A man closes the entrance to Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine on Oct. 3 in Baltimore because of the federal government shutdown. States are currently covering costs of some federal programs, but it’s unclear whether they will be repaid once the government reopens. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

States are doing what they generally do during a federal government shutdown: continuing to operate programs serving some of the neediest people.

That means schools are still serving federally subsidized meals and states are distributing funding for the federal food stamp program. For now.

If the shutdown drags on and federal dollars run out, states can only keep programs going for so long. States may choose to pay for some services themselves so residents keep their benefits.

But this time, state leaders have new worries about getting reimbursed for federal costs once the federal spending impasse is resolved. That’s traditionally been the practice following a shutdown, but the Trump administration’s record of pulling funding and targeting Democratic-led states has some officials worried about what comes after the shutdown.

Many states already struggled to balance their own budgets this year. And some fear going without federal reimbursement for shutdown costs could force states to make painful cuts to their own budget priorities.

Nevada State Treasurer Zach Conine, a Democrat, said the administration has not made good on its word to states in recent months — freezing some congressionally approved funding and cutting already awarded grants. So it’s likewise unclear whether the federal government will follow previous practice and reimburse states for covering shutdown costs of crucial federal programs such as food assistance.

“I think everything is a risk with this administration. … We in the states are kind of left holding the bag yet again as the federal government tries to sort out what it wants to be when it grows up,” he told Stateline.

Nevada entered the shutdown with more than $1.2 billion in reserves. Last week, Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo’s office said in a statement that state funds would be adequate to cover “a short period of time with minimal disruption to services.”

But the governor’s office said a shutdown of more than 30 days would cause more significant challenges for the state.

Lombardo’s office did not respond to Stateline’s questions. But last week, it released a three-page document on the shutdown, saying it expected the federal government to reimburse states once the budget stalemate is resolved.

“As D.C. works through its issues, our administration will continue to support Nevadans in any way we can throughout this unnecessary federal government shutdown,” Lombardo said in the statement.

While mandatory programs such as Medicaid and Social Security continue to send funds to beneficiaries during the shutdown, funding for other safety net programs such as food assistance are more uncertain. The federal government told states there were enough funds for the food stamp program to cover October benefits, though the special food program for women, infants and children may run out of money sooner.

By furloughing workers and halting federal spending, the shutdown could cost the national economy $15 billion per week, President Donald Trump’s economic advisers estimated.

The White House says a prolonged shutdown will affect the economies of every state by reducing employment, federal benefits and consumer spending. White House estimates say this could cost Michigan $361 million per week in lost economic output, for example, while Florida could lose $911 million each week.

‘Fend for themselves’

Some federal services are shuttered during a shutdown: The Environmental Protection Agency has ceased many research, permitting and enforcement efforts, and official jobs data is no longer being released. Federal funds for other programs, including food assistance, are expected to last through the end of the month. But states can elect to spend their own funds on these programs, which were previously authorized by Congress and state legislatures.

Before the shutdown, states were stockpiling reserve funding. The National Association of State Budget Officers reported most state budgets this year maintained or increased rainy day funds. At the same time, state and local governments are borrowing record amounts: As much as $600 billion in municipal bonds is projected to be issued by the end of 2025.

“So states and localities are kind of getting the message they really need to fend for themselves much more than they ever had,” said William Glasgall, public finance adviser at the Volcker Alliance, a nonprofit that works to support public sector workers.

Since January, the Trump administration has stripped states and cities of billions of dollars that Congress approved for education, infrastructure and energy projects. Glasgall said that record leaves states with legitimate concerns about getting repaid for their shutdown-related expenses — a prospect that would likely spark even more lawsuits from Democratic-led states.

“They’ve already, before the shutdown, started rolling back federal funding, and I don’t see any reason why they would stop now,” he said. “The recissions that have been announced are pretty harsh, and it’s money we’re expecting and not getting.”

The last shutdown, which lasted five weeks during Trump’s first term, delayed billions in federal spending and reduced gross domestic product — the value of all goods and services produced — by $11 billion, the Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2019. Experts say states were repaid for costs they incurred providing federal services during that shutdown.

In Minnesota, State Budget Director Ahna Minge said staff have been studying previous shutdowns. But at a news conference with Democratic Gov. Tim Walz last week, she characterized this shutdown as “unpredictable.”

“The current federal administration may not follow the historic playbook,” she said.

Walz said farmers would be among the first hit as the federal Farm Service Agency has ceased operations in the middle of the state’s harvest season. Among other duties, that agency works on disaster assistance and processes loans during harvest to protect farmers against commodity price fluctuations.

Minge said Minnesota officials think programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants and Children have enough existing federal funds to operate through October. But she said the state budget cannot backfill all the commitments made by federal programs.

“What we know is that the longer a shutdown lasts, the greater the impact to state programs and services,” she said.

Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont, a Democrat, has pledged to use state dollars to keep WIC afloat if needed, The Associated Press reported. And Colorado lawmakers set aside $7.5 million just before the shutdown to keep WIC running.

Already under strain

In Maryland, the shutdown is compounding the economic instability from Trump’s ongoing efforts to shrink the number of federal employees, agencies and spending.

With more than 160,000 federal employees, Maryland’s economy relies heavily on the federal workforce. The Trump administration has said it may deny back pay to hundreds of thousands of furloughed federal workers, despite a law he signed in 2019 guaranteeing such back pay.

Chief Deputy Comptroller Andrew Schaufele told lawmakers last week that a shutdown could cost the state $700,000 per day in lost tax revenue.

Democratic Gov. Wes Moore pledged to continue funding some federal programs, but said the state would not tap into its rainy day funds to do so.

“We’re going to continually evaluate how long we can go,” he said at a news conference.

As for getting repaid, Moore spokesperson David Turner told Stateline that the state had received no indication that the federal government would deviate from past practice, “but we are monitoring closely.”

This fiscal uncertainty hits states as they are already struggling to respond to the strain of federal agency layoffs and cuts in the major tax and spending law Trump signed this summer. The law slashed billions in social service funding and created costly new bureaucratic burdens for states, which administer Medicaid and food assistance programs.

“There’s no way, really at this point, to sort of assess with any level of confidence what’s going to happen when you also have these massive layoffs that were going on pre-shutdown,” said Lisa Parshall, a professor of political science at Daemen University in New York. “There’s just a real sense from states and localities — and I think rightly so — that that kind of reliability of the federal government is now in question.”

It may not be a question of whether states are reimbursed for their shutdown expenses, but which states are reimbursed, Parshall said. The Trump administration has publicly targeted funding of liberal-led states and cities over policy disagreements, raising the possibility it could do something similar with the shutdown.

“Whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing, you know, you could argue,” she said. “But it’s definitely a thing that seems to be adding to this level of uncertainty — this shutdown feels different.”

In California, officials just closed a nearly $12 billion shortfall when negotiating the budget that was approved in June. The budget deficit is expected to grow to more than $17 billion next year, said H.D. Palmer, spokesperson for the State of California Department of Finance, which advises the governor and state agencies on budget issues.

“There isn’t a long-term, open-ended line of credit available if this drags out,” he said of the federal government shutdown.

The depth of reserve funds available varies by federally funded program, he said. CalFresh, California’s name for its Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, has enough funds to cover food stamp benefits for this month, but anything beyond that is uncertain.

“If the duration of this is in the matter of days, it will be an inconvenience, but should not pose a massive problem,” he said. “However, if it does drag out for an extended period of time, then clearly it’s going to be a problem.”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

Military personnel enter Broadview ICE facility Thursday | Photo by Andrew Adams/Capitol News Illinois

CHICAGO — A federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked President Donald Trump from deploying 500 National Guard troops to Chicago as the administration’s immigration enforcement actions have intensified — along with protests against them.

U.S. District Judge April Perry noted the ongoing protests outside a local immigration processing center have never exceeded 200 demonstrators. She said the demonstrations fall far short of the high legal bar needed to be characterized as a “rebellion” that would allow the administration to take control of the Illinois National Guard and deploy troops from Texas and California to Chicago.

“I have seen no credible evidence that there is a danger of rebellion in the state of Illinois,” the judge said as she issued her oral ruling late Thursday afternoon.

While Perry acknowledged protesters have assaulted immigration agents and damaged federal property — namely vehicles belonging to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Border Patrol — the judge said there was far more evidence that the feds actually escalated or even caused clashes with activists.

More than a dozen protestors have been arrested in recent weeks outside an ICE processing center in the suburb of Broadview, approximately 13 miles directly west of Thursday’s hearing in Chicago’s Dirksen Federal Courthouse.

The ICE facility has been the epicenter of protests against the Trump administration’s ramped-up immigration enforcement actions in the last month. The Department of Homeland Security claims “Operation Midway Blitz” in Chicago and its suburbs has resulted in the arrests of more than 1,000 people.

Read more: Court scrutiny of ICE mounts as judge rules warrantless arrests violated order

National Guard would add ‘fuel to the fire’

DHS claims the federal troop deployment is necessary to protect the facility, along with federal immigration agents working in and around it.

But the judge agreed with arguments put forth by the state and city of Chicago in its lawsuit that deploying the National Guard was more likely to lead to civil unrest than be a force for peacekeeping, as guardsmen are “not trained in de-escalation.” Throughout nearly three hours of arguments in her courtroom, she continually pushed back on U.S. Department of Justice lawyers’ claims that Chicago-area immigration protests had grown out of control due to violent agitators.

Perry noted that for 19 years, weekly prayer vigils outside the Broadview facility occurred without incident. But she said most of the evidence pointed to federal agents — not protesters — as the catalysts for violence. She recounted recent incidents in which agents used chemical agents and nonlethal rounds against crowds “as small as 10 people.”

Deploying the guard “will only add fuel to the fire that the defendants themselves have started,” she said.

The judge will publish a written decision on Friday. But after giving her a verbal ruling Thursday, she agreed to use the widest possible wording to prevent the Trump administration from deploying troops from other states while her 14-day temporary restraining order remains in place.

For now, the feds won’t be able to order troops to perform their “federal protective missions” anywhere in Illinois.

That includes members of the Texas National Guard, who made their first appearance Thursday morning at the Broadview facility.

Texas Guard is already here

The Trump administration dispatched National Guard troops to Illinois from Texas earlier this week, even after the judge on Monday urged them to wait for Thursday’s hearing. Fourteen members of California’s National Guard were also sent to the Chicago area in order to train Illinois troops. Eric Wells, a top lawyer for Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, argued the move was a harbinger of “wanton tyranny.”

“I can only say that what I think what we heard from the United States Department of Justice was startling, unbounded, limitless and not in accord with our system of ordered liberty of federalism, of a constitutional structure that has protected this nation and allowed it to prosper for hundreds of years,” Wells said as he began his final arguments.

