The James H. Shannon Building (Building One), on the National Institutes of Health campus in Bethesda, Maryland. (Photo by Lydia Polimeni,/National Institutes of Health)
The Trump administration will review frozen grants to universities without using its controversial standards that discouraged gender, race and sexual orientation initiatives and vaccine research.
In a settlement agreement filed in Massachusetts federal court Monday, the National Institutes of Health and a group of Democratic attorneys general who’d challenged the new criteria for grant funding said the NIH would consider grant applications made up to Sept. 29, 2025, without judging the efforts related to diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, or vaccines.
The settlement provides an uncontested path for the agency while courts decide whether the administration can use its controversial analysis. The administration did not agree to permanently ditch its campaign to evaluate health research funding decisions based on schools’ DEI programs.
NIH officials “will complete their consideration of the Applications in the ordinary course of NIH’s scientific review process, without applying the Challenged Directives,” the settlement said, adding that the agency would “evaluate each application individually and in good faith.”
The settlement was signed by U.S. Department of Justice lawyers and the attorneys general of Massachusetts, California, Maryland, Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Wisconsin.
In a Tuesday statement, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell said the agreement commits the Department of Health and Human Services to resume “the usual process for considering NIH grant applications on a prompt, agreed-upon timeline.”
The 17 attorneys general sued in April over $783 million in frozen grants.
A trial court and appeals court in Massachusetts sided with the states, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in August that the trial judge lacked the authority to compel the grants to be paid, especially in light of a similar decision involving the Education Department.
Unauthorized immigrants are not eligible for federally or state-funded health coverage in Wisconsin.
That includes Medicaid, Medicare and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and coverage purchased through the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) marketplaces.
Unauthorized immigrants also are not eligible for Wisconsin Medicaid or BadgerCare Plus.
Fourteen states, including Illinois and Minnesota, use state Medicaid funds to cover unauthorized immigrants, but Wisconsin does not.
Democratic Gov. Tony Evers on Dec. 5 vetoed a Republican-backed bill that would have banned public money from going toward health care coverage for unauthorized immigrants.
Republicans said the bill was meant to be pre-emptive.
On Dec. 10, Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, who is running for governor in 2026, incorrectly said Evers’ veto allowed unauthorized immigrants “to continue to get taxpayer-funded health care.”
When Evers vetoed the bill he criticized it for “trying to push polarizing political rhetoric.”
This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem arrives for a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on May 8, 2025. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republicans on a Judiciary Committee panel during a Wednesday hearing defended the Trump administration’s move to end temporary protections for immigrants who hail from countries deemed too dangerous to return.
Republican Rep. Tom McClintock of California, the chair of the Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement Subcommittee, slammed former President Joe Biden for “abusing” Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, and other humanitarian programs.
The federal government grants TPS when a national’s home country is too dangerous to return to, such as after a major natural disaster, ongoing violence or political instability. The status allows immigrants to have legal status and work authorization for up to 18 months before needing to renew the status, which requires a background check. It is not a pathway to citizenship.
Under the Biden administration, the program expanded to include 1.2 million immigrants. Republicans largely opposed that expansion, and have noted that groups that gain TPS status are rarely removed from the program.
“Along the way TPS became permanent protected status,” McClintock said.
Since being confirmed by the Senate earlier this year, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem has moved to end legal status for 1 million TPS recipients hailing from Afghanistan, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, Syria and Venezuela.
The top Democrat on the panel, Pramila Jayapal of Washington state, said the move to end TPS for those 9 countries “will lead to people’s death.”
“When TPS is terminated, we are forcing people to return to real and imminent harm,” Jayapal said. “I’m sad to see us go down this path, but I can’t say I’m surprised.”
There are multiple lawsuits from immigration advocacy groups challenging the Trump administration’s termination of TPS.
Union leader says crackdown harms workers
Democrats on the panel said reducing TPS was part of the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign.
Rep. Deborah Ross, Democrat of North Carolina, said construction sites in her area have been targets of immigration raids, even though workers on the sites have TPS.
She asked the witness tapped by Democrats, Jimmy Williams, president of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, about the effects of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown at construction sites.
Williams said those TPS workers are leaving the industry and that immigration enforcement at construction sites can put workers in danger.
“You can’t work safely when you’re worried about being targeted for removal,” he said. “The truth is people just won’t show up to work.”
Williams defended TPS as one of the few legal forms that immigrants have in order to have work authorization. He said that TPS falls short because it doesn’t give a pathway to citizenship and creates a limbo for recipients.
