantled as part of President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency project, AmeriCorps — and its nonprofit partners — are now assessing the damage and seeking a way forward.

AmeriCorps programs that survived last spring’s DOGE cuts are slowly beginning a new year of service amid major uncertainty over whether they will be able to continue their work in classrooms, food banks, senior centers and other community hubs.

Winners and losers among states

AmeriCorps, a federal agency signed into law in 1993 by former President Bill Clinton, places roughly 200,000 members across the United States at 35,000 service locations, according to current agency data.

Members serve in schools, local governments and with a wide range of nonprofits that focus on health, disaster relief, environmental stewardship, workforce development and veterans.

The staffers, who pledge to “get things done for America,” are paid a modest living allowance that hovers around the poverty line. Some, but not all, can get health insurance while in the program.

Members who complete their service term, which usually lasts from 10 to 12 months, receive an education award that can be used to pursue a degree, earn a trade certificate or pay student loans.

AmeriCorps federal dollars reach programs via a couple routes. In many cases, grants flow from AmeriCorps to governor-led state and territorial commissions that divvy them up according to local priorities. In other cases, federal dollars flow straight to a program via a competitive grant process. 

Kaira Esgate, CEO of America’s Service Commissions, said when the Trump administration ordered the cuts in April, some states lost large portions of their AmeriCorps portfolio, while other states fared better.

“There were no real clear trend lines around what or who got terminated and why,” said Esgate, whose member organization represents all 49 state commissions (South Dakota doesn’t have one) and the commissions for the District of Columbia, Guam and Puerto Rico.

Abby Andre, executive director of The Impact Project, an initiative of Public Service Ventures Ltd., a private corporation that launches and scales solutions to strengthen public service and communities., has been collecting data and plotting on an interactive map where AmeriCorps programs have been canceled. Andre, a former Department of Justice litigator, has also worked with her team to build other maps showing where federal workforce cuts have been felt across the country.

“AmeriCorps is a really great example of the federal dollars being kind of invisible in communities. Communities often don’t know that a local food bank or a senior center are supported by AmeriCorps volunteers and AmeriCorps money,” said Andre, who taught administrative law at the Vermont Law School after working under President Barack Obama and in Trump’s first administration.

Andre said communities with a lack of social services, including in rural areas, will likely feel the biggest losses without an AmeriCorps presence because the agency “facilitates pennies-on-the-dollar type services through volunteer work.”

“It’s not as though if these community services folded, those communities would have the money to fund equal or better services through the private market,” she said.

Losing trust

The Maryland Governor’s Office on Service and Volunteerism gave the green light to Project CHANGE to keep its program, which serves Montgomery County in suburban Washington, D.C., running through the upcoming school year.

Paul Costello, director of Project CHANGE, is now scrambling to launch a new AmeriCorps cohort after receiving the news on July 22 that the initiative had been funded. He estimates members won’t be able to begin until almost a month into the school year.

“Sadly, AmeriCorps, as a brand name, is badly damaged, I think. I mean, I’ve got a meeting on Wednesday with a major partner who told us two weeks ago ‘We thought you were dead,’” Costello told States Newsroom in an Aug. 11 interview.

Costello’s program not only places service members in Montgomery County Public Schools, where Zare served, but also with partners including Community Bridges, Montgomery Housing Partnership and Family Learning Solutions.

The nonprofits respectively focus on helping adolescent girls from diverse backgrounds, children whose families live in community-developed affordable housing units and teens eyeing college and career paths.

The county’s school system is the largest in the state and serves a highly diverse population. About 44% of the system’s 160,000 students qualify for free and reduced meals, and close to 20% are learning English while continuing to speak another language at home.

Costello’s 18 cohort members embedded in those schools and nonprofits this past academic year were suddenly yanked in April when the government cut his grant. The partners, which had planned and budgeted to have the members through June, were thrown into “total chaos,” Costello said.