Raoul sat front-row throughout Thursday’s arguments in the courtroom and grew emotional while answering reporter questions after Perry’s ruling. He called the attorneys who worked on the case “true American heroes.”

“This is an important decision not just for the state of Illinois but for the entire country,” he said. “The question of state sovereignty was addressed in this decision. The question of whether or not the president of the United States should have unfettered authority to militarize our cities was answered today.”

---

---

Trump administration to appeal

The Trump administration is poised to appeal Perry’s decision, just as it challenged a decision from Trump-appointed federal judge in Oregon who also blocked the National Guard’s deployment to Portland over the weekend. The 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday heard the case, during which two other Trump-appointed judges appeared amenable to arguments that a president should be given deference in matters of national security, according to reporting from POLITICO.

DOJ lawyer Eric Hamilton also pushed for deference in his arguments to Perry Thursday. He said it wasn’t up to the judge to decide whether there was a risk of rebellion or even whether Trump was “relying on completely invalid evidence,” as Perry put it.

Hamilton painted a much darker picture of the protests in Broadview and Chicago, claiming that “sustained violence” in recent weeks was preventing DHS from “executing federal law.”

“They are not protesters,” he said. “They are the violent resistance of duly enacted immigration laws.”

Hamilton said dozens of agents have been “injured, hit, punched” — one even had his beard ripped off by a protester, he alleged.

“How — how did that happen?” Perry asked at one point. “Like an entire … not pieces of hair? His whole beard?”

“I believe that’s what the declaration says,” Hamilton said, referring to a filing in the case.

‘DHS’ version of events are unreliable’

In delivering her ruling, Perry said the DOJ’s arguments in the National Guard case seemed to add to “a growing body of evidence that DHS’ version of events are unreliable.” She said the administration’s characterization of immigration protests “cannot be aligned” with the accounts of local and state law enforcement submitted in legal filings.

For example, Hamilton referenced recent arrests of protesters, including a couple who were arrested for allegedly assaulting officers and happened to be carrying their licensed concealed weapons. But a federal grand jury this week declined to indict the couple, along with a third person, all of whom had already been released on bond.

Over the weekend, a Customs and Border Protection agent shot a woman in Brighton Park on Chicago’s Southwest Side during an altercation with agents. DHS officials allege the woman was one of 10 drivers who were following federal agents’ vehicles Saturday morning and eventually boxed them in.

But her attorney told a federal judge this week that body-camera footage contradicts that narrative and shows an officer shouting “do something b—-,” according to reporting from the Chicago Sun-Times. She and another driver were arrested over the weekend but the judge ordered them released.

Hamilton also referred to the incident several times, claiming drivers were “ramming” into immigration vehicles.

None of the other protesters arrested by either federal or local authorities in recent weeks remain in detention, with most arrestees handcuffed and immediately released after receiving a citation.

Federal prosecutors on Thursday dropped charges against one of the arrested protesters, one day after a federal judge granted a temporary restraining order against ICE barring agents from arresting peaceful protesters or journalists covering immigration demonstrations. It also bars federal agents from using harsh crowd control methods such as tear gas and other non-lethal weapons and ammunition.

The judge pointed out the Trump administration activated the National Guard the same weekend a federal immigration official stationed in Broadview described as a “great weekend” in an internal email late Sunday night. The official said the relative calm was due to the Illinois State Police, which last week formalized cooperation with Broadview Police and the Cook County Sheriff’s Office into a “unified command” and put up fencing around the building.

Perry cited the dropped charges for protesters this week, the First Amendment restraining order won by journalism groups, and another federal judge’s ruling Tuesday that ICE violated a consent decree restricting warrantless arrests.

“So to summarize, in the last 48 hours, in four separate unrelated legal decisions from four different neutral parties, they all cast doubt on DHS’ version of events,” the judge said.

Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.

This article first appeared on Capitol News Illinois and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Sen. Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) speaks at a press conference Wednesday morning about the Senate Democrats' "Affordable Wisconsin Agenda." (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

If there’s one word at the top of Democratic Party political discourse this year, it’s “affordability.”

Whether focused on a particular issue — child care, health care and housing are the most frequent examples — or on the cost of just about everything, making goods and services and life “affordable” figures high in the opening pitches of candidates across the state.

“I think the No. 1  issue that we need to focus on is affordability,” said Mitchell Berman, a Racine County nurse, when he announced in August he would seek the  Democratic nomination to challenge Republican U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil in Wisconsin’s 1st Congressional District.

Trevor Jung in Racine launched his state Senate campaign in September with a focus on “affordability” and “good-paying jobs.” Corrine Hendrickson, a former child care proprietor in New Glarus, said “affordability” is the top issue for her state Senate bid — and she wasn’t just talking about child care.

Democrats campaigning to be the party’s nominee for governor as diverse as David Crowley, Missy Hughes, and Francesca Hong have all uttered the word in introducing themselves to the public.

On Wednesday, the State Senate Democratic Committee had a press conference outside the Capitol to announce the Democrats’ focus on affordability, both for their upcoming legislative agenda and with an eye on the 2026 elections.

“Right now in Wisconsin, 65% of families are saying they are just getting by or they are struggling,” said Sen. Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton), the Senate minority leader. A spokesperson said the July Marquette University Law School poll was the source for the survey finding.

State Senate Democrats plan to spend the next few weeks traveling Wisconsin and hearing from state residents. Hesselbein said those conversations will become fodder for “tangible policy solutions that will help working families keep more of their hard-earned money, and we’re calling it the Affordable Wisconsin Agenda.”

Nathan Kalmoe, a University of Wisconsin political scientist, said via email that emphasizing poor economic conditions could be risky for Wisconsin Democrats running in state elections. While Republican lawmakers “may take some blame, the governor is a Democrat,” and voters tend to hold the chief executive responsible for economic conditions, he said. 

Kalmoe added that focusing on the economy exclusively at the expense of concerns for the most marginalized or concerns about Trump administration actions that threaten democracy would be “disturbing, and dangerous.”

Nevertheless, polling trends in the last several months suggest why Democrats nationwide have been focusing on inflation and the economy, said John D. Johnson, a research fellow and political analyst at Marquette University.

In Marquette polls shortly after President Donald Trump was elected to a second term in November, and again before he took office in January, 41% of adults nationally said they believed his policies would reduce inflation.

In Marquette’s most recent national poll, conducted in mid-September and released Oct. 2, “that had fallen to 25%,” Johnson said in an email to the Wisconsin Examiner. “Meanwhile, the share believing Trump’s policies would increase inflation grew from 45% to 60%.”

In the September poll, 40% of adults named “inflation and the cost of living” as the top issue in the U.S. “Another 19% chose ‘the economy’ more generally,” Johnson said.

“Overall, 29% of adults approved of Trump’s handling of ‘inflation and the cost of living’ while 71% disapproved,” Johnson said. (On “border security,” meanwhile, 55% of those polled approved Trump while 45% disapproved.)

In May, 68% of Republicans and 23% of independent voters told the Marquette pollsters they approved of how Trump was handling “inflation and the cost of living.” By September, Republican support had slipped to 57%, but among independents, support had plummeted to 14%.

“In other words, this is (1) an issue where there is a lot of daylight between how Republicans and Independents rate Trump, and (2) an issue where Trump is falling with both Democrats and Independents,” Johnson said.

At the Senate Democrats’ news conference Wednesday, a succession of senators — along with one state representative who is a Senate hopeful — spoke of how the issue of affordability cuts across a wide range of topics. And each laid blame for inaction on their Republican rivals.

“Senate Democrats have already been leading the fight to lower the cost of housing, whether trying to expand the homestead tax credit or preventing hedge funds from buying up available housing stocks, but undoubtedly more needs to be done,” said Sen. Jeff Smith (D-Brunswick).

Rep. Jenna Jacobson (D-Oregon), who has the endorsement of the Senate Democrats as she seeks the party’s nomination in the 17th Senate District next year, pointed to “reckless federal policies” hitting farmers and hiking grocery bills.

Democratic state lawmakers have proposed a free school meal bill along with grants for farmers who provide food to food pantries, replacing a federal program cut by the Trump administration, she said; both are “examples of some of the kinds of policies that we can advance to lower everyday costs.”

Sen. Kristin Dassler-Alfheim (D-Appleton) warned of coming spikes both in health insurance costs and in the rates of people without health insurance because of the expiring Affordable Care Act premium subsidies at the center of the federal shutdown fight in Congress. “We need Congress to get to work and renew these ACA subsidies,” she said.

Meanwhile, bills in the state Legislature to lower prescription drug costs and cap the price of asthma medication “haven’t even gotten a public hearing,” Dassler-Alfheim said. “We could be doing more here in Wisconsin to make life a little bit more affordable for everyone.”

Sen. Sarah Keyeski (D-Lodi) said Wisconsin continues to face “a child care crisis,” with too few options for working families. Care is increasingly costly, “not because child care providers are making huge profits,” she said. “It’s because we can no longer underpay those doing the child care work, mostly women.”

Democrats have been pushing for expanding child care support, “yet Republicans in Madison stand in the way every single time,” Keyeski said.

Hesselbein said that the Senate Democrats hope that they can follow up on their conversations with voters across the state by “bringing those ideas back to the state Legislature, working on them and hopefully being able to pass them in a bipartisan manner.”

At the same time, however, she blamed inaction on Republican lawmakers who “are mired in internal conflict, unwilling to cross the aisle and get stuff done for Wisconsinites.” The  2026 election will enable voters to “turn the page,” she said, “and vote for a vision that puts Wisconsinites first, that puts you and your families first.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Black Earth) speaks about impending insurance price increases due to the sunset of enhance subsidies for health insurance policies purchased at HealthCare.gov. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

Sometime in the next 10 days, Wisconsin residents will see directly what the stakes are in the ongoing standoff in Washington over the federal shutdown, U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Black Earth) said Wednesday.

That’s when people who buy health insurance through the federal HealthCare.gov marketplace under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will find out their likely premiums for 2026.

“In the next probably 10 days, we’re going to have a lot more information,” Pocan said at a press conference in the state Capitol along with small business owners and state lawmakers. “Health care is going to start getting very expensive for everyone beyond what it costs now — but for some people it’s going to be so cost prohibitive that they’re going to actually wind up losing their health insurance.”

Most Democrats in the U.S. Senate have refused to vote to advance a Republican continuing resolution to keep the federal government funded and have said they won’t do so if Republicans won’t negotiate with them on the bill.

In demanding changes to the stopgap spending bill, Democrats have focused on enhanced premium tax credits that provide subsidies for most people who buy health insurance on the federal marketplace.

The enhanced subsidies, enacted in 2021 and extended in 2022, will expire at the end of this year, driving up the premium cost for health insurance policies sold on the marketplace.

Pocan said that with the premiums on ACA policies going up and losing the additional subsidies, “a couple 60 years old making $85,000 in my district could see somewhere between a $16,000 and $17,000 increase next year in their premiums.” The projections are the product of KFF, the independent health research, policy and news organization.