“I believe that this body’s inability to act over the course of the last 40 years on immigration reform is what has led us to this point,” Williams said of the current state of TPS.
Call to narrow program
One of the witnesses invited by Republicans, James Rogers, senior counsel of the America First Legal Foundation, argued that TPS is too broad, and that entire countries should not be designated. Instead, the designation should be limited to a specific location that is affected, he said.
America First Legal Foundation is a litigation organization founded by Stephen Miller, a top White House adviser who is the main architect of the president’s immigration crackdown.
Missouri GOP Rep. Bob Onder asked Rogers how much vetting is conducted for immigrants in the TPS program.
Rogers said it was “impossible” to vet TPS recipients.
However, in order to be approved for the status, a background check must be completed and with each renewal, the individual with TPS has to be revetted.
Another witness tapped by Republicans, Larry Celaschi, a councilman for the Borough of Charleroi, Pennsylvania, said in 2022 his town experienced an increased population of TPS recipients from Haiti and that the sudden population change strained local resources.
“Our borough absorbed an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 migrants in a very short period of time,” he said, adding that the population was previously 4,000.
Vetting questioned
Over its four years, the Biden administration expanded TPS from roughly 400,000 recipients to over 1.2 million TPS people. Separately, the Biden administration used several humanitarian parole programs to grant temporary legal status for nearly 750,000 immigrants hailing from Afghanistan, Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, Venezuela and Ukraine.
Republicans have long criticized the Biden administration’s expanded use of not only TPS, but other humanitarian programs to handle one of the largest influxes of migrants at the southern border in decades.
Last month’s shooting near the White House that left one National Guard member dead and another wounded inflamed the debate because the suspect is an Afghan national who had been granted asylum. Since the shooting, GOP officials have increasingly made the accusation that immigrants who came to the U.S. under the Biden administration had little to no screening.
Republicans on the panel, including Arizona’s Andy Biggs, argued immigrants admitted to the country under Biden were not vetted and allowed into the U.S. illegally, despite being given legal status.
“It’s just B.S. to say ‘everybody’s fully vetted,’” Biggs said. “We don’t know.”
The Trump administration suddenly withdrew its federal policy change reducing funding for permanent supportive housing on Monday, Dec. 8, 2025. (Photo by Nadia Engenheiro, Half Street Group)
An hour before a scheduled court hearing on two federal lawsuits over recent changes to a key federal homelessness and housing funding program, the Trump administration withdrew the funding notice that prompted the litigation.
The move came as a surprise to the attorneys for plaintiffs who were initially scheduled to make their case for a temporary restraining order before Rhode Island Judge Mary S. McElroy.
“It feels like intentional chaos,” McElroy said.
In a message to Continuum of Care networks, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced Monday afternoon that officials rescinded its Nov. 13 Notice of Funding Opportunity for federal fiscal 2025 grants to “make appropriate revisions.” The notice had set Jan. 14 as the deadline for applications for Continuum of Care funds, which address homelessness.
Rhode Island’s Continuum of Care gave the state’s homeless care a deadline of Dec. 12 to get their applications done to give to HUD, according to one of the lawsuits.
“We received notice first through our providers and [electronic filing], not through opposing counsel,” Zane Muller, assistant attorney general for the state of Washington, said during the 25-minute virtual hearing that began at 3:30 p.m.
HUD’s policy rescission too was news for McElroy, who called it a “haphazard approach to administrative law.”
“There’s a process and procedure that’s laid out,” said McElroy, a first-term Trump appointee. “It’s not by tweets or by last-minute orders or last-minute withdrawals.”
Pardis Gheibi, a U.S. Department of Justice attorney representing HUD, told McElroy the notice was filed with the court as soon as it was published. She did not have the answer when McElroy wanted to know who at HUD made the decision to rescind the funding notice and when.
“We didn’t have the chance to confer with plaintiffs’ counsel — but the rescission happened this afternoon,” Gheibi said.
The Trump administration had planned to slash the amount of grant funds that can be spent on permanent housing — subsidized units that provide a stable residence for formerly homeless people, often those who have experienced mental illness or spent years on the streets — and instead focus on transitional housing.
There’s a process and procedure that’s laid out. It’s not by tweets or by last-minute orders or last-minute withdrawals.
– Rhode Island U.S. District Court Judge Mary S. McElroy
Grant rules also would have eliminated funding for diversity and inclusion efforts, support of transgender clients and use of “harm reduction” strategies that seek to reduce overdose deaths by helping people in active addiction use drugs more safely.
HUD wrote in its update that it still intends to make changes to the policy for awarding funds for addressing homelessness.