“So some of them are so desperate, they rely on their members. They had to dig into their pockets to keep them on as staff. And then we go back to them this year and say, ‘You want members this year?’ AmeriCorps has made no attempt to make them whole. So they’ve been screwed,” Costello said.

AmeriCorps did not respond to States Newsroom’s questions about nonprofits losing money.

Legal action

The federal courts granted some relief to members and organizations who abruptly lost living allowances and contractually obligated funding.

A Maryland federal district judge ordered in June that funding and positions  be restored in 24 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia that sued the agency.

Another district judge in the state also handed a win to more than a dozen nonprofits from across the country that sued to recover funding they were owed.

But for many it was too late, and AmeriCorps’ future still feels shaky.

After suddenly losing his living allowance in April, Zare had to leave Silver Spring.

“I was renting a room off of Georgia (Avenue), and I was not able to pay rent there anymore, so I actually moved back to my mom’s in Germantown for the time being,” he told States Newsroom in August, referring to another Maryland suburb.

Hillary Kane, director of the Philadelphia Higher Education Network for Neighborhood Development, said by the time the court orders were issued, many of her AmeriCorps members had already found other positions and she had completely let go of one of her full-time staffers.

While the court injunctions were “welcome news,” reinstating the programs remained “questionable,” Kane wrote in a July 21 update for Nonprofit Quarterly.

Kane’s organization is a member of the National College Attainment Network, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that was among the successful plaintiffs.

Other organizations that joined the lawsuit are based in California, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Dakota and Virginia.

The Democratic-led states that won reinstatement for AmeriCorps members include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Going forward?

Kane got news on July 10 that PennSERVE, Pennsylvania’s state service commission, reinstated funding for her AmeriCorps program that places members in four West Philadelphia high schools to mentor students on their post-graduation plans.

The late notice meant Kane could only begin recruiting new members in mid-July.

“And so our start date has to be a bit fluid,” Kane told States Newsroom during a July 22 interview. “We have to essentially recruit people into this one-year cohort position, and say, ‘We’re hoping to start September 2, but we’re not 100% sure. Can you kind of just roll with it?’ It’s an awkward position to have to be in.”

Other AmeriCorps programs have not fared so well, as the Trump administration’s Office of Management and Budget continues to withhold funds that were appropriated by Congress for the ongoing fiscal year.

Trump signed legislation in March that extended the $1.26 billion for AmeriCorps for the full 2025 fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30.

Kane said the most “insidious” part of the recent AmeriCorps storyline is that programs that receive grants directly from the federal agency are being strung along by OMB.

“So there are agencies who have been theoretically awarded money, but they’re like, ‘Is it actually going to happen? Should I spend all this money and then not be able to bill the federal government to reimburse me if OMB is going to hold it hostage?’”

Programs at risk include 130 recently expired contracts for AmeriCorps Foster Grandparent and Senior Companions programs that support roughly 6,000 senior citizen volunteers across 35 states. The programs are eligible for just over $50 million for the new service year, which should be off to a start.

Congress pleads with budget office

A bipartisan group of U.S. senators pressed the executive branch agency on Aug. 1 to release the funds.

“Further delays in grantmaking will have immediate and irreversible consequences for programs, AmeriCorps members, and communities,” the senators wrote in a letter to OMB Director Russ Vought.

Republican Sens. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Thom Tillis of North Carolina joined Democratic Sens. Chris Coons of Delaware, Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York in signing the letter. All are members of the Senate National Service Caucus.

The White House and AmeriCorps did not respond for comment.

The Republican-led Senate Committee on Appropriations voted on July 31 to preserve $1.25 billion in AmeriCorps funding for fiscal year 2026. Collins chairs the committee.

U.S. House appropriators, which for the last two years under Republican leadership have sought to cut AmeriCorps funding, are expected to debate its budget in September. But it’s almost certain Congress will have to pass a stopgap spending bill when the end of the fiscal year arrives to stave off a partial government shutdown, so a final decision on funding may not come for months.