Macy Buhler owns a child care center. She said her own health insurance comes through her husband’s job, but some of her employees have relied on the ACA and HealthCare.gov to buy insurance. With the possibility that they won’t be able to afford those plans any more, she said, she’s been inquiring with insurance companies about their potential options.

“I’m doing the best I can,” Buhler said. “But when people don’t see that this is going to affect our workforce, it frustrates me. It will absolutely affect our workforce. It will absolutely affect families who are middle class and lower. It will affect our farmers.”

Kyle LaFond, who  owns a custom manufacturing business, said he and his team of eight employees have relied on the ACA for health insurance.

“The ACA really leveled the playing field in terms of being able to provide coverage,” LaFond said.

Among his employees, the projected increases for health insurance will range from $2,000 to about $12,000. “For a growing family, those price hikes are almost insurmountable. It’s unconscionable,” La Fond said.

With the increased subsidies expiring, “I might lose some good people,” he added. “So I’m talking about the future of my business.”

Democrats tried to make extending the subsidies part of the tax- and spending-cut megabill that President Donald Trump signed in July, but the procedure Republicans used to pass that legislation allowed them to move it through the process without Democratic votes.

Pocan said the Democrats are not willing to trust the Republican majority to  negotiate on the ACA subsidies if the Democrats first agree on the GOP bill and simply reopen the government.

Previous deals in December and in March on stopgap spending bills fell apart, he said. “Then Donald Trump did recissions, which are against the law, and started taking away funding that we did. Article 1 of the Constitution gives the power of the purse to Congress and he took it away. So they get all of that.”

Pocan said the recurring Republican claim that Democrats are holding out “because they want to give hundreds of billions of dollars of health benefits to illegal aliens — PolitiFact gave that an outright false.”

Pocan refrained from using a barnyard epithet for the claim. “Manure is what it is,” he said, glancing around at the ornately decorated Assembly parlor. “It’s a pretty room. I got to talk pretty.”

But, he said, “by federal law, not one dime can go directly to someone who’s an undocumented person — I’m going to use that terminology — from Medicare, Medicaid, or the Affordable Care Act. So, nothing. So, it’s not true.”

Public awareness about the shutdown could be lagging. Pocan said his office had 85 calls last week about the shutdown.

By contrast, in the last nine months, his office has taken 14,435 calls about health care. “So this is something that people really care about.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Some school districts and school bus companies in search of drivers may need to look even harder after a federal rule outlaws the issuing of CDLs to non-U.S. citizens.

Many U.S. states are pausing or suspending the issuance of non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) in response to U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy’s Sept. 26 announcement of an emergency action to drastically restrict who is eligible for a non-domiciled commercial learner’s permits (CLPs) and CDLs.

Editor’s — This article has been updated to include more comments from states that responded to questions the initial publication. STN will provide further updates as more states respond.

According to the announcement, the rule — effective immediately — comes in response to an ongoing nationwide audit by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and “a recent series of horrific, fatal crashes caused by non-domiciled drivers.”

The rule impacts nearly 200,000 current non-domiciled CDL holders and 20,000 CLP holders. FMCSA estimates about 6,000 drivers will qualify for non-domiciled credentials annually under the new restrictions.

It was unknown at this report how many of those are school bus drivers.

Duffy’s announcement indicates the audit uncovered “a catastrophic pattern of states issuing licenses illegally to foreign drivers, as well as the fact that even if the current regulatory framework is followed, it can fail.

“The confluence of these two factors has created an imminent hazard on America’s roadways that must be fixed,” a press release states.

Moving forward, non-citizens are ineligible for a non-domiciled CDL unless they meet a much stricter set of rules, including obtaining an employment-based visa and undergoing a mandatory federal immigration status check using the SAVE system.

SAVE is an online service for registered federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local government agencies to verify immigration status and naturalized/acquired U.S. citizenship of applicants seeking benefits or licenses.

“What our team has discovered should disturb and anger every American,” said Duffy, noting that CDLs are being issued to “dangerous foreign drivers – oftentimes illegally. This is a direct threat to the safety of every family on the road, and I won’t stand for it,” he continued.

FMCSA’s nationwide audit of non-domiciled CDLs uncovered systemic non-compliance across several states, the announcement noted, adding “the worst and most egregious in California. Due to weak oversight, insufficient training and programming errors, the agency found a large number of non-domiciled CDLs were issued to ineligible drivers and those whose licenses were valid long after their lawful presence in the U.S. expired.”

The audit indicates more than 25 percent of non-domiciled CDLs reviewed in California were improperly issued. U.S. DOT cited one case in which the state issued a driver from Brazil a CDL with endorsements to drive a passenger bus and a school bus that remained valid for months after his legal presence in the country expired.

As a result, Duffy also announced direct enforcement action against California, indicating the state must immediately pause issuance of non-domiciled CDLs, identify all unexpired non-domiciled CDLs that fail to comply with FMCSA regulations, and revoke and reissue all noncompliant non-domiciled CDLs if they comply with the new federal requirements.
Duffy gave California 30 days to come into compliance or FMCSA will withhold federal highway funds, starting at nearly $160 million in the first year and doubling in year two.

Jonathan Groveman, an information officer with the California Department of Motor Vehicles, told School Transportation News the agency is currently reviewing the federal government’s issued guidance within the federal government’s 30-day period.

Duffy indicated FMCSA’s findings are in addition to at least five fatal crashes occurring since January involving non-domiciled CDL holders, prompting what it calls Duffy’s urgent action to “combat the direct threat to national security and the hazard to public safety.”

Colorado, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, and Washington were also identified as states with licensing patterns not consistent with federal regulations.

The action limits individuals eligible for non-domiciled CLPs and CDLs to foreign individuals in lawful status in the U.S. in certain employment-based, non-immigrant categories, certain individuals domiciled in a U.S. territory, and individuals domiciled in a state that is prohibited from issuing CLPs or CDLs because FMCSA has decertified the state’s CDL program.

It also requires:

• Non-citizen applicants — except for lawful permanent residents — to provide an unexpired foreign passport and an unexpired Form I-94/94A (Arrival/Departure Record) indicating one of the specified employment-based nonimmigrant categories, specifically H2-B, H2-A, and E-2 visas, at every issuance, transfer, renewal, and upgrade action de-fined in the regulation.

• State drivers licensing agencies (SDLA) to query the SAVE system, which is administered by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, to verify the accuracy and legitimacy of provided documents and information.

• SDLAs retain copies of the application documents for at least two years.

• The expiration date for any non-domiciled CLP or CDL to match the expiration date of the Form I-94/94A or to expire in one year, whichever is sooner.

• The applicant to be present in person at each renewal.

• An SDLA to downgrade the non-domiciled CLP or CDL if the state becomes aware that the holder is no longer eligible to hold a non-domiciled CLP or CDL.

STN reached out to all 50 state agencies that issue CDLs, with several state websites announcing changes.

The Colorado DMV provided a statement to STN that effective Sept. 29 it paused all commercial drivers issuances and renewals of term-limited or non-domiciled CDLs and CLPs.

A spokesperson for the Georgia Department of Driver Services told STN the state is complying with the new federal ruling by only issuing CDLs to permanent residents that have acceptable visas.

In New Mexico, the Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) announced it also paused its issuance and renewal of CDLs and CLPs to certain non-domiciled foreign individuals as of Sept. 29 to comply with the emergency interim final rules issued by the FMCSA.

The MVD statement reads that the agency’s pause in CDL and CPL issuance and renewal affects foreign nationals relying on an employment zuthorization card to substantiate their authorization to work in the U.S. and it will continue to issue CDLs and CLPs to foreign nationals who present a foreign passport with an approved I-94 Arrival/Departure record.

“New Mexico law complies with all federal requirements for the issuance of CDLs and CLPs to non-domiciled individuals,” according to the statement. “Currently, 204 CDLs and CLPs have been issued to non-domiciled individuals in New Mexico. 2

Legislation introduced in 2022 on behalf of MVD added requirements for issuances of CDLs and CLPs to foreign nationals who demonstrate lawful status in the U.S. Individuals who seek a new or renewed non-domiciled CDL or CLP based on an employment authorization card will not be able to complete their transaction through MVD or its partner offices at this time.’

Regarding school bus drivers, Megan Gleason, public information officer for the New Mexico Department of Taxation and Revenue, noted, “There is a specific endorsement — an S (school bus) endorsement — on commercial driver’s licenses that authorizes drivers to operate a school bus transporting students to and from school or school-sponsored activities.

“When applied to a commercial learner’s permit, the endorsement serves solely for testing purposes, permitting the driver to complete the required skills examination to qualify for the endorsement on their commercial driver’s license,” she said.

Current data on active and total endorsements in New Mexico, indicates there are four active non-domicile CDLs, a total of eight non-domicile CDLs since 2022, one active non-domicile CLPs, and a total of nine CLPs since 2022.

Gleason said the same requirement for a foreign passport with an I-94 for an H2/H2A/E2 visa remains for those drivers at the time of renewal.

---

Related: U.S. DOT Proposes Rule to Add Fentanyl to CDL Drug Testing Program
Related: FMCSA Grant to Enhance CDL Testing in New Jersey
Related: FMCSA Proposal Seeks to Quicken CDL Process

---

A Texas Department of Public Safety spokesperson told STN all currently issued CDLs, including those to school bus drivers with appropriate endorsements, will remain valid and only the issuance of new CDLs and commercial learners permits, or CLPs, has been halted.

An additional statement from the agency, which issues CDLs and CLPs in Texas, noted that non-citizens include refugees, asylum seekers, and recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.

“Customers with a pending issuance will not be allowed to continue any written or skills testing until the services for non-domicile CDL/CLP are reinstated” DPS added.

Other states changes include:

• The Arizona Department of Transportation said in a statement, “it is aware of the new federal guidelines and has instituted them for all new CDL issuances as well as renewals, which includes those seeking CDLs with passenger and school bus endorsements. There are approximately 125,000 CDLs in Arizona, and of those 800 are non-domiciled CDLs.” Though information related to school bus drivers was not known.

• Indiana noted its Bureau of Motor Vehicles has ceased processing all applications for non-domiciled CDL/CLPs, including applications for new, amended, duplicated, transferred, renewed, or upgraded non-domiciled CDL/CLPs. Affected non-domiciled CDL/CLP customers may submit an application at a BMV license branch to apply for or downgrade to a non-CDL driver’s license should they so choose.

• Maryland paused the issuance of all non-domiciled commercial driver products until further notice. This includes issuance, transfers, updates, replacements, duplicates, and renewals of both non-domiciled CLPs and non-domiciled CDLs, adding ‘we apologize for the inconvenience.’