A coalition of states co-led by Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha filed suit over HUD’s latest Notice of Funding Opportunity on Nov. 25. On Dec. 1, a group of cities and nonprofits led by the National Alliance to End Homelessness and the National Low Income Housing Coalition filed a separate 85-page lawsuit.
Both complaints had similar requests for the court to declare the new conditions unlawful and reinstate language from prior funding notices, which is why McElroy opted to combine them into one hearing.
But with the funding notice now withdrawn, Gheibi argued there was no need for immediate relief.
Kristin Bateman, an attorney representing local communities and nonprofits and a senior counsel with Democracy Forward, argued court action is still needed. She said HUD’s rescission still leaves a critical funding gap for homeless services starting early next year since most federal fiscal 2024 grants start to expire in January.
“Those gaps in funding mean that they will not have the money to continue supporting the permanent housing that they fund for people to live in,” Bateman said. “People are going to be displaced, put back into homelessness in the middle of winter and face all the harms that come with that.”
McElroy scheduled the next hearing for 10 a.m. Friday, Dec. 19. She also tasked HUD with producing the administrative record on the grant funding policy, ideally within a week — though Gheibi had asked if it could wait until after the holidays.
McElroy said if the administration could work quickly to rescind the funding notice, they can work quickly to give the court the documents she requested.
“People can work overtime if they need to,” McElroy said. “I do, they do, I’m sure you do.”
This story was originally produced by Rhode Island Current, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Wisconsin Examiner, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 9, 2024. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)
The U.S. Supreme Court said Friday justices will hear a case to decide if President Donald Trump’s order to end birthright citizenship is constitutional.
The court agreed to hear a case, before it is decided in a lower court, that deals with the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to almost everyone born in the United States. The amendment’s birthright citizenship clause has been used to give citizenship to the children of immigrants in the country without legal authorization or on a temporary basis.
While a schedule for arguments has not yet been released by the court, it’s likely the case would be heard sometime in early 2026.
The Trump administration argued in its petition to the court that the amendment, which was adopted in 1868, was meant to apply to newly freed slaves. It was not meant to provide citizenship to the children of immigrants without legal status, Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote.
“Long after the Clause’s adoption, the mistaken view that birth on U.S. territory confers citizenship on anyone subject to the regulatory reach of U.S. law became pervasive, with destructive consequences,” Sauer wrote in the September petition.
The petition also sought Supreme Court review of a related challenge to the order by the states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon. Friday’s court order did not grant a hearing on that case.
Trump signed an executive order on Jan. 20 seeking to redefine the birthright citizenship clause to exclude the children of immigrants in the country without legal authority or only temporarily. Democratic-led states and advocacy groups swiftly sued.
Courts have largely blocked enforcement of the order, although the Supreme Court in June allowed it to go into effect in the states that had not sued to preserve the right.
In a Friday afternoon statement, the American Civil Liberties Union, a leading civil rights group, noted that several federal judges had blocked enforcement and predicted the Supreme Court would preserve birthright citizenship.
“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” Cecillia Wang, ACLU’s national legal director, said. “For over 150 years, it has been the law and our national tradition that everyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen from birth. The federal courts have unanimously held that President Trump’s executive order is contrary to the Constitution, a Supreme Court decision from 1898, and a law enacted by Congress. We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”
Prisoners look out of their cell as Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem tours the Terrorist Confinement Center, or CECOT, in Tecoluca, El Salvador, on March 26, 2025. (Photo by Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice acknowledged in a court filing that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem made the call to continue removals of Venezuelans to a brutal Salvadoran prison, despite a federal judge’s order to stop the deportations.
The Tuesday filing noted that Noem was advised by top officials at the Justice Department she did not need to comply with the March 15 judicial order to halt the deportations because it had been issued after the flights took off. The Venezuelan nationals were deported under an obscure wartime law called the Alien Enemies Act.
“After receiving that legal advice, Secretary Noem directed that the AEA detainees who had been removed from the United States before the Court’s order could be transferred to the custody of El Salvador,” according to the DOJ filing. “That decision was lawful and was consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the Court’s order.”
Noem’s decision sent 137 Venezuelan men to a mega-prison for months until the Venezuelan government could broker a prison swap with El Salvador and the United States to have the men returned.
In an emergency March 15 order, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg said the planes carrying the Venezuelans had to return to the United States.
They did not have the opportunity to challenge their removal, which was a violation of their due process rights, the American Civil Liberties Union has argued in its case against the Trump administration.
