An oak savannah in southern Dane County that the Badgerland Foundation is working to conserve using Knowles-Nelson Stewardship funds (Photo by Henry Redman/Wisconsin Examiner)
The broadly popular Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant program is on life support after Wisconsin Senate Republicans canceled a vote on a GOP-authored bill to extend the program during the body’s floor session Wednesday.
For nearly four decades, the program has allowed the state Department of Natural Resources to support the acquisition of land for conservation purposes. The program is set to expire June 30 when its funding runs out.
Lawmakers have been working for nearly a year to reach an agreement on an extension. A Knowles-Nelson extension in Gov. Tony Evers’ proposed budget last year was stripped out by Republicans and a Democratic-authored bill supported by all 60 legislative Democrats has languished in a Republican-controlled committee.
In January, Assembly Republicans passed a bill that would extend the program without any funding for land acquisition. With the Assembly holding its final scheduled floor session of the year on Thursday, the Senate’s failure to hold a vote on its version of the bill Wednesday means it’s unlikely a bill will make it to Evers’ desk.
Democrats have said they won’t support a version of the bill that ends land acquisition under the program.
In recent weeks, Republicans have begun to lay the groundwork for claiming that any failure to extend the program would be the Democrats’ fault.
But Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point), the author of the Republican proposal, said Wednesday after the bill was dropped from the schedule that the Senate needs to pass a version of the bill with 17 Republican votes. With supporters and opponents of the program divided within the Republican caucus, advocates for the program have said for months it’s been clear that any version of stewardship extension would require bipartisan support.
“This has been one of these bills that’s been very difficult to thread the needle on,” Testin said after the Wednesday floor session. “So it’s been sort of a tug of war, you do X, Y, and Z on one provision of the bill. You have members that raise concerns, and if you do X, Y and Z a different way, they’ve got concerns as well.”
Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay), who wrote the Democratic proposal and has been involved in legislative negotiations over the program, said it’s disingenuous for Republicans to point fingers at Democrats, when Democrats are united in their support for the program and have tried to compromise.
The initial bill proposed by Habush Sinykin included a provision to provide independent oversight of the program as a response to Republican concerns and in recent days offered a compromise of extending the program with $5-6 million in land acquisition funding — about $10 million less than budgeted currently. On the floor on Wednesday, Democrats attempted to force a vote on a motion that would have extended the program for one year at current funding levels.
“Their efforts to try to cast blame or aspersions on the Democrats when it is apparent that they have too many members of their caucus who are strongly opposed to this program … they have not been shy or reticent about voicing publicly strong opposition to the continuity of this program,” Habush Sinykin said. “So it takes not just a lot of nerve, but a questionable honesty, to try to pin this on Democrats.”
Habush Sinykin said the Assembly version of the bill was “not even tempting” because it doesn’t include any land acquisition funds.
“What they are looking for and needing are more Democratic votes, which is a big responsibility, because we care about the integrity of the program,” she said. “So you don’t want to give votes for something that doesn’t have value and isn’t true to the purpose.”
“Everyone in the building knows, and many outside the building know, that Republicans don’t like Knowles-Nelson,” she continued, “that they can’t get it done in their caucus.”
Baylor Spears contributed reporting to this story.
“What I’m hearing right now is the governor and the speaker are still negotiating, and I have not been invited to those negotiations,” Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu said during a WisPolitics luncheon on Thursday afternoon. “I just feel, at this point, if the governor and the speaker are actually serious about accomplishing something, shouldn't they include both houses?” (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)
Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) says he is being left out of negotiations on property tax relief between Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester).
Rising property taxes, a quickly approaching self-imposed deadline to wrap up work in the Legislature this year and a projected state budget surplus of over $2.5 billion formed the backdrop to disagreements between leaders of the Senate and Assembly on a potential tax relief package that broke out into the public this week.
“What I’m hearing right now is the governor and the speaker are still negotiating, and I have not been invited to those negotiations,” LeMahieu said during a WisPolitics luncheon on Thursday afternoon. “I just feel, at this point, if the governor and the speaker are actually serious about accomplishing something, shouldn’t they include both houses?”
In response to LeMahieu saying he wasn’t included, Evers’ spokesperson Britt Cudaback wrote on social media that “actually, yesterday our office suggested that Republican leaders should try talking to each other since they’re clearly not on the same page.”
Vos, speaking at a press conference at the same time LeMahieu appeared at the WisPolitics event, said he texted LeMahieu Thursday morning asking to meet. He told reporters that he is open to any idea, but the public’s biggest concern is rising property taxes.
“There’s no bad cake, and I feel that same way about tax cuts. There are no bad tax cuts… We have not ruled anything out,” Vos said. “But when we have talked to folks, the thing that has most impacted them is the massive property tax increases they saw last December. My own property tax bill went up 24.7%. That’s the highest that I can ever remember being a homeowner.”
Wisconsin property taxpayers recently absorbed the highest tax hike since 2018 — an increase caused by a state budget that raised school revenue limits while keeping state general aid flat, pushing costs onto local property taxpayers, some of whom also voted to approve additional school district referendum requests.
LeMahieu said the projected $2.5 billion budget surplus led to conversations in his caucus about what to do to provide relief to Wisconsinites as well as a Zoom call between the Republican legislative leaders and Gov. Tony Evers a little over a week ago.
“It’s not just property taxes. People are struggling buying groceries… their utility bills,” LeMahieu said.
The Senate Republican caucus discussions led to the introduction of a pair of bills this week that would use about $1.5 billion in state funds to provide one-time tax rebates of $1,000 to married joint filers and $500 to individual filers. Under SB 1 and SB 995, the Department of Administration would need to send the rebates by Sept. 1.
LeMahieu said his caucus thought the rebates were “the best way to use this surplus” and $1.5 billion, the cost for the rebates, is a “responsible number.”
The package announcement came just a day after Vos said he was in negotiations with Evers. According to emails, Evers had proposed to the Republican lawmakers a $1.3 billion package that would provide $200 million, including $80 million to bring the special education reimbursement rate to 42% in 2026 and $120 million to bring it to 45% in 2027, as well as $450 million in 2027 in general school aids to buy out the projected statewide school property tax levy. In exchange, Republicans would get $550 million for the school levy tax credit to help with property tax relief and $97.3 million in 2027 for tax-exempt cash tips.
Cudaback has said that any compromise on property taxes needs to include “investments to ensure our K-12 schools receive the resources they need and were promised in the state budget.”
Vos said he thinks Evers “sincerely” wants to do something about property taxes.
“There have been plenty of times in the last eight years where we have had a disagreement and we had a public argument with Gov. Evers, but on this one… we feel the same,” Vos