• Massachusetts also apologetically indicated it has paused the issuance of all non-domiciled commercial driver credentials until further notice, including issuance, transfers, updates, replacements, duplicates, and renewals of both non-domiciled CLPs and non-domiciled CDLs.

• Missouri suspended all new, renewal and duplicate nondomiciled CDL and CLP issuance until further notice, including a suspension of knowledge and skills testing for any in-state or out-of-state test applicant who would be restricted to a non-domiciled CDL or CLP.

• Oregon DMV is no longer issuing limited-term (non-domiciled) CDLs and CLPs until further notice.

• Utah has paused issuing non-domiciled CDLs.

• The Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) Office of Public Affairs issued a statement. “Due to the recent interim final rule issued by the FMCSA, like many states across the country, WisDOT Division of Motor Vehicles has paused its non-domiciled CDLs and CLPs issuance program to ensure compliance with the interim final rule. Wisconsin already had many of the new rule’s regulations in place. As we work to resolve any remaining issues, we will communicate the status of our program to impacted individuals on our website and at our DMV service centers.”

The post Update: U.S. Department of Transportation Enacts CDL Restrictions on Non-Domiciled Workers appeared first on School Transportation News.

Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee) speaks before a vote on a housing-related bill in the state Assembly Tuesday. (Screenshot/WisEye)

A group of housing bills that Republican lawmakers have fast-tracked since they were first announced two weeks ago made it through the Wisconsin Assembly Tuesday — most with unanimous support, but not without criticism from Democrats.

In a floor speech before the Assembly began voting Tuesday, Rep. Kalan Haywood (D-Milwaukee), assistant minority leader, said the GOP housing package fell short of what might have been possible with bipartisan discussion.

“While there is support for many of these bills on our side, we are by no means satisfied,” Haywood said.

Haywood complimented the Republican chair of the Assembly’s Housing and Real Estate committee, Rep. Robert Brooks (R-Saukville), for his “willingness to listen and work together.”

He described bills enacted in the 2023-24 session as “a bipartisan housing package that we could build on this session,” and said that in the spring, bipartisan work had begun on a new round of bills, accompanied by “honest communication with both sides and with stakeholders.”

Those discussions stopped abruptly in June, Haywood said, and when the bills came out two weeks ago the results were “half baked.”

“There are some good things in these bills that may help create some additional housing, but we could have done much more,” Haywood said.

A series of procedural votes on the floor Tuesday surrounding one bill — AB 455, creating a grant program for condominium conversions from multi-family homes — was emblematic of the gap between how Democrats and Republicans viewed not just the legislation but the larger issue of housing.

In the Housing and Real Estate Committee meeting Friday, Oct. 3, Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee) managed to persuade three Republicans to join the panel’s Democrats to pass an amendment that expanded the bill to include housing cooperatives, not just condominiums.  

After the amendment was adopted, Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) sent an email written in red to all state lawmakers of both parties, mocking Clancy’s amendment as applying to “communes” and criticizing its Republican supporters.

When the bill reached the floor Tuesday, the original author, Rep. Dave Murphy (R-Greenville), submitted a rewrite, known as a substitute amendment.

The rewrite included another amendment, from Democrat, Rep. Lori Palmeri (D-Oshkosh), giving tenants of a building being converted to condos the right of first refusal to purchase their residence. But it omitted the Clancy amendment.

“We had a brief and awesome moment of bipartisanship this last week, and then we had an all red email from Senator Nass,” Clancy said on the Assembly floor. “I did not realize that my Republican colleagues were beholden to him and not even their own leadership there.”

The substitute amendment, Clancy said, would “strike out this bipartisan amendment and just turn it into another handout to developers.”

Brooks, the housing committee chair, had announced at the Republican press conference before the floor session that cooperatives would be stripped out, calling the approach “very difficult to manage because of the financing mechanisms and other things.”

Clancy said he would vote for the legislation despite the removal of his amendment. “But it is so disappointing to have to do that because we had something better in front of us,” he added.

The bill, like most of the bills up for a vote Tuesday, passed on a voice vote.

Others that passed with broad support included AB 424, updating requirements for the rental of mobile and manufactured homes; AB 451, allowing cities and villages to designate residential tax incremental districts to help fund infrastructure improvements; AB 452, allowing land subdividers to certify their designs and public improvements comply with state requirements; and AB 456, making a variety of changes to real estate transaction practices.

A handful of measures labeled as housing bills passed with little or no support from Democrats.

AB 453 would require local communities to grant rezoning requests for housing developers if they meet certain conditions, including that the area is projected as residential in the community’s comprehensive plan. The party-line vote was 55-39.

Rep. Mike Bare (D-Verona) said the measure fell short of what could have been done and that it lacked funding for local governments that would have to bear the cost it would impose. The bill’s author. Rep. David Armstrong (R-Rice Lake) vowed to seek funding in the next state budget.

AB 450 would put off the effective date of Wisconsin’s updated commercial building code until April 1, 2026. Originally blocked in 2023, the new code was reinstated by the the Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) after a state Supreme Court ruling this July held that state laws allowing the Legislature to block executive branch administrative rules indefinitely were unconstitutional.

The current effective date is Nov. 1.

Rep. William Penterman (R-Hustisford) said delaying the code further was needed “for clarity” because builders had been planning projects under the previous code.

After the GOP majority rejected an attempt by Democrats to replace the bill with language that increased funding for DSPS on a 54-41 party-line vote, the legislation passed on a voice vote — but with substantial, audible cries of “No” from Democrats.

AB 366 would allow landlords to demand a written statement from a licensed health professional attesting to a tenant’s need for an emotional support animal.

“There are numerous people that have contacted us about the fraudulent means of how you can get a service dog,” state Rep. Paul Tittl (R-Manitowoc), said at a Republican press conference before the floor session.

On the floor, Clancy criticized the bill for potentially harming people for whom emotional support animals are a necessity but who are unable to see  a health professional.

“To the extent that there is a problem, where we want to actually certify that some animals are supportive and some are not, we can fix that problem,” Clancy said. “But that requires actually talking to the stakeholders before taking pen to paper.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Jerome Dillard, executive director of Ex-Incarcerated People Organizing (EXPO) (left) holds book discussion with author and activist Bianca Tylek (right). (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

“We’re talking about a major, major industry in our society today,” activist and writer Bianca Tylek told a group of about 20 people who packed a room at Madison’s Lake City Books Monday night. At the Q&A and book signing event, hosted by Ex-Incarcerated People Organizing (EXPO), Tylek — described as a leading expert in the prison industry — discussed her new book The Prison Industry: How It Works and Who Profits, offering her insights into what she called a $80-90 billion industry in America. 

“This is just a massive industry of folks who are using the correctional system to essentially extract either wealth or resources either from public coffers, or from low-income … communities that are directly impacted by incarceration,” said Tylek, who also founded and leads the non-profit organization Worth Rises, which works to confront and reform the prison industry. Tylek’s book delves into multiple aspects of the prison industry from food distribution to telecommunications and examines privatization, who profits and the lives of the people who are directly affected. 

The discussion was moderated by Jerome Dillard, EXPO’s executive director, who sat beside Tylek asking  questions. Dillard called Tylek “my daughter in the movement,” and spoke of his admiration for her work and her spirit in fighting for change within the prison system. 

Dillard described attending an event in Appleton last week with Tylek where he was invited to receive an award, “not knowing what we were going into,” and realizing it was a Wisconsin Correctional Association conference. 

“I just couldn’t believe all the industries that were there with tables, and tabling the event with new devices and all this,” said Dillard. “I left there really broken and heavy. These conferences opened my eyes to how big this industry is … that individuals are capitalizing on human misery.” Conference tables displayed new kinds of spit masks and shock gloves to prospective correctional customers, some of whom made joking comments about using the devices on the job. “It just blew me away, you know, that she’s bragging about punishing and torturing people in their care,” said Dillard, recalling a woman who made such remarks. 

Tylek said that there are over 1,400 manufacturers of correctional and policing equipment nationwide. “Every single state has a correctional conference,” said Tylek. “Every single state has a sheriff’s association,” as well as conferences and associations dedicated to jails, parole and other aspects of the correctional system. Tylek recalled attending the American Correctional Association conference, one of the largest in the nation, where she saw an exhibit hall “with hundreds of corporations” with their own exhibit tables. 

“And not just tables,” Tylek told the crowd. “Probably the wildest thing I saw was one company drive a full bus into the convention center, where staff from correctional institutions could step onto the bus and play with all the equipment and trinkets that they were selling. And they gave out free raffle tickets and all these things, and probably the grossest thing that I experienced was all the tickets to private events. And I made my way up to a private event for Securus.” Tylek said that the company is one of the nation’s two largest prison telecommunication companies, and was one of the largest sponsors of the conference that year. “And they had a happy hour that involved a full open bar,” said Tylek, “a full swing dance performance, everyone just having the most joyous time of all. All while on the walls there were the kiosks, the tablets, the phone devices that you could go and speak to a Securus representative while you have your cocktail. And all of this built on about 2 million people who are sitting in a cage somewhere who will never see this, who don’t get to enjoy these luxuries in any of this. It’s heartbreaking, and it’s repulsive, I think, more than anything.”

Later, Tylek elaborated more on how companies use things like gifts and luxury vacations to grow their relationships with correctional and law enforcement leaders. “At conferences, you would get these private event tickets,” she said. At one such event, she recalled, attendees were given hand-rolled cigars. “That’s just the legal stuff that looks gross,” said Tylek. There are also “questionably legal” practices, such as offering “training cruises” in the Caribbean for prison and sheriff staff in brochures distributed during contract bidding processes. 

On the dark end of the spectrum is bribery, such as the case of a Mississippi prison commissioner who was involved in a bribery and kickback scheme with private prison companies. Tylek highlighted how in Mississippi, a prison commissioner went on to work for a private prison company as a lobbyist. Similar revolving doors exist between the prison industry, especially private prisons, Homeland Security and immigration agencies, said Tylek.

Tylek described the rise of  the prison industry as a relatively new phenomenon in America. Prior to the abolition of slavery, she said, the prison population was predominantly white, and only shifted to being predominantly Black in the decades after abolition — a move  to “re-confine and re-enslave” Black people. Prison populations continued to grow into the 1970s and 80s, leading into the War on Drugs. “Really around the 1980s is when you start to see industry recognize a potential opportunity,” said Tylek. 

That’s the  era during which most of the private prison companies featured in her book began to emerge. Private prison industry representatives helped craft some of the nation’s most punitive laws such as three-strikes laws, truth in sentencing and mandatory minimums, which helped grow the prison population. “Those three pieces of model legislation were drafted by the prison industry, and specifically by private prison executives,” said Tylek. 