Tuesday’s filing represents a shift in legal strategy from the administration, which had initially argued that because Boasberg’s order was verbal and not written, his temporary restraining order carried no weight.
Contempt probe
The filing comes after Boasberg resumed a contempt investigation to identify the Trump administration officials involved in authorizing the Venezuelans’ removals.
Last week, Boasberg ordered the administration to submit filings on how to proceed with the contempt inquiry.
“I certainly intend to find out what happened that day,” Boasberg said last week.
Tuesday’s filing argued that contempt proceedings are not needed and that “the Government maintains that its actions did not violate the Court’s order.”
The ACLU, which is representing the deported men, in its filing on the contempt issue urged Boasberg to request testimony from nine current and former officials from the Homeland Security and Justice departments.
The ACLU also said the government should identify “all individuals involved in the decision… regardless of whether they were the ultimate decision-maker or had direct input into the decision, as well as all those with knowledge of the decision-making process.”
Once those people had been identified, Boasberg could determine in what order testimony should be gathered.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development headquarters. (Photo by HUD Office of Public Affairs)
Nineteen attorneys general and two governors filed suit in Rhode Island on Tuesday to stop the Trump administration from shifting nearly $4 billion in housing grants they say could place as many as 170,000 formerly homeless people back out on the streets.
The group co-led by Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha is accusing the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development of violating “congressional intent” in its plan to dramatically reduce the amount of grant funds that can be spent on permanent housing, along with other conditions placed in its latest Notice of Funding Opportunity for Continuum of Care grants.
Enacted Nov. 13, HUD’s new policy instead shifts Continuum of Care funding toward transitional housing and other short-term interventions to the nation’s ongoing homelessness crisis. Only 30% of funds from the $3.9 billion grant program would be allowed to be used for permanent supportive housing — units that provide a subsidized, stable residence for formerly homeless people, often those who have experienced mental illness or spent years on the streets.
HUD has previously directed approximately 90% of Continuum of Care funding to support permanent supportive units as part of its “Housing First” philosophy, according to the 55-page lawsuit.
“Addressing the crisis requires urgent action from our communities, institutions, and government,” the lawsuit states. “But instead of investing in programs that help people stay safe and housed, the Trump Administration has embraced policies that risk trapping people in poverty and punishing them for being poor.”
HUD’s latest Continuum of Care grants opportunity is open though Jan. 14, 2026. Grant awards are expected to be made May 1.
The new grant rules also eliminate funding for diversity and inclusion efforts, support of transgender clients and use of “harm reduction” strategies that seek to reduce overdose deaths by helping people in active addiction use drugs more safely.
“Individually, these conditions are unlawful and harmful,” the 55-page lawsuit states. “Together, they are a virtual death blow to the CoC Program as it has operated for decades and will lead to predictably disastrous results.”
If the policy isn’t blocked, Neronha warned the cuts would “further exacerbate already dire conditions for homeless Rhode Islanders.” Indeed, Rhode Island’s homeless care providers project a little over 1,000 formerly unhoused people across the state could wind up back on the streets under HUD’s new funding focus.
“This administration continues to punch down by targeting the most vulnerable Americans, and unfortunately this most recent attack on homeless individuals is consistent with their modus operandi,” Neronha said in a statement. “The president and his administration don’t care about making life easier or better for Americans; they only care about political capitulation, consolidating power, and further enriching the wealthy.”
The HUD Press Office said the agency stands by its Continuum of Care reforms in an emailed statement, calling Biden era homelessness assistance policies “an abject failure.”
“In fact, Biden’s policies harmed the vulnerable people that HUD intends to serve through the grant program,” the statement reads. “This new framework is the first step toward righting those failures with increased funding for those high performing programs that have demonstrated real success and accountability. HUD is dismayed that the plaintiffs have chosen to misuse the Courts and pursue this delaying tactic to serve their own personal political agenda at the expense of the homeless individuals, youth and families now living on our Nation’s streets. Their use of the courts for political means seeks to prevent nearly $4 billion of aid to flow nationwide to assist those in need. HUD intends to mount a vigorous defense to this meritless legal action. HUD is confident that it will prevail in Court and looks forward to implementing the new Continuum of Care framework after it has done so.”
In addition to Neronha, Washington Attorney General Nick Brown and New York Attorney General Letitia James are co-leading the lawsuit.
Also joining the complaint are the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, Wisconsin, along with the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.
The coalition is asking Judge Mary S. McElroy, who was appointed to the bench during Trump’s first term, to declare the new conditions unlawful and reinstate language from prior funding notices.
