Wisconsin is among a coalition of states suing the federal government over new restrictions on disaster relief grants, increasing pressure on the Trump administration from battleground states.
Eleven states and the governor of Kentucky have filed a lawsuit this week against the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
The lawsuit takes issue with two grants: the Emergency Management Performance Grant and the Homeland Security Grant Program. FEMA placed a hold on EMPG funding until states provide their population as of Sept. 30, 2025, and the plaintiffs argue that states do not keep such up-to-date census information. The federal agency also reduced the number of years that states must complete their grant activities to be reimbursed from three years to one.
“These grants go towards efforts and equipment that help protect Wisconsinites’ safety,” Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul said in a statement. “The federal government shouldn’t be imposing new, unlawful conditions that hinder the use of these funds.”
In a statement to NOTUS, FEMA said it “implemented additional requirements on its grant programs” at the direction of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem.
“This is yet another example of a lawsuit trying to obstruct President Trump’s agenda and the will of the American people,” the statement said. “They are part of a methodical, reasonable effort to ensure that federal dollars are used effectively and in line with the Administration’s priorities and today’s homeland security threats.”
The lawsuit alleges that the administration did not properly follow legally mandated procedures to put these additional burdens of information on the state. Much of the funds are already accounted for in states’ budgets, the lawsuit said. For example, in Wisconsin, the funds go toward the state incident management team and statewide communications and warnings and maintain the state emergency operations center, the lawsuit said.
“Our emergency management and first responder teams worked around the clock in the weeks following Hurricane Helene, and these funds were critical to their work,” North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson said in a statement. “We’re in hurricane season right now, and without these funds, we’ll be left with fewer resources to help people during the next storm that hits North Carolina.”
The lawsuit is led by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel. Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon are also participating in the suit. Several of the Trump administration’s moves around FEMA have ended up in court. In September, another coalition of blue states successfully sued over the administration’s decision to withhold homeland security funds from blue states.
“The Trump Administration should be working with states to keep our residents safe,” Nessel said in a statement about the litigation. “Instead, the White House continues again and again to pull the rug out from under us, putting the safety of our communities in jeopardy.”
North Carolina lawmakers have expressed frustration in recent months with FEMA. Sen. Ted Budd placed a hold on all DHS nominees because of FEMA delays. Budd announced that he would lift at least one hold on the nominee for DHS general counsel, James Percival, once western North Carolina received the approved funds.
This story was produced andoriginally published by NOTUS, a publication from the nonprofit, nonpartisan Allbritton Journalism Institute. This story was produced as part of a partnership between NOTUS and The Assembly.
Update (Oct. 31, 2025): A federal judge on Friday ordered the Trump administration to tap into its reserves to partially pay for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which is set to run out of funding on Saturday.
U.S. District Court Judge John McConnell heard oral arguments Friday in a case brought by various cities and nonprofits. After the hearing, the judge ruled from the bench that the Department of Agriculture “must distribute contingency money timely or as soon as possible for the Nov. 1 payments to be made,” The New York Times reported.
“There is no doubt — and it is beyond argument — that irreparable harm will begin to occur, if it hasn’t already occurred in the terror it has caused some people about the availability of funding for food for their family,” McConnell said, according to The Wall Street Journal. “That irreparable harm will occur if this injunction does not pass and if SNAP benefits are not paid consistent with the mandate from Congress.”
The Department of Agriculture initially said it planned to use the more than $5 billion in contingency funds that are legally intended “for use only in such amounts and at such times as may become necessary to carry out program operations” to cover SNAP benefits. However, the Trump administration later changed course, claiming it was illegal to use that money for SNAP, and quietly deleting the initial guidance from USDA’s website.
Despite the ruling, it’s likely that the 42 million people who rely on SNAP will miss at least part of their benefits, because the process of distributing the funds did not begin as early as usual due to the shutdown.
Update (Oct. 31, 2025): U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani issued an order Friday declaring that the Trump administration’s “suspension of SNAP benefits is unlawful.” This case was brought by a coalition of Democratic states that filed a lawsuit Tuesday, arguing that the government’s decision to not use contingency funds was “contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.”
A bipartisan coalition of state officials, including Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, sued the Department of Agriculture on Tuesday to keep the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program partially funded through November.
In a press release obtained by NOTUS ahead of the lawsuit being filed, New York Attorney General Letitia James argued the administration is unlawfully allowing SNAP to run out of funding when it has “access to billions of dollars in contingency funds that Congress specifically appropriated to keep benefits flowing during funding lapses.”