The consequences have been devastating for individuals and families, and also ripple out into society. “The impact of the prison industry bleeds far beyond prison walls,” Tylek said. Among those ripple effects are the cost borne by families that put money on the books for incarcerated loved ones to have food and hygiene supplies or simply to communicate, incarcerated people who work long hours for 14 cents an hour on average, missed child support payments from incarcerated parents and victims who don’t receive restitution. In addition, many small towns which once saw prisons as economic saviors now see them as burdens. 

“In the end, all of us are impacted,” said Tylek. “When we exploit people who are incarcerated, or we have a system that wants to put more people behind bars and for longer because a few stand to benefit, then socially we are all harmed by that.” 

Yet a space ripe with so many problems also invites solutions. In several states, Tylek has been involved in movements to make phone calls to incarcerated people free and in more than one of those places, that effort succeeded. “Something that everyone can understand is what’s the importance of a phone call home,” Tylek told her bookstore audience. Families of incarcerated people often face significant financial challenges, including debt, income loss and unemployment. 

In 2017, Tylek began to focus on the prison telecommunications industry. “We led the first successful campaign to make communication completely free in a jail system,” said Tylek. That was in New York, and affected the infamous Rikers Island jail. From 2019 to 2023, Tylek’s organization Worth Rises pushed for free jail calls in San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles, Massachusetts, free prison calls in Connecticut, California, Colorado, Minnesota. Free prison calls were enshrined in the CARES Act as a result of that work. “We’ve been able to save families $600 million to date,” Tylek said, “and generate over 3 billion additional call minutes between people who are incarcerated and their loved ones.”

Dillard recalled celebrating some of those victories with Tylek, but the fight continues. “We’re in a dozen more states trying to fight for the exact same legislation to make communication free in our prisons and jails,” said Tylek. “The outcomes that we get are life-changing. In Connecticut we saw phone volume increase by over 120% overnight. In New York just recently, first data’s coming back and we are north of 40% increases in calling.” Some of that difference is also due to inconsistent call rates across different states, with incarcerated people being charged 2.8 cents per minute in New York versus people in Connecticut who were paying 32.5 cents per minute. 

“No matter where it happens, the change is substantial,” said Tylek. “These are real people with real lives. We have talked to families whose autistic child stopped speaking when her father went to prison. And when phone calls became free and he could call home again she started speaking again, her child development changed, she started engaging more in school, and now she’s flourishing, all off a simple phone call.”

Those kinds of victories can be replicated elsewhere. A campaign was launched earlier this year to make jail calls free in Racine County, and La Crosse became the first Wisconsin county to provide free jail calls earlier this year. 

“What I love about the examples in Wisconsin is that we had nothing to do with them,” Tylek said, drawing laughter from the audience in Madison. “My biggest goal has been for this movement to take itself.” 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: 2 minutes

No matter what kind of home you live in, challenges will pop up.

If you own your home and a pipe starts leaking, you might call a plumber. If you rent, you call your landlord. But what if you own your home and rent the land underneath it?

Thousands of Wisconsin residents own manufactured homes and pay to anchor their homes in communities, often called mobile home or trailer parks. Owners of manufactured homes are responsible for repairs to their homes but rely on park owners to maintain things like roads, water drainage and sewage. 

And if landlords don’t respond and conditions deteriorate? A patchwork of laws and regulations governing manufactured housing leaves residents unsure of where to turn.

Here’s a list of options:

• Those with issues surrounding park maintenance should file a complaint with the Department of Safety and Professional Services using its online form. DSPS licenses manufactured home communities and determines if complaints warrant inspection and potential discipline. The agency accepts anonymous complaints. Find more information here. In 16 counties, the DSPS has delegated inspection authority to local health departments. Find a list of delegated counties here. 

• If the issue involves eviction, lease agreements or other landlord-tenant issues, contact the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. Residents can submit an online complaint here. Complainants can leave identifying information off of the form, but it may limit DATCP’s ability to help address the issue. The agency contacts businesses on behalf of tenants to try to mediate problems, although the agency lacks the power to force mediation. Complaints — resolved or not —  help the agency track potentially unfair business practices. 

• County health officials have jurisdiction over complaints related to health and safety. Find contact information for your local agency here. 

• City, town and village officials can also adopt their own regulations on manufactured housing communities. Consider asking local officials about requirements in your community and who enforces them. 

Need help paying for repairs? 

Tomorrow’s Home Foundation, partially funded by the state, grants low-income manufactured home owners up to $3,000 for repairs or modifications or up to $1,500 to dispose of uninhabitable homes. Learn more about eligibility here, and download an application here. 

Have a question or know of a resource we should add to this list? Contact Addie Costello at acostello@wisconsinwatch.org.

Have an issue with a manufactured housing park? Here’s what to know 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.

Introduced last month, the bipartisan Brake for Kids Act hopes to create a public service announcement on the dangers of illegally passing a stopped school bus.

Introduced on Sept. 16 by Sens. Todd Young of Indiana and Gary Peters of Michigan, it directs the “Secretary of Transportation to carry out a national public safety messaging campaign relating to the dangers of illegal passing of stopped school buses, and for other purposes.”

The PSA campaign would need to be released and distributed no later than one year after the enactment. It would include television advertisements on national broadcasts as well as radio, social media and other messaging.

Both senators have been involved in trying to prevent illegal school bus crossings, introducing the Stop for School Buses Act in 2019 and 2021.

“Every school year, far too many illegal school bus passings occur, which puts the lives of students at risk. Our bill will raise awareness about the dangers of passing a stopped school bus to help ensure that our kids make it to and from school safely,” said Young in a press release.

U.S. Reps. Rudy Yakym, Pete Stauber, Seth Moulton and Julia Brownley introduced companion legislation in the House.

“Parents need to know their kids are safe taking the bus to and from school,” Peters said in a release. “That’s why I’m proud to help lead this bipartisan, commonsense legislation to raise awareness of the dangers of illegally passing school buses and promote best practices for making our communities safer.”

Meanwhile, the National School Transportation Association released a statement applauding the introduction of the legislation. “The Brake for Kids Act is an essential step to help protect students and alleviate preventable tragedies,” said Patrick Dean, NSTA president. “Illegal school bus passings are a national crisis, and this legislation provides a platform for student transportation to raise awareness, change behavior, and prevent these all-too-frequent incidents.”

---

Related: Waymo Driverless Car Illegally Passes Stopped School Bus in Atlanta
Related: Wisconsin State Police, School Bus Association Promote School Bus Safety
Related: Michigan Association Films Illegal School Bus Passing PSA with NASCAR’s Preece
Related: New York Association Urges Motorists to Stop for School Buses at Startup
Related: NASDPTS Revises Illegal School Bus Passing Count After California Fixes Error

---

NSTA cited the 2025 National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services survey released this summer, noting that more than 114,000 school bus drivers across the U.S. reported 67,258 violations in a single day. While lower than in years past, NASDPTS extrapolated that motorists nationwide still illegally pass school buses tens of millions of times during the school year.

“NSTA believes that a nationwide safety campaign will close knowledge gaps, strengthen driver education, and save lives,” the press release adds.

The post Federal Bill Aims to Increase Awareness of Illegal School Bus Passing appeared first on School Transportation News.

Analysis on upcoming TSD Conference education, National Association for Pupil Transportation election results, the Federal Brake for Kids Act and the Federal Communications Commission revoking E-Rate eligibility of school bus Wi-Fi.

Jeff Cassell, president of the School Bus Safety Company, discusses the need for safety leadership training, removing risk and reducing accidents in student transportation.

Glenna Wright-Gallo, vice president of policy at neurotechnology software company Everway, has worked at the state government level and served as the assistant secretary for the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services. At the TSD Conference this November, she brings her perspective as a person with a disability on educating and empowering individuals with disabilities.

Read more about safety and special needs.

This episode is brought to you by Transfinder.

 

Conversation with School Bus Safety Co.

 

Message from Ride.

 

Stream, subscribe and download the School Transportation Nation podcast on Apple Podcasts, Deezer, Google Podcasts, iHeartRadio, RadioPublic, Spotify, Stitcher and YouTube.

The post (STN Podcast E277) Make the System Better: Safety Leadership Training & D.C. Insider on Disability Supports appeared first on School Transportation News.

Boxes of ballots wait to be counted at Milwaukee's central count on Election Day 2024. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

A Waukesha County judge on Monday issued a temporary partial stay of his ruling in a case over how state election authorities verify the citizenship status of people registering to vote. 

The partial stay was issued after the state Department of Justice had requested that Judge Michael Maxwell hold up the entirety of his order pending an appeal. Oral arguments will be held Oct. 31 to determine if the rest of the order should be stayed. 

Maxwell ruled Friday that the Wisconsin Elections Commission and Department of Transportation have a duty to match citizenship records with the state’s voter registration system to determine that non-citizens are not registering to vote. In his order, he also required that state and local election officials stop accepting new voter registrations without checking citizenship status and that the parties in the lawsuit meet to determine a plan for checking the existing voter rolls for non-citizen voters. 

The Monday order that partially stayed the decision put a pause on the halt to accepting voter registrations. 

DOJ had argued that Maxwell’s order would require a “massive overhaul” of the state’s voter registration system and take months to implement, that the ruling doesn’t make clear what the citizen verification requirement actually entails and potentially violates state law requiring the elections commission to maintain the electronic voter registration system. 

Non-citizens are not allowed to vote. Current law requires that people seeking to register to vote attest under penalty of imprisonment that they are U.S. citizens. In Wisconsin, immigrants without legal documentation are unable to obtain a driver’s license and a state-issued photo ID is required to register to vote. 

Despite little evidence that non-citizen voters are casting ballots in large numbers, the issue has been repeatedly raised by Republicans in recent years — particularly since President Donald Trump falsely claimed that the 2020 election was stolen from him, and among Republicans who are already skeptical of the election system as a whole.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A PFAS advisory sign along Starkweather Creek. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

More than two years after $125 million was set aside in the 2023-25 state budget to fund the remediation of PFAS contamination across Wisconsin, legislators are again trying to pass two bills to get that money out the door. 

At a Senate public hearing Tuesday, the bills’ Republican authors said they’re “all ears” for reaching a compromise on final language. However in the last legislative session, initial hopes that a deal could be reached went unfulfilled after Republicans, Democrats, business groups and environmental organizations dug into their positions and the bill was ultimately vetoed by Gov. Tony Evers.

As was the case in the last effort, the dispute is over who and how the state will hold entities responsible for PFAS contamination. 

PFAS are a class of man-made chemical compounds commonly known as “forever chemicals” because they don’t break down easily in the environment. The chemicals, which were used for decades in goods such as non-stick pans, fast food wrappers and firefighting foams, have been connected to causing cancer, thyroid diseases and developmental problems. Communities across Wisconsin have found PFAS contamination in their water supplies. 

Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto), one of the bills’ co-authors, said at the Tuesday hearing he’s trying to make sure people don’t have to choose between “their health and financial ruin” by testing for contamination and potentially being held responsible for paying for the clean up under the state’s spills law — which allows the Department of Natural Resources to force “responsible parties” to pay for the testing and remediation of chemical contamination. 