But the lawsuit filed Tuesday argues that Congress created the Continuum of Care program to ensure stability so providers can reliably serve people whose lives depend on it. The coalition says HUD’s changes are arbitrary and capricious because officials offered no explanation for abruptly reversing longstanding policies.
“HUD has failed to supply any rational explanation for these newly proposed conditions that are entirely unrelated to (and in some cases even inhibit) the statutory purpose of addressing homelessness,” the lawsuit states.
5:31 pmUpdated with a statement from the HUD Press Office.
This story was originally produced by Rhode Island Current, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Wisconsin Examiner, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.
Mission Telecom threw a lifeline to school bus Wi-Fi when the nonprofit broadband provider announced it is honoring the cost share of E-Rate for lines of service.
Last week’s announcement comes after the Federal Communications Commission last month retroactively ended school bus Wi-Fi and external hotspot eligibility under the federal discount program for school districts, libraries and health providers.
School districts nationwide had already applied to and started procuring equipment and services for a school bus Wi-Fi under the assumption they would be receiving anywhere between 20- and 90 percent discounts based the proportion of disadvantage students the district serves or if it’s a rural location. With school districts essentially holding the bag following the 2-1 FCC decision on Sept. 30, Mission Telecom is reselling access to the T-Mobile 5G network.
“Equipment’s already installed. Some of these bus Wi-Fi programs [have] been running for years, and [school districts] were counting on their E-Rate discounts in their budgets. And then, all of a sudden, they were told you’re not going to get those discounts,” commented Michael Flood, a school broadband consultant and owner of Alpine Frog, which advises Mission Telecom.
Mark Colwell, director of broadband operations for Mission Telecom, explained to School Transportation News in an email that the company holds seven wireless spectrum licenses in large U.S. cities and leases them to a subsidiary of T-Mobile. In exchange, he continued, Mission Telecom access T-Mobile’s 5G network and resells the lines of service to education, libraries and social-good organizations at affordable rates.
Also, a grantmaking organization, Mission Telecom’s nonprofit status allows it to provide the data service at no more than $20 per month.
“We do not rely on traditional benefactors or individual donors, our nonprofit model and partnerships allow us to reinvest every surplus dollar into other digital-equity initiatives, cost savings for our partners, and grant making programs,” he added. “Every connection we make helps expand affordable access, close the digital divide, and empower organizations to thrive in an increasingly connected world.”
Colwell said Mission Telecom is offering the unlimited 4G/5G wireless service
at the applicant school district’s post-discount share of case based on the approved E-Rate Form 471.
“Thus, we are matching the lines of service, not the equipment,” he noted.
Colwell provided the example of a school district that previously paid $30 per month for school bus Wi-Fi connectivity and received an 80 percent E-Rate discount. He said Mission Telecom will provide unlimited service for $6 per month through June 30, 2026.
He continued that the process for school districts is “fast and transparent with no red tape or lengthy reviews,” with eligible schools and libraries needing only to submit their existing E-Rate Form 471.
Flood, who also formerly worked for Kajeet, said school districts using AT&T or Verizon, for example, could still apply for the Mission Telecom service if they already use Cradle Point routers and are released from their contracts or determine the savings is worth breaking them.
“You just pop a new SIM card in and they’re good to go,” he added.
He also noted that the new discounts come without the strings attached to E-Rate. For example, the federal discounts only applied to the number of counted, registered students who accessed the Wi-Fi on home-to-school routes and back home again. With Mission Telecom, a school district could also use the Wi-Fi for sports activity and to power GPS location, student ridership and bus video transfer.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement offers up to $100,000 for vehicle purchases to local law enforcement agencies that assist ICE in apprehending unauthorized immigrants.
ICE announced Sept. 2 that its 287(g)Program also offers other local incentives, including salary and benefits reimbursement for ICE-trained officers and quarterly payments of $500 to $1,000 per officer for finding unauthorized immigrants identified by ICE.
As of Oct. 2, 13 Wisconsin sheriff’s departments, including Brown and Waukesha counties, were working with ICE on unauthorized immigrants in their jails and/or serving immigration warrants on individuals.
The $100,000 is offered to “task force” members. One Wisconsin police department, Palmyra in Jefferson County, is participating. The chief has said his focus is pursuing “criminals.”
ICE says its program targets criminal unauthorized immigrants. Research shows unauthorized immigrants crossing the U.S. border are not more likely than native-born Americans to commit crimes.
This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) awarded almost $5 billion less in research grants to U.S. institutions in the 2025 fiscal year than the year prior, a 13.6% reduction, according to an Association of American Medical Colleges report released in August.