The coalition of state officials, which includes attorneys general and governors, filed the lawsuit in a federal court in Massachusetts. They are asking for a court to immediately intervene to keep funding, which is set to run out at the end of the month, flowing. The program is facing the possibility of its first-ever pause in funding because of the government shutdown.
“Millions of Americans, including children, seniors, and veterans, are on the verge of losing access to the food assistance they rely upon,” Kaul said. “No one should have to go hungry because of dysfunction in our federal government.”
Politico first reported that dozens of Democratic attorneys general and governors were considering legal action. The coalition includes officials from New York, Nevada, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and California.
Nevada’s and Vermont’s attorneys general are part of the lawsuit, the only states listed that have Republican governors. In all, more than 24 states and the District of Columbia are involved.
“We are approaching an inflection point for Senate Democrats. Continue to hold out for the Far-Left wing of the party or reopen the government so mothers, babies, and the most vulnerable among us can receive timely WIC and SNAP allotments,” a spokesperson for the Department of Agriculture said in a statement in response to the lawsuit.
In a memo Axios reported last week, the Department of Agriculture took the position that it would not tap into contingency funds and also argued that states that picked up the tab in the meantime could not be legally reimbursed.
The coalition of state officials is asking the court to issue a temporary restraining order mandating USDA to use all of the “available contingency funds toward November SNAP benefits for all plaintiff states.”
It’s one of several steps state officials are trying to take to preserve SNAP benefits, which nearly 42 million people across the country rely on. Outside of legal action, state officials have sought to tap emergency funding in their own states — though some have protested the lack of assurance that the federal government will reimburse their states and have argued that it’s the federal government’s responsibility.
Republican gubernatorial candidate Tim Michels and GOP attorney general candidate Eric Toney hold a press conference at the Milwaukee Police Association in this 2022 photo. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)
Fond du Lac County District Attorney Eric Toney, a Republican, announced Tuesday he’s running for a second time to unseat Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul.
The 41-year-old Toney has been the DA in Fond du Lac County since 2012. He ran against Kaul in 2022, losing by 35,000 votes. Kaul, a Democrat, recently announced he would be running for a third term as attorney general, ending speculation that he would run for governor after Gov. Tony Evers announced his retirement.
In a news release, Toney said he decided to run again after having open heart surgery two years ago.
“By the grace of God — and years of running — my heart held on,” Toney said. “That clarity led me here: if I could still make a difference for Wisconsin, I would. After seven years of broken promises and political spin in the Attorney General’s office, it’s time for change.”
In the campaign announcement, Toney said he would prioritize supporting law enforcement officers, reducing violent crime in Milwaukee and being more aggressive in prosecuting drug crimes.
“As your Top Cop, I will stand up for every Wisconsinite, enforce the law, and bring conservative, common-sense leadership back to the DOJ,” he said. “That’s what Wisconsinites expect and deserve.”
The Wisconsin attorney general is the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the state, responsible for overseeing state law enforcement agencies, enforcing state laws as varied as water quality rules and election laws and defending state agencies in court. This year, Kaul has been especially active in joining multi-state lawsuits against Trump administration policies.
Voting carrels set up at Madison's Hawthorne Library on Election Day 2022. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)
The Wisconsin Department of Justice on Monday filed an appeal of a Waukesha County Circuit Court judge’s decision to require that state election officials conduct an intensive search for registered voters who aren’t citizens.
Judge Michael Maxwell’s Oct. 6 ruling required that the Wisconsin Elections Commission cross reference its voter registration list against the state Department of Transportation’s records to determine people’s citizenship status when they applied for a driver’s license or state ID. He also ordered that WEC and local election clerks stop accepting new voter registrations without obtaining proof of citizenship — though that portion of the ruling was put on hold pending the appeal.
Under current law, people registering to vote must affirm they are U.S. citizens but are not required to provide proof. However, lying about citizenship status while registering to vote is a crime.
Fears of non-citizen voting have frequently been raised by Republicans in recent years who, since 2020, have expressed skepticism of election administration. The initial Waukesha County lawsuit was brought by a pair of right-wing election conspiracy theorists.
While claims of non-citizen voting revolve around the threat that the issue could swing an election result and occasionally cases are found and prosecuted, there is no evidence that non-citizens vote in substantial enough numbers to influence election results in Wisconsin or anywhere across the country.