“We are transitioning from a medical and legal paradigm where a widely used substance was not considered hazardous, to a paradigm where it is considered hazardous, it’s imperative we don’t sweep up those who are not responsible and treat them as though they are,” he said. 

Wimberger and Rep. Jeff Mursau (R-Crivitz) have proposed Senate Bills 127 and 128, which establish the exemptions under which people won’t be held responsible for PFAS contamination on their property and create a number of grant programs to spend the $125 million. 

The challenge is that Republicans and industry have different definitions of who counts as responsible for contamination than Democrats and environmental groups. Constructing exemptions to the spills law that are too narrow could result in people being forced to pay for remediation they didn’t cause. But writing the exemptions too broadly could result in polluters passing the cost of remediation on to taxpayers. 

Across the state, municipal wastewater treatment utilities sell or give away the byproducts of their plants to use as fertilizer on farm fields. The DNR grants permits to allow the spreading of these byproducts, known as biosolids, which for years was seen as an environmentally responsible source of fertilizer because it was recycled. However biosolids from places with PFAS contamination in the water are contaminated, which can pollute the water near the field where they’re spread. 

Wimberger wants to make sure these farmers aren’t on the hook with the DNR to pay for contamination they didn’t know was happening and the DNR gave them a permit to create. 

But environmental advocates don’t want the exemptions to be so vague that they’re available to entities such as paper mills or chemical manufacturers. 

“We’re just asking you to understand that the way that you word an exemption is going to matter,” Christine Sieger, director of the DNR’s remediation and redevelopment bureau, said in her testimony. “I implement the spill law all day, every day, and I can tell you, people are crafty when it comes to getting out of liability. They will come up with all sorts of ways for how they can get themselves off the hook. And I just, I don’t want you to help them do that. Let’s make sure that they can take care of our people and clean up the mess that they’ve made.”

After the proposed PFAS bill was vetoed by Evers last session, Wimberger complained that opponents raised concerns about the exemptions being too broadly worded without naming specifics. On Tuesday, he said people objected with “platitudes” rather than specific language that could be corrected and that he hoped opponents could be more constructive this time around. 

Erik Kanter, director of government relations for Clean Wisconsin, said Tuesday the organization couldn’t support the proposal without amendments, proposing specific line-by-line changes for the bill authors to make. 

Kanter pointed to a line in SB 128 that states “a person that spreads biosolids or wastewater residuals contaminated by PFAS in compliance with any applicable license or permit” is exempt from being held responsible for PFAS contamination under the spills law. However, he said, that line is so vaguely worded that an industrial manufacturer could purchase and spread biosolids on its property as a way to gain an exemption from being held responsible for contamination it caused by creating PFAS as a byproduct of manufacturing. 

“The Legislature created the PFAS trust fund 29 months ago,” Kanter said. “Marinette, Peshtigo, the Town of Campbell, the town of Stella and communities and individuals throughout the state have waited and waited and waited for state government to create the programs through which the PFAS trust fund can be allocated. They don’t deserve to wait another day. They don’t deserve a bill that doesn’t meet their needs or lets polluters off the hook and saddles taxpayers with the bill. We believe that compromise is possible and essential. We value the bill authors’ partnership to find compromise on this bill. Clean Wisconsin shares their goal in getting a bill to the governor’s desk for his signature this session, and we will continue working in good faith toward that end.”

Both Mursau and Wimberger expressed hope that they could write an amendment that would get enough support to be signed into law.

“It’s my intention to take the feedback here … and bring forward the amendment that can earn the support of the Legislature to be signed into law by the governor,” Mursau said. “I also want to take this opportunity to thank the groups and individuals who have come to us, not just with criticisms, but with constructive ideas. Those who are willing to engage in dialogue, not just opposition, have been instrumental in helping us shape the legislation that can actually pass and deliver results. In a divided government like ours, meaningful progress requires compromise. I’m grateful for those who recognize that and continue to work with us in good faith.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Attorney General Josh Kaul speaks to residents of Marinette during a visit in 2019. (Photo by (Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

Attorney General Josh Kaul announced Tuesday he will run for reelection in 2026 — taking his name off the list of potential Democratic contestants in the race for governor.

“This is a pivotal time for our nation,” Kaul said in a written statement. “Some of our most basic rights are under threat. Severe cuts have been made to programs that provide opportunities and have helped communities move forward. It’s critical that we continue to have an AG who will stand up for our freedoms and the rule of law.”

Kaul was first elected to the office in 2018, when Tony Evers won his first term as governor. Both won second terms in 2022, although Kaul by a narrow margin.

After Evers announced in July that he would not seek a third term, turning the 2026 race for governor into a wide-open contest, Kaul was among the Democrats who were widely assumed would seek the nomination to succeed him. In his first press conferences after the Evers announcement, Kaul demurred when asked about his plans.

In the months since Evers said he would step aside, more than a half-dozen Democrats have announced they would campaign to be the state’s chief executive, while Kaul remained on the list of “potential” candidates.

“In Wisconsin, we’ve made meaningful progress, and we need to build on that progress,” Kaul said in his announcement statement. “As my track record shows, I’m committed to working to protect public safety and to looking out for the interests of Wisconsinites.”

“Josh Kaul has been a champion for Wisconsin and a bulwark against the MAGA extremist politicians and the Trump administration who have been trying to subvert our democracy, attacking our personal freedoms, and stealing from everyday working people,” Devin Remiker, chair of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin said in a statement. “Wisconsinites are fortunate to have Josh Kaul as Attorney General, and our state will be lucky to have him serve another four years.”

 So far the Democrats who have announced they will run for the open governor’s seat include Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez, former economic development CEO Missy Hughes, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, state Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) and state Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison). Milwaukee factory worker and baseball stadium beer vendor Ryan Strnad and former state Rep. Brett Hulsey.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

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

The voting rights focused firm Law Forward and former Democratic U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold filed an amicus brief Monday in a lawsuit brought by the National Republican Senatorial Committee to strike down a law that limits the amount of money political parties can contribute to individual candidates for office. 

The lawsuit was initially brought in 2022 by two Republican candidates, including then-Sen. J.D. Vance. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Republican argument and now that decision is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court is expected to hear the case during its 2025-26 term, which began on Monday. 

In the amicus brief, Feingold and Law Forward argue that the weakening of campaign finance laws over the past few decades has deeply harmed American democracy — making elected officials more responsive to the needs of their wealthiest donors, in or out of their states and districts, rather than their constituents. 

“We don’t have to guess what will happen if additional campaign finance rules are torn up, we’ve already witnessed it in Wisconsin. Striking down these federal limits will remove guardrails that are necessary for a representative democracy to thrive,” Feingold said in a statement. “The erosion of regulations is responsible for an alarming increase in the amount of money flowing through elections, giving wealthy donors an outsized voice in the political process, reducing the public’s faith in their elected representatives, and diminishing voters’ willingness to continue participating in the political process.”

During his 18 years in the Senate, Feingold regularly focused on campaign finance issues, including the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which is commonly known as McCain-Feingold and instituted a number of rules guiding the use of “soft money” by outside groups running ads to influence elections.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC decision in 2010 weakened the law and the brief filed Monday argues the erosion of campaign finance rules has damaged the country’s politics and made its government vulnerable to corruption. 

“For a representative democracy to thrive, elected officials must be responsive to their constituents and avoid even the appearance of corruption,” the brief states. “Campaign finance regulation exists to reinforce these guardrails. Yet, for years, opponents of regulation have persistently chiseled away at the limits established to prevent excessive campaign cash from corrupting our elections.” 

The brief uses Wisconsin as an example, which since 2015 has not placed a limit on the amount political parties can give to candidates. That change has resulted in wealthy donors from Wisconsin and across the country giving maximum contributions to candidates’ campaigns while giving much larger donations to each candidate’s party — essentially using the party committee as a middleman to funnel millions of dollars into candidate accounts. 

“With each election cycle, the total contributions made, especially for statewide candidates, grows at a shocking rate, incentivizing candidates to court the wealthiest donors,” the brief states. “And, as Wisconsin elections have drawn more and more national attention, the pool of prospective donors has expanded to include increasing numbers of millionaires and billionaires residing in other states. Thus, the cycle continues. The flood of money into Wisconsin’s elections has bred accusations of corruption and threatens to drown out — if not completely silence — the voices of average voters.”

The brief argues that the decision by Wisconsin Republicans in 2015 to weaken the state’s campaign finance laws resulted in a downward spiral that opened the floodgates to money pouring into high profile races — most notably campaigns for governor and state Supreme Court. 

“Wisconsin’s experience shows exactly what happens when we eliminate these crucial guardrails,” Law Forward attorney Rachel Snyder said. “The wealthiest donors route massive contributions through political parties, effectively buying themselves significant access to and influence with both political parties and elected officials. This isn’t about partisan politics — it’s about preserving a democracy where average citizens’ voices aren’t drowned out by billionaires’ checkbooks.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Wisconsin’s Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul announced Tuesday that he will not run for governor, opting instead to seek a third term as the state’s top law enforcement official.

The governor’s race is wide open after Democratic incumbent Tony Evers, 73, announced this summer that he won’t seek reelection. The race will be the highest-profile contest on the ballot, but it has even greater significance this cycle as Democrats look to hold the office and take control of the Legislature for the first time since 2010.

More than half a dozen Democrats have announced plans to run in the August primary. Kaul would have been the de facto front-runner had he joined, given his large base of support and two statewide election victories.

The most prominent candidates in the Democratic primary scramble include Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, state Sen. Kelda Roys, state Rep. Francesca Hong and former Wisconsin Economic Development Commission leader Missy Hughes. Former lieutenant governor and 2022 U.S. Senate candidate Mandela Barnes said Tuesday in the wake of Kaul’s decision that he’s “strongly considering” entering the race.

The most notable Republicans running are U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany and Washington County Executive Josh Schoemann.

Kaul said in an interview Tuesday that he seriously considered running for governor but was worried the job would take him away from his two sons, ages 8 and 11. The state also needs leaders willing to push back against President Donald Trump’s administration, he said.

“It’s vitally important that we have folks who are going to stand up and protect our freedoms and rule of law,” he said.

Kaul is nearly three-quarters of the way through his second term. He defeated incumbent Republican Brad Schimel in 2018 and held off a challenge from Republican Eric Toney, Fond du Lac County’s district attorney, to win a second term in 2022.

Toney is expected to run for attorney general again in 2026. Asked for comment on the race Tuesday following Kaul’s announcement, he said only that he was focused on a homicide trial.

Kaul has been an advocate for liberal causes as attorney general. He has repeatedly called on Republican legislators to enact gun safety measures, to no avail. He successfully persuaded the liberal-controlled state Supreme Court to strike down the state’s abortion ban this year. Kaul has launched an investigation into clergy sex abuse in Wisconsin and has worked to expedite testing of sexual assault evidence kits.