The NIH committed $30 billion for research from July 2024 through June 2025, down from the $34.7 billion it obligated from July 2023 to June 2024. More than $3.5 billion of that funding difference was specifically in medical research and development while another half-billion was lost in career training for scientists.
Wisconsin’s share dropped by $84.4 million, or about 14%.
Disruptions in NIH research support have caused most states to lose tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars. They have also halted multiple clinical trials and research projects, including studies on post-tuberculosis lung disease and reducing infectious diseases spread by water.
This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.
That includes Medicaid (low-income people), Medicare (age 65 and over) and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). And they aren’t eligible to buy coverage through the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) marketplaces.
Federal Medicaid can reimburse hospitals for providing emergency care to unauthorized immigrants, but that is not coverage for individuals.
Vice President JD Vance said Aug. 28 in La Crosse, Wisconsin, that health care benefits can’t be sustained “if you allow tens of millions of people” into the U.S. without authorization “and give them those benefits.”
White House spokespersons did not return requests for comment.
This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.
Reading Time: 9minutesClick here to read highlights from the story
Responding to an order from President Donald Trump, several federal agencies are seeking to block undocumented immigrants and some immigrants with legal status from accessing programs that provide literacy classes, career education, medical and mental health care, substance abuse treatment, free preschool and more.
A range of institutions — including colleges, government agencies and nonprofits — manage the affected programs.
The order has caused widespread confusion about which organizations must check immigration status of the people they serve and how they could do that. Parts of the order appear to conflict with federal law.
Wisconsin joined 20 other states in a lawsuit challenging the new restrictions.
A group of federal agencies announced in July that at least 15 federally funded health, education and social service programs would exclude undocumented immigrants and some who are living in the country legally.
Responding to President Donald Trump’s February executive order to “identify all federally funded programs currently providing financial benefits to illegal aliens and take corrective action,” the departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Justice and Labor listed programs that provide literacy classes, career education, medical and mental health care, substance abuse treatment, free preschool and more.
In Wisconsin alone, the state Department of Justice estimates the new federal restrictions “put at risk more than $43 million each year in substance abuse and community mental health block grants that fund services in all 72 counties, 11 Tribal nations, and approximately 50 nonprofit organizations.”
Wisconsin Watch contacted more than a dozen Wisconsin organizations, government agencies and national experts to learn about the new policy’s effects. But we found more questions than answers. Most are unsure who is subject to the new rules or how to comply.
While we were reporting this story, Wisconsin joined 20 other states in a lawsuit challenging the new restrictions. That suit is still pending, but the parties have agreed to a deal that would delay most of the restrictions in those states until September.
Confusion created by the guidance could have serious consequences, experts say. Some providers might delay or cancel programs unnecessarily out of an abundance of caution, while some immigrants may avoid services for which they remain eligible, such as health care and education.
While much remains unclear, here’s what we know so far.
Which immigrants would be barred?
A 1996 law already prohibited certain immigrants from receiving 31 “federal public benefits,” including Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and cash assistance. The Trump administration’s new guidance bars the same immigrants from additional programs, according to the National Immigration Law Center.
Those ineligible include:
People with Temporary Protected Status (TPS).
People with nonimmigrant visas, such as student visas, work visas and U visas for survivors of serious crimes.
People who have pending applications for asylum or a U visa.
People granted Deferred Enforced Departure or deferred action. This includes Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients — those who entered the country as children.
Undocumented immigrants.
Lawfully present immigrants who don’t fall into categories below.
People in the following groups would remain eligible:
Lawful permanent residents (green card holders).
Refugees.
People who have been granted asylum or withholding of removal.
Certain survivors of domestic violence.
Certain survivors of trafficking.
Certain Cuban and Haitian nationals.
People residing under a Compact of Free Association with Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands.
Why the confusion?
A range of institutions — including colleges, government agencies and nonprofits — manage the affected programs. Many did not previously check the immigration status of the people they serve; creating a process to do so may add costs and logistical challenges. It could prove especially daunting for organizations like soup kitchens and homeless shelters, which provide urgent services to people without easy access to documents.
Meanwhile, entities that administer these federal funds include nonprofits and federally funded community health centers, which operate under laws that conflict with the guidance.
Health and Human Services said its settlement with the suing states “will permit the agency to consider, as appropriate, whether to provide additional information” about the restrictions it announced.
How would the changes affect health care in Wisconsin?