Change for everyone

Zare never did have a chance to say goodbye to all his students in April.

And even though the option was on the table, he did not sign up to serve a third year with AmeriCorps.

Before he applied and earned a spot with Project CHANGE, Zare was working odd jobs, including as a utilities contractor for Comcast. He had also earned his associate’s degree.

“I don’t think there’s any other program to take someone like me who was working a couple of different jobs and put them in an environment like this, to see firsthand as an American citizen how our classrooms operate and what position I would need to be in to actually be of benefit,” Zare told States Newsroom.

Zare is now freelancing and debating his next move, whether that’s a new job or further higher education.

“AmeriCorps is something that I’m always going to cherish because a lot of the people there still help me,” he said.

Editor’s note: D.C. Bureau Senior Reporter Ashley Murray served in AmeriCorps in 2009-2010.

Darryl Chavis, 62, served in the U.S. Army for two years as a watercraft operator. He stands outside the Borden Avenue Veterans Residence, a short-term housing facility in the Long Island City neighborhood of Queens, N.Y., where he lives. Chavis relies on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and is worried about new work requirements for the program, commonly known as food stamps. (Photo by Shalina Chatlani/Stateline)

NEW YORK — After a year in the U.S. Navy, Loceny Kamara said he was discharged in 2023, because while on base he had developed mental health issues, including severe anxiety and nightmares, and had fallen into alcoholism.

Kamara, 23, went to rehab and managed to get sober for some time while living with family in the Bronx, he said. But after he lost his job as a security guard in December, Kamara was kicked out of his home. Now he lives at a veterans homeless shelter in Long Island City, a neighborhood in Queens, New York, and he relies on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — commonly known as food stamps — and odd jobs to make ends meet.

Each month, nearly 42 million people receive SNAP benefits to help supplement their grocery budgets. Able-bodied SNAP recipients who are between 18 and 54 and don’t have children have always been required to work. Veterans, however, have been exempt from those rules — but that’s about to change.

The giant domestic policy measure that President Donald Trump signed on July 4 eliminates that exemption. Beginning in 2026, veterans will have to prove they are working, volunteering, participating in job training, or looking for work for at least 80 hours a month to keep their food stamps beyond three months, unless they qualify for another exemption, such as having certain disabilities.

Republicans in Congress and conservatives who helped formulate the law say these eligibility changes are necessary to stop people who could be working from abusing the system. But critics say the change fails to take into account the barriers many veterans face, and that the new work rules will cause thousands of veterans to go hungry.

“I’m pissed. I mean, I cannot get a job. Nowhere to live,” said Kamara. As he spoke, Kamara pointed to his collared shirt, noting that he had just dressed up to interview for a job as a security guard. He learned that morning he hadn’t gotten the job.

“I’ve been out of work for eight months,” Kamara told Stateline. “It’s hard to get a job right now for everybody.”

Veterans depend on SNAP

Nationally, around 1.2 million veterans with lower incomes, or about 8% of the total veteran population of 16.2 million, rely on food stamps for themselves and their families, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning research group.

An analysis by the group found veterans tend to have lower rates of employment because they are more likely to have health conditions, such as traumatic brain injuries, that make it difficult for them to work. They also tend to have less formal education, though many have specialized skills from their time in the military.

There has been a work requirement for most SNAP recipients since 1996. But Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, said the rules have “never really been enforced.” Rector argued that able-bodied people who have been exempt from the work requirement, such as veterans and homeless people, create an unnecessary burden on the system if they are capable of working but don’t.

“Most of the people that are in this category live in households with other people that have incomes, and so there really isn’t a chronic food shortage here,” Rector said in an interview. “We have tens of thousands of free food banks that people can go to. So it’s just a requirement to nudge these people in the proper direction, and it should no longer go unenforced.”

Darryl Chavis, 62, said that view ignores the difficulties that many veterans face. When Chavis left the U.S. Army at 21 after two years of service, he said, he was “severely depressed.”