Kaul also has worked to create multiple legal obstacles for Trump.

Last year, he filed felony charges against two attorneys and an aide who helped submit false papers to Congress claiming that Trump had won Wisconsin in 2020. Democrat Joe Biden won the state by less than a percentage point. The case Kaul brought against the fake electors is still pending.

Kaul has also joined more than two dozen multistate lawsuits challenging edicts from the current Trump administration. The filings challenge an array of proposals, including dismantling the federal volunteer agency AmeriCorps, withholding federal education funding from the states and capping research grant funding.

Republicans tried to curtail Kaul’s powers ahead of his first term, passing legislation in a lame duck session before he took office that required the Legislature’s GOP-controlled finance committee to approve any court settlements his office might broker. Kaul fought the statutes all the way to the state Supreme Court and ultimately won a ruling in June that the legislation was unconstitutional.

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

Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul won’t run for governor, will seek reelection instead 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.

AG Josh Kaul speaks at a town hall in Green Bay in April 2025. (Photo by Andrew Kennard/Wisconsin Examiner)

The Trump administration has backed away from a threat to demand that states cooperate with federal immigration enforcement if they want access to federal funds to aid crime victims, according to Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul.

Wisconsin was one of 20 states and the District of Columbia that sued the administration in August over a demand that states join in federal immigration enforcement efforts if the wanted access to Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) grants.

Fees, fines and penalties collected in federal court proceedings  are distributed under VOCA to states to use on victim services, including operating community-based organizations such as domestic violence shelters and rape crisis centers and victim-witness offices within county district attorneys’ offices. 

The Wisconsin Department of Justice estimated the state would have lost more than $24 million in grant funds if the threat had been  carried out.

The U.S. Department of Justice abandoned the plan after the lawsuit was filed, Kaul said Monday.

“This is funding that helps make a difference for victims of crime,” Kaul said in a statement. “The Trump administration shouldn’t have tried to tie states’ access to this funding to their assistance with immigration enforcement.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Judge Lisa Neubauer | judgeneubauer.com

Lisa Neubauer, an appeals court judge and former candidate for Wisconsin Supreme Court, announced Monday she plans to retire at the end of her term next year. 

Neubauer, 68, has sat on the District II Court of Appeals for 18 years after being appointed to the seat in 2007. Prior to joining the bench, she was a private practice attorney at Milwaukee-based Foley and Lardner. 

She ran unsuccessfully for the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2019 and was last elected to a six-year term on the appeals court in 2020, winning 54% of the vote in the 12-county southeastern Wisconsin district that is based in Waukesha County. 

She is also the mother of Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine). 

As the judicial liberals have slowly gained control of the Supreme Court over the past five years, District II has become the most reliably conservative appellate district. Neubauer is the only liberal on the four judge panel. 

“In these trying and divided times, our courts must protect our democracy, our liberty, and our rights, by maintaining judicial independence and upholding the constitution and the rule of law. I have attempted to do that with every single decision,” Neubauer said. 

Last week, conservative District II Judge Maria Lazar announced she is  running for the Supreme Court in next year’s April election.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The Dirksen Federal Courthouse is pictured in Chicago. (Capitol News Illinois photo by Hannah Meisel)

CHICAGO — Illinois and Chicago filed a federal lawsuit Monday to block the Trump administration’s planned deployment of National Guard troops to the state — a move Gov. JB Pritzker called an “invasion.”

Trump pushed forward with the plan to activate hundreds of National Guard soldiers, including some from Texas, despite monthslong opposition from state and local leaders, as well as objections from civic and business groups in the city.

“We must now start calling this what it is: Trump’s Invasion,” Pritzker said in a statement Sunday night. “It started with federal agents, it will soon include deploying federalized members of the Illinois National Guard against our wishes, and it will now involve sending in another state’s military troops.”

Read more: Over Pritzker’s objections, Trump sending 300 National Guardsmen to Chicago, governor says

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem asked President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to deploy troops to Illinois to protect federal immigration officers and facilities. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement processing center in Broadview, a near-west suburb of Chicago, has been the site of several clashes between ICE agents and demonstrators in recent weeks.

But Pritzker, who said Saturday that he refused the Trump administration’s “ultimatum” to activate the National Guard himself, has insisted there is no emergency necessitating guardsmen on the ground. He also warned that White House officials would use any conflict between immigration agents and civilians as a “pretext” for military occupation.

“It will cause only more unrest, including harming social fabric and community relations and increasing the mistrust of police,” the lawsuit said.

The suit, filed in the Northern District of Illinois, names Trump, Noem and Hegseth as defendants.

Texas National Guard also activated

Illinois filed its lawsuit hours after Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced he will send 400 guardsmen to cities around the country, including Chicago, and after a federal judge in Oregon blocked National Guard deployments to Portland.

The order is “effective immediately for an initial period of 60 days” and subject to extension, according to the memo, signed by Hegseth. It comes a day after Pritzker confirmed Trump’s intention to federalize 300 members of the Illinois National Guard.

“The American people, regardless of where they reside, should not live under the threat of occupation by the United States military, particularly not simply because their city or state leadership has fallen out of a president’s favor,” the lawsuit reads. “To guard against this, foundational principles of American law limit the president’s authority to involve the military in domestic affairs. Those bedrock principles are in peril.”

---

---

The promised deployment comes as ICE has ramped up activity in Chicago and its suburbs as part of “Operation Midway Blitz,” which has so far resulted in more than 800 arrests according to the Department of Homeland Security.

There have also been two shootings since the clashes began. On Saturday, the governor called the administration’s National Guard activation a “manufactured performance” and not about protecting public safety.

Though the Trump administration insists ICE is targeting undocumented immigrants who have criminal backgrounds, reports have mounted of agents arresting those with no history of illegal activity, detaining children along with their parents and even handcuffing U.S. citizens and children with zip ties. Immigrant and civil rights groups have alleged ICE is arresting people without warrants in violation of a federal consent decree.

The lawsuit also alleges ICE activity in Chicago and its suburbs has already subjected Illinois “to serious and irreparable harm.”

Read more: ‘We are not backing down’: Feds ramp up immigration raids in Chicago area | DHS Secretary Noem defends ICE tactics in second Illinois visit

“It also creates economic harm, depressing business activities and tourism that not only hurt Illinoisians but also hurt Illinois’s tax revenue,” the complaint said.

That argument echoes one made by a group of Chicago business and civic groups over the weekend.

“National Guard troops on our streets, like those reportedly being ordered here by the federal government, have the potential to sow fear and chaos, threatening our businesses’ bottom lines and our reputation,” the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago and the Civic Federation said in a joint statement Saturday.

Read the lawsuit here.

Order violates states’ rights

Attorney General Kwame Raoul argues the troop deployment violates Illinois’ rights as sovereign state to carry about its own law enforcement, as well as 1878 Posee Comitatus Act that bans the military from participating in domestic law enforcement.

The lawsuit also claims the Trump administration failed to meet any criteria that could allow the president to federalize the National Guard. The president can federalize the National Guard to stop a foreign invasion, when the president can’t execute the laws of the country or to stop a rebellion.

Raoul and state leaders have argued for weeks that Trump would use protests in Broadview as a “flimsy pretext” to claim a rebellion.

Read more: Pritzker says feds seeking Chicago troop deployment. ‘What I have been warning of is now being realized’

Several protestors have been arrested near the facility in recent weeks on charges of assaulting officers. Federal agents have sprayed tear gas and fired nonlethal ammunition into crowds that have gathered there.

Over the weekend, a U.S. Border Patrol agent shot a woman on the city’s Southwest Side in a confrontation with protesters. Prosecutors eventually charged the woman and another protestor with attempting to “assault, impede, and interfere with the work of federal agents in Chicago.” According to the Chicago Sun-Times, agents fired “defensive shots” when they saw the woman was allegedly “armed with a semi-automatic weapon,” and she was taken to a nearby hospital for treatment before she was charged.

Further, the lawsuit argues the Trump administration has entirely manufactured any public safety crisis in Illinois that would require military intervention. It cites a 2013 social media post by Trump, two years before he announced his candidacy for president, that suggested the military should be deployed to Chicago. It lists several other derogatory comments Trump made about the city, state and their leaders over the years, including as president.

---

---

Read more: As Trump declares ‘we’re going in,’ Pritzker says ‘terror and cruelty is the point’

The lawsuit argues that animosity culminated last week with Trump claiming during a speech to military generals that there was an “invasion from within” and suggesting cities like Chicago should be used as “training grounds” for the military.

How soldiers will be deployed

The lawsuit includes new details about how federal officials communicated with state leaders and gave Pritzker an ultimatum.

DHS sent a memo to the Illinois National Guard on Sept. 28 stating troops “would integrate with federal law enforcement operations, serving in direct support of federal facility protection, access control, and crowd control.”

On Saturday morning, Illinois National Guard Adjutant General Rodney Boyd received a formal email from the Defense Department National Guard Bureau saying Trump asked for at least 300 soldiers, and if Boyd did not activate them within two hours, Hegseth would federalize them. Boyd responded that Pritzker declined to activate the guard. Defense officials sent a new memo late Saturday saying the guard was federalized.

Illinois National Guard leaders received another memo on Sunday informing them soldiers from Texas would be sent to Chicago beginning Monday.

Read more: As Illinois congressional delegation seeks answers, ICE cancels meeting

Abbott, a Republican and ardent Trump supporter, has been a frequent foil of Pritzker, bussing thousands of asylum-seeking migrants from the border to Chicago in 2023 and 2024 and criticizing the Illinois governor for welcoming Texas Democratic legislators who fled their state this summer amid a partisan redistricting fight. He said in a social media post that Pritzker “can either fully enforce protection for federal employees or get out of the way and let the Texas Guard do it.”

Prior to this year, the last time a president federalized a state’s National Guard without a request from a state’s governor was in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent federal troops to protect civil rights protesters in Alabama without the cooperation of segregationist Gov. George Wallace.

---

Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.

This article first appeared on Capitol News Illinois and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

A few dozen protestors and reporters gathered outside an immigration enforcement facility in Broadview on Saturday, Oct. 4. The facility has become a focal point of protest since ICE officials expanded their immigration enforcement in Chicagoland. (Capitol News Illinois photo by Andrew Adams)

CHICAGO — After weeks of threatening to do so, President Donald Trump is taking command of 300 Illinois National Guard troops and sending them to Chicago over Gov. JB Pritzker’s objections, the governor announced Saturday.

“This morning, the Trump Administration’s Department of War gave me an ultimatum: call up your troops, or we will,” Pritzker said in a statement. “It is absolutely outrageous and un-American to demand a Governor send military troops within our own borders and against our will.”