In the appeal, filed in the Madison-based District IV, the DOJ argued that the ruling “reshapes Wisconsin election law” while leaving many details vague and potentially violating other laws.
“The circuit court’s decision and order drastically alters voter registration and elections in Wisconsin, violates state law, and threatens voting rights,” the appeal states.
Lead by Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, the filing states that Maxwell’s requirement to match data with Department of Transportation records would be based on data that’s up to eight years old, which could result in the disenfranchisement of people who were legal residents when they applied for their driver’s license but have since become citizens with the right to vote.
The appeal also argues that Maxwell’s ruling orders local election officials to change their practices even though they weren’t a party to the lawsuit and does not outline what “proof of citizenship” election officials should use to register people to vote.
“The court issued this sweeping relief despite no evidence of injury to Respondents: they speculated about the risk of vote dilution by illegal voters, but provided no evidence that a noncitizen had voted or registered to vote in Wisconsin,” the appeal states.
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.
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.
“We don't have a direct way to overrule what the Republican regime has done in the big, ugly bill,” Sen. Kelda Roys said. “We certainly can do everything we can in Wisconsin to make sure that the existing two independent clinics that provide abortion services are able to see as many patients as they possibly can." (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)
Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin paused abortion services Wednesday at its Madison, Milwaukee and Sheboygan locations due to the megabill signed by President Donald Trump in July. The law — officially titled the “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act — included a provision that would take away federal funding from the organization if it continues providing abortion services.
The organization announced the pause last week, saying that it was looking to see as many patients as possible before the Oct. 1 deadline. Wisconsin is the first state in the country where Planned Parenthood has taken this step in response to the federal law.
In reaction, Democratic lawmakers called Wednesday morning for the state to reverse other restrictions on the books to help increase accessibility to the remaining independent abortion providers in the state.
“We’re sounding the alarm, but we’re also saying we can do something about this,” Rep. Lisa Subeck (D-Madison) said at a press conference. “We know that this is going to be a legal battle, and there will be other means by which Planned Parenthoods are fighting this change, but in the meantime, we cannot let Republicans block access for Wisconsin women to the care that they need.”
This is the second time that Planned Parenthood is halting abortion services in Wisconsin since Roe v. Wade was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, ending federally protected abortion rights. The group stopped providing abortions from June 2022 until September 2023, when a Dane County court held that a 19th century state statute did not ban abortions. The Wisconsin Supreme Court also ruled in July that the same 19th century law was invalid and unenforceable and had effectively been repealed by other laws passed after it.
Planned Parenthood’s decision to pause services again leaves just two independent clinics that provide abortion care in Milwaukee. Abortion providers in neighboring Illinois have declared that they are prepared to provide services for Wisconsin women.
“We know that people in Wisconsin can go to other states that do not have these restrictions to access abortion care, but we think that that’s unacceptable, and that no matter who you are or where you’re from you deserve the freedom to get the health care that you need here in Wisconsin,” Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) said at the press conference.
The public health department for Madison and Dane County offered to help patients in need of services navigate their limited options.
“Losing Planned Parenthood clinics as an option for abortion care means the full spectrum of reproductive health care will become very difficult to access in Wisconsin,” said Public Health Supervisor Sarah Hughes. “We know this changing landscape can be confusing and overwhelming, that’s why our Nurse Navigators are standing by to help people understand all options around pregnancy and reproductive health care.”
Planned Parenthood has been able to use federal funds via Medicaid payments and Title X, a federally funded family planning program, to help provide services other than abortion care, including contraceptives, STI testing, pregnancy testing, and gynecological services to low-income and uninsured individuals. The Hyde Amendment has barred federal money from being used to fund abortion care across the country for decades.
The new federal law puts the other services that Planned Parenthood offers at risk by barring Medicaid payments for one year for organizations that received more than $800,000 in Medicaid reimbursements in fiscal year 2023 and primarily engage in family planning services and reproductive health and provide abortions.
“This was targeted directly at Planned Parenthood,” Subeck said.
“Let me be clear, Republicans in the federal and state governments will stop at nothing short of a full abortion ban,” she added.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its member organizations in Massachusetts and Utah filed a legal challenge in July, but an injunction that was blocking the law from taking effect was lifted in September.
Attorney General Josh Kaul has also joined with other state attorneys general on a legal motion that argues the provision “impermissibly and unconstitutionally targets Planned Parenthood health centers for their advocacy and their exercise of associational rights” and also that “Congress ran afoul of limits on its spending power” because of its ambiguity. It argues the provision “fails to adequately define the scope of providers who qualify as “prohibited entities”; fails to provide clear notice of the timing of its implementation; and constitutes a change that [states] could not have anticipated when joining Medicaid.”
Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin has said that ongoing litigation could change what the organization is allowed to do and that it will continue to monitor the legal landscape and will be prepared to act the moment it is able to resume care.
Roys and Subeck introduced legislation Wednesday to help the last two clinics in Milwaukee take in patients.
The Democratic bill would repeal several of the other restrictions on the books in Wisconsin, including a requirement that patients attend two appointments with the same physician 24 hours apart before receiving care, requirements that a patient have a physical exam and that a physician be physically present when medication is taken, and a requirement for an ultrasound. It would expand the number of providers allowed to provide abortion care from just physicians to physician assistants, nurse practitioners and advanced practice registered nurses.
The lawmakers said the bill would help the two independent Milwaukee clinics — Care for All Community Clinic and Affiliated Medical Services — reach as many patients as possible while Planned Parenthood no longer offers services by removing barriers to providing access.
“We don’t have a direct way to overrule what the Republican regime has done in the big, ugly bill,” Roys said. “We certainly can do everything we can in Wisconsin to make sure that the existing two independent clinics that provide abortion services are able to see as many patients as they possibly can and try to absorb some of the loss of service [provided by] Planned Parenthood, and open the door to make sure that patients in Wisconsin don’t suffer access restrictions that patients in other states don’t have to suffer.”
Roys said the purpose of the restrictions “has always been to make abortion as onerous and as difficult for people to access as possible. It has nothing to reduce the need for abortion.” By lifting the restrictions, she said, the bill could help “increase abortion access, despite the federal backdoor abortion ban.”
However, in a Republican-led Legislature, the bill is unlikely to move ahead.
Conservative groups and some Republican lawmakers celebrated the news of the pause in abortion services last week. Rep. Joy Goeben (R-Hobart) called the pause in services at Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin a “hopeful moment” in a statement last week.
“Every heartbeat silenced by abortion was a life full of possibility,” Goeben said. “This pause means more of those lives may now have a chance.”
Goeben and 11 of her Republican colleagues recently introduced a bill that seeks to narrow the definition of abortion in Wisconsin. According to a bill summary, it would amend the definition of abortion to make an exception for “physician’s performance of a medical procedure or treatment designed or intended to prevent the death of a pregnant woman and not designed or intended to kill the unborn child, including an early induction or cesarean section performed due to a medical emergency or the removal of a dead embryo or dead fetus, or an ectopic, anembryonic, or molar pregnancy, which results in injury to or death of the woman’s unborn child when the physician makes reasonable medical efforts under the circumstances to preserve both the life of the woman and the life of her unborn child according to reasonable medical judgment and appropriate interventions for the gestational age of the child.”
“Democrats should be lining up to sign on to this bill,” Goeben said in a statement about the bill. “This is what liberals have been shouting about from the rooftops for decades. However, they continue to perpetuate the notion women are not going to get the care they need in a heart wrenching emergency situation.”
Physicians, Democratic lawmakers and others have spoken to concerns since the overturn of Roe v. Wade that restrictive state laws governing abortion would result in women not receiving adequate medical care, even when there is an emergency. ProPublica has reported on the preventable deaths of Amber Thurman and Candi Miller, both of whom were denied timely care due to confusion created by Georgia’s six-week abortion ban. It has also reported on two women in Texas, Josseli Barnica and Nevaeh Crain, who died under the state’s restrictive abortion ban after care was delayed for their miscarriages.
Roys said the bill is an example of Republicans trying to distance themselves from the impact of restrictive abortion policies.
“Republicans know that their abortion bans hurt women, and they kill women, and Americans are horrified to see women being arrested and jailed instead of taken to the hospital for treatment when they have a miscarriage. They are horrified to see pregnant people turned away from emergency rooms so that they can bleed out and almost die in Walmart parking lots… and now Republicans are desperately searching for a way to distance themselves from the terrible effects of the laws that they passed. And [to] simply say if you need to end your pregnancy, we’re going to call it something different than abortion is nonsense.”
Roys said the bill is “pernicious” because it would essentially tell providers to provide a C-section or induce labor rather than provide an abortion. Those procedures, she said, are “much more difficult, painful, and risky and invasive than doing an abortion.”
“It affects a woman’s future ability to birth and be pregnant the way that she wants to be, and it is incredibly cruel,” Roys said.
Login