“Nobody even came to help me,” said Chavis, who served as a watercraft operator, responsible for operating and maintaining tugboats, barges and other landing craft.

Chavis said he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, which has made it difficult for him to keep a job. He just moved back to New York from Virginia after leaving a relationship. He’s been at the housing shelter in Long Island City since January.

“What I’m trying to do is get settled in to, you know, stabilize into an apartment. I have the credentials to get a job. So it’s not like I’m not gonna look for a job. I have to work. I’m in transition, and the obstacles don’t make it easy,” Chavis said.

The new SNAP work rules apply to all able-bodied adults between 55 and 64 who don’t have dependents, and parents with children above the age of 14. Some groups, such as asylum-seekers and refugees, are no longer eligible for the program.

Barbara Guinn, commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, estimates that around 300,000 New Yorkers could lose SNAP benefits due to work requirements. Of those, around 22,000 are veterans, homeless or aging out of foster care, she said. Almost 3 million New Yorkers relied on SNAP as of March 2025.

Veterans in other states are in a similar situation. In California, an estimated 115,000 veterans receive SNAP benefits, according to a study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The number is nearly 100,000 in Florida and Texas, and 49,000 in Georgia.

Between 2015 and 2019 about 11% of veterans between the ages of 18 and 64 lived in food insecure households, meaning they had limited or uncertain access to food, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees SNAP.

“We know that SNAP is the best way to help address hunger. It gets benefits directly to individuals,” Guinn said. “There are other ways that people can get assistance if they need it, through food banks or other charitable organizations, but we do not think that those organizations will have the capacity to pick up the needs.”

A greater burden on states

In addition to the work rule changes, the new law reduces federal funding for SNAP by about $186 billion through 2034 — a cut of roughly 20%, according to the Congressional Budget Office, an independent research arm of Congress. The federal government expects the new work requirements to reduce SNAP spending by $69 billion as people who don’t comply are dropped from the rolls.

SNAP has historically been funded by the federal government, with states picking up part of the cost of administering the program. Under the new law, states will have to cover between 5% and 15% of SNAP costs starting in fiscal year 2028, depending on how accurately they distribute benefits to people who are eligible for the program.

“This has been a strategic agenda to dismantle SNAP and to blame states for doing so, because they knew they are making it so incredibly burdensome to run and operate and unaffordable,” said Gina Plata-Nino, SNAP deputy director at the Food Research & Action Center, a poverty and hunger advocacy group.

“States are going to have to cut something, because there’s no surplus. There are no unlimited resources that states may have in order to be able to offset the harm.”

Guinn said New York expects to see a new cost burden of at least $1.4 billion each year. In California, new state costs could total as much as $3.7 billion annually, according to the California Department of Social Services.

Kaitlynne Yancy, director of membership programs at Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, said many veterans with disabilities will not be able to fulfill the work requirements or find resources elsewhere. And it’s unclear whether states will be able to provide their own relief to people who are no longer exempted from work requirements or will be excluded from the program.

“It is a frustrating thing to see, especially for those that have been willing to put everything on the line and sacrifice everything for this country if their country called them to do so,” she said.

Yancy, 35, served in the U.S. Navy from 2010 to 2014. She began to use food stamps and the Medicaid program, the public health insurance program for people with lower incomes, as she navigated life’s challenges. They included going back to school to pursue her bachelor’s degree, becoming a single mother, and a leukemia diagnosis for one of her children. Frequent trips to the hospital made it hard for her to work steadily or attend school for 20 hours each week, she said.

Guinn said the new rules will create significant administrative challenges, too; even SNAP recipients who are working will struggle to prove it.

“Maybe they’re working one month, they have a job, and then their employer cuts their hours the next month,” Guinn told Stateline. “There are mechanisms for people to upload documentation as needed to demonstrate compliance with the program, but from an administrative standpoint, right now, we don’t have any super-high-tech automated way of doing this.”

Stateline reporter Shalina Chatlani can be reached at schatlani@stateline.org.

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.