The promised deployment comes as federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, activity has ramped up in Chicago and its suburbs as part of “Operation Midway Blitz,” which has so far resulted in more than 800 arrests according to the Department of Homeland Security.

There have also been two shootings, including one Saturday on the city’s Southwest Side.

Though the Trump administration insists ICE is targeting undocumented immigrants with criminal backgrounds, reports have mounted of agents arresting those with no history of illegal activity, detaining children along with their parents and even handcuffing U.S. citizens. Immigrant and civil rights groups have alleged ICE is arresting people without warrants in violation of a federal consent decree.

The wave of raids and arrests has spurred large protests in recent weeks, especially outside of an ICE processing center in Broadview, a suburb eight miles west of Chicago. The demonstrations have spurred clashes between immigration agents and activists, leading to the arrests of several protestors last weekend on charges of resisting and assaulting officers. Agents have sprayed chemical agents and fired nonlethal rounds into the crowds outside the facility.

---

---

On Monday, Pritzker announced DHS was seeking 100 Illinois National Guard troops to protect ICE facilities and immigration agents in Illinois, warning the Trump administration would use any confrontation resulting from its Chicago-area immigration crackdown as a “pretext” for a military deployment.

On Saturday, the governor called the administration’s National Guard activation a ”manufactured performance” and not about protecting public safety.

“I want to be clear: there is no need for military troops on the ground in the State of Illinois,“ Pritzker said, pointing to the Illinois State Police’s announcement this week that it had joined forces with Broadview Police and the Cook County Sheriff’s Office to form a “Unified Command” to coordinate law enforcement activity outside the ICE facility.

One of ISP’s first acts in Broadview was designating demonstration areas, also known as “free speech zones.” Pritzker on Saturday said the combined efforts of state and local law enforcement protected “people’s ability to peacefully exercise their constitutional rights.”

The Unified Command reported the arrests of at least five protesters on Friday, and five more on Saturday night, as of 8 p.m. The area was quiet Saturday afternoon with only about a dozen protesters gathered, at times outnumbered by members of the media.

---

---

“I will not call up our National Guard to further Trump’s acts of aggression against our people,” the governor said in his statement.

But shortly before Pritzker’s announcement about the National Guard deployment Saturday, a U.S. Border Patrol agent shot a woman in an altercation between immigration agents and protesters on Chicago’s Southwest Side.

According to reporting from the Chicago Sun-Times, the woman was alleged to have been driving one of 10 cars that “rammed” and “boxed in” nearly three dozen immigration agents in the city’s Brighton Park neighborhood. Agents fired “defensive shots” when they saw the woman was allegedly “armed with a semi-automatic weapon,” according to the paper. She was taken to a nearby hospital for treatment. The woman was one of two people charged by federal prosecutors in the Northern District of Illinois with using their vehicles to “assault, impede, and interfere with the work of federal agents in Chicago.”

Trump and Pritzker have spent weeks trading barbs over the president’s threats to deploy National Guard troops to Chicago, with the governor alleging Trump’s apparent backing off from the idea last month was a sign of dementia.

The governor has already vowed legal action against the Trump administration if and when the president activated the National Guard. After the president sent 1,400 National Guard troops to Los Angeles this summer — the first time since the 1960s that the feds deployed the National Guard without a governor’s consent — a federal judge last month ruled the move violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the power of the federal government to use military force for domestic matters. But the ruling only applies to California.

The National Guard’s presence in Los Angeles has dwindled to roughly 250, but there are still a couple thousand troops on assignment in Washington, D.C., where the federal government has more power over law enforcement. Since their August deployment to the nation’s capital, guardsmen have been reportedly picking up garbage, as they are only authorized to assist with arrests if asked by local law enforcement.

Trump has also threatened to federalize the National Guard in Portland, Oregon, though troops had not yet been sent as of Saturday evening. Tennessee’s Republican governor has welcomed the president’s recent suggestion that he’d deploy guardsmen to Memphis, but that has also yet to happen.

Chicago, Los Angeles, Portland, Washington, D.C. and Shelby County, Tennessee, where Memphis is situated, have all adopted so-called “sanctuary city” policies wherein local law enforcement are barred from assisting in federal immigration enforcement. Trump has targeted cities and states that have adopted such laws, and last week a federal judge in Rhode Island ruled the administration cannot withhold emergency funding from Illinois and other states based on those states’ refusal to participate in immigration enforcement.

But this week, Attorney General Kwame Raoul said he learned of another attempt by the White House to divert disaster relief funding from Illinois with four days remaining in the fiscal year “without any notice or explanation.”

Meanwhile, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem visited Illinois again on Friday. Noem has traveled to the Chicago area and Springfield several times this year, including last month when she oversaw an early morning raid in Elgin, where at least one U.S. citizen was arrested.

“Secretary Noem should no longer be able to step foot inside the State of Illinois without any form of public accountability,” Pritzker said in a statement.

On Friday, Noem appeared with Gregory Bovino, commander-at-large of the U.S. Border Patrol, at the Broadview ICE facility with a camera crew, according to Chicago’s ABC 7.

Late Friday, Pritzker also said he’s making state resources available to people affected by a Sept. 30 raid on a South Shore apartment building.

In Chicago’s Logan Square neighborhood, masked federal agents deployed a chemical irritant outside of a grocery store as people and cars lined up to block their advancement, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

State Rep. Eva-Dina Delgado, D-Chicago, condemned the action, which happened around the corner from an elementary school in her district. Chicago Ald. Jessie Fuentes also alleges she was handcuffed by immigration agents while questioning them at a Humboldt Park medical center.

Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.

This article first appeared on Capitol News Illinois and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Federal police push towards a crowd of demonstrators at an ICE processing facility south of downtown Portland on Sat., Oct. 4, 2025. (Photo by Alex Baumhardt/Oregon Capital Chronicle)

California on Sunday joined Oregon and the city of Portland in suing over the Trump administration’s latest attempt to deploy federal troops to an American city.

More than 100 members of the California National Guard, on orders from President Donald Trump, flew to Oregon overnight against the wishes of elected leaders in both states, and without those leaders’ knowledge. More are expected.

“At the direction of the President, approximately 200 federalized members of the California National Guard are being reassigned from duty in the greater Los Angeles area to Portland, Oregon to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal personnel performing official duties, including the enforcement of federal law, and to protect federal property,” said Sean Parnell, a Pentagon spokesperson.

The move came just hours after Oregon and Portland won a temporary restraining order against Trump’s attempt to deploy 200 Oregon Guard members to Portland. Federal Judge Karin Immergut — a Trump appointee — said on Saturday that the federal government was violating the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which effectively guarantees that states retain police power within their borders.

Immergut scheduled an emergency hearing at 7 p.m. Pacific time Sunday on a second restraining order, but a public access line for the hearing still wasn’t live by 7:30. Shortly before the hearing was scheduled to begin, plaintiffs filed with the court a Sunday memo from U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordering 400 Texas National Guard troops to mobilize to Oregon, Illinois and other locations.

Kotek and Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker both said they received no explanation from the federal government about that order. It’s unclear how many Texas soldiers would be sent to each location and what mission they would carry out, Kotek added.

“This is a continuation and escalation of the president’s dangerous, un-American misuse of states’ National Guard members and hard-earned taxpayer dollars,” Kotek said.

In her Saturday opinion, Immergut also found that protests at an ICE processing facility in Portland were not by any definition a “rebellion” nor do they pose the “danger of a rebellion.”

“This is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law,” Immergut wrote in her opinion. “Defendants have made a range of arguments that, if accepted, risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power — to the detriment of this nation.”

Late Saturday, attorneys for the federal government filed a notice that they would ask the  Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to put a halt on her order. On Sunday Oregon’s Attorney General Dan Rayfield in turn filed a motion opposing the federal request, saying the issue could be decided by Immergut as early as Monday.

“What was unlawful yesterday is unlawful today. What was unlawful with the Oregon National Guard is unlawful with the California National Guard. The judge’s order was not some minor procedural point for the president to work around like my 14-year old does when he doesn’t like my answers,” Rayfield said at a news conference late Sunday afternoon. He was joined by Gov. Tina Kotek and Portland Mayor Keith Wilson.

If the stay is denied, Oregon troops will be sent home from Camp Rilea in Warrenton, where they’ve been waiting for about a week under orders from Trump and U.S. Northern Command, a joint federal military command based in Colorado.

“They are pawns in this situation, political pawns in this situation. And I would like to send our troops home to their families, to their jobs,” Kotek said.

The newly arrived California Guard troops are currently waiting at Camp Withycombe in Happy Valley, Kotek said, and she expects 99 more will come to the camp Sunday about 20 miles from the ICE processing facility where mostly small and peaceful protests have gone on for months. If they are ordered to the ICE facility Sunday night where protests are ongoing, Kotek said, she cannot do anything to stop it absent a court order. Oregon, California and Portland also asked the federal district court on Sunday for a Temporary Restraining Order barring those troops from being activated, which could take several days to be decided by Immergut.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement early Sunday that up to 300 soldiers were being sent to Oregon on Trump’s orders. Those troops are also under the orders of U.S. Northern Command. Kotek said she does not know what their mission is, and Trump and his administration have not communicated with her at all about the deployment.

“This afternoon, I sent a message to Northern Command, directing them to obey the Oct. 4 court ruling from yesterday and take no further action regarding Oregon,” Kotek said. “I also directed that those troops that will be at Camp Withycombe should be restricted to that facility and that the California National Guard troops should be sent home as soon as possible.”

Protests have continued outside the ICE facility in Portland, with about 100 people on the streets Saturday night.

At one point during the evening, federal agents used chemical irritants to push protesters a block away from the facility onto city street, far from the federal property where the officers’ enforcement authority is limited.

Unknown individuals were also allowed onto the property by federal officials to film cell phone videos from the ICE building’s roof, as protestors were sprayed with chemical gases indiscriminately.

A Portland Police spokesperson said local law enforcement were not aware of or assisting with the federal agents’ actions.

The ramping up of federal pressure on Portland has coincided with a similar display of force in Chicago over the past few days. During a speech to military officials last week, Trump said he wanted to use Democratic cities as “training grounds” for the military.

Wilson, Portland’s mayor, said the actions by federal troops at the ICE facility Saturday evening were “beyond the pale.”

“We saw unjustified uses of force; We saw the shoving of peaceful veterans and elderly people to the ground; Indiscriminate use of impact munitions to disperse an otherwise peaceful crowd; Indiscriminately discharging pepper spray. We saw a sniper on the roof of the ICE facility,” he said at the news conference. He said the city would file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Department.

“I’m so disappointed that we’ve had to spend our valuable time on this matter. We have so many hard and important challenges in Portland and in Oregon and the United States, and this is a situation that we didn’t ask for,” Wilson said. “It certainly wasn’t invited.”

Editor-in-Chief Julia Shumway contributed to this report.