Wisconsin has 16 federally qualified community health centers serving patients at 217 sites. They receive money from Congress to provide primary care to all, regardless of their ability to pay. Nationally, such clinics serve more than 32 million patients, making up 1 in 10 people in the United States and 1 in 5 people in rural America, according to the National Association of Community Health Centers.
Aside from emergency rooms, they are often the only care options for undocumented immigrants or those with limited English proficiency, said Drishti Pillai, director of immigrant health policy at KFF, a national nonprofit providing information on health issues.
Federal law requiring those clinics to accept “all residents of the area served by the center” contradicts the Trump administration guidance.
Layton Clinic is shown on May 9, 2018, in Milwaukee. Wisconsin has 16 federally qualified community health centers serving patients at 217 sites. New Trump administration rules seek to bar certain immigrants from such services, but they appear to contradict federal law. (Andrea Waxman /Milwaukee Neighborhood News Service)
The national association said in a July 10 statement that it’s working with experts and legislators to understand the impact of the new rules and ensure centers “have the information and resources needed” to continue serving their patients.
Access Community Health Centers, a nonprofit that provides medical, dental and mental health care at five south central Wisconsin clinics, will make “adjustments” if further federal guidance comes, CEO Ken Loving said.
“We don’t have the information we need to understand how this is going to impact us and how we can adapt to help our patients,” he said.
How would the changes affect education in Wisconsin?
The Wisconsin Technical College System has followed 1997 guidance that said public benefit restrictions did not apply to such educational services, spokesperson Katy Petterson said. She’s not sure how the updated guidance might affect the system, which will “wait to learn the impact of the lawsuit.”
If community-college-operated programs begin checking immigration status, ineligible immigrants may remain able to take federally funded classes through nonprofits that are subject to different rules.
A textbook lies on a table during a Literacy Network of Dane County English Transitions class at Madison College’s Goodman South Campus on July 9, 2025, in Madison, Wis. Some adult education services are on the list of federally funded programs that the Trump administration is targeting for immigration status checks, but the effects of the new rules are unclear. (Joe Timmerman / Wisconsin Watch)
The nation’s 1,600 Head Start agencies, which provide free early childhood education and family support services for low-income families, fall under the restrictions announced in the Department of Health and Human Services notice. But the document doesn’t say whether Head Start staff must verify the immigration status of children, parents or both.
“It’s very ambiguous about who this impacts. … If you read the language, it’s 26-plus-ish pages of legal jargon, and it’s shifting,” said Jennie Mauer, executive director of the Wisconsin Head Start Association, which supports the state’s roughly 300 Head Start service sites.
One thing Mauer wants families to know: Children already enrolled in Head Start won’t be forced out.
“We want to follow the rules, but Head Start is not required to redetermine eligibility,” Mauer said, noting it has never been required to do so in 60 years. She’s been telling the center directors to sit tight, even as worried parents ask questions.
One entity that won’t start checking immigration status: K-12 schools. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1982 that denying education to undocumented students violated their constitutional rights.
Must nonprofit providers start checking immigration status?
Probably not. The 1996 law restricting public benefits says nonprofit charities are not required to “determine, verify, or otherwise require proof of eligibility of any applicant for such benefits.”
At Literacy Network, a nonprofit offering a variety of free ESL and basic education classes in Madison, staff aren’t planning changes based on the new rule.
“It could certainly impact many of our students in other areas of their lives and therefore their ability to participate in our programs, but not who we can serve,” spokesperson Margaret Franchino said.
Still, guidance from the Department of Education is vague. It states that the exemption for nonprofits is “narrowly crafted,” and “the Department does not interpret (it) to relieve states or other governmental entities … from the requirements to ensure that all relevant programs are in compliance.”
Ryan Graham is the homeless systems manager at Wisconsin Balance of State Continuum of Care, a nonprofit that supports agencies responding to homelessness across most of the state.
As his agency discusses updates with partner agencies, it is preparing for an “increased administrative burden on already stretched staff.”
“We don’t yet know whether there will be delays caused by having to check or validate someone’s citizenship status, especially in emergency situations where time is critical,” Graham said.
When do the new rules take effect?
The notices published in July took effect immediately, though some federal agencies said they would likely not enforce them for about a month. The Trump administration later agreed to pause enforcement until Sept. 3 in the 21 states that sued.
The Department of Health and Human Services, meanwhile, has voluntarily stayed enforcement of its directive in all states until Sept. 10.
What is the basis of legal challenges?
The multistate lawsuit argues the Trump administration failed to follow proper procedures in implementation and that it can’t retroactively change the rules after states accept grants to administer programs. Requirements to check the immigration status of every person served would unreasonably burden program staff and possibly force programs to close, the states argue.
Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul speaks at a press conference at the F.J. Robers Library in the town of Campbell, outside of La Crosse, Wis., on July 20, 2022. Kaul joined 20 other states in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s efforts to require more federally funded programs to check clients’ immigration status. (Coburn Dukehart / Wisconsin Watch)
States “will suffer continued, irreparable harm if forced to dramatically restructure their social safety nets and render them inaccessible to countless of the States’ most vulnerable residents,” the plaintiffs wrote.
The American Civil Liberties Union and Head Start groups nationwide had already sued before the Trump administration published new guidance. That suit argued staffing cuts, funding delays and bans on diversity efforts threatened to destabilize Head Start — a long-standing, congressionally mandated program. A hearing in that suit was held Aug. 5 on a request to temporarily block the Health and Human Services notice.
What does the Trump administration say?
The 1996 public benefits ban exempted federal programs that offered services available to all people on the grounds that they were “necessary for the protection of life and safety.”
Trump calls that exemption too broad.
“A surge in illegal immigration, enabled by the previous Administration, is siphoning dollars and essential services from American citizens while state and local budgets grow increasingly strained,” the White House said.
Citing studies from congressional committees and groups that seek to severely curtail immigration, the White House argues that allowing broad access to federal resources incentivizes illegal immigration and costs U.S. taxpayers. The recent federal spending package also eliminated access to Medicaid, Medicare and food stamps for some authorized immigrants, including refugees and asylees.
Experts worry the confusion about the new rule could have a chilling effect, leading even eligible immigrants to stop using services.
Pillai of KFF noted that the restrictions on community health centers, alongside congressionally approved changes “that limit health coverage to a smaller group of lawfully present immigrants,” will likely make immigrant families even more reluctant to seek health care and social services.
The changes “may increase their reliance on emergency room care, which can be more costly in the long term,” she added.
Graham, the homeless systems manager, believes the Trump change will create “a direct barrier to safe and stable shelter for undocumented individuals and mixed-status families” and qualified immigrants or citizens who “may not have identification or the means to attain identification after fleeing a dangerous situation or crisis.”
It could also prompt administrators of some programs not covered by the rule to start screening participants as a precaution, or shut down programs to avoid screening challenges.
That has happened before. When Trump issued an executive order in January saying the administration would no longer “fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support” gender-affirming health care for people under 19, some providers stopped offering those services even though state law protected them.
Braden Goetz, who worked for more than 20 years in the U.S. Department of Education and now works as a senior policy adviser at the New America Foundation’s Center on Education and Labor, said it’s unusual for federal guidance to be so sparse and ambiguous.
“Maybe that’s the intention: to confuse people and chill services to people who are not citizens or not legal permanent residents, and scare people,” Goetz said.
Five things to know about the new public benefits rule
The rule bars some immigrants with legal status, as well as all undocumented immigrants. That includes people with TPS, DACA, guest worker visas or pending asylum applications.
Children already enrolled in Head Start can continue attending, regardless of their immigration status. That’s because Head Start programs aren’t required to redetermine eligibility, according to Wisconsin Head Start Association executive director Jennie Mauer.
Nonprofit charitable organizations appear to be exempt from the new requirement. That means immigrants barred from services under the new guidelines may still be able to get services through nonprofit organizations.
Community Health Centers are required by law to accept all people in their area. It’s not clear how the new rules, which state that these federally funded health centers should only be available to “qualified immigrants,” will work with that law.
The new rules do not affect access to K-12 education, which the U.S. Supreme Court has found to be a right of every child regardless of immigration status.
Natalie Yahr reports on pathways to success in Wisconsin, working in partnership with Open Campus. Sreejita Patra is statehouse reporting intern for Wisconsin Watch.
Federal law prohibits students in the country without authorization from receiving federal financial aid.
Two Clinton-era laws — the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act and the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act — require all students to provide a valid Social Security number or otherwise demonstrate lawful-presence status to receive federal aid.
The Federal Student Aid website confirms that unauthorized students — including DACA recipients — are ineligible for federal student aid. However, it notes that unauthorized immigrants can still seek financial support through other channels, such as state grant programs, institutional aid, and private scholarships.
The American Journal of Economics and Sociology points out that although there are alternative avenues, they are often limited and inconsistent. Even when available, it is last-dollar aid, covering only remaining costs after all other aid is applied. As a result, this rarely meets the total cost of tuition, fees, and living expenses.
This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.
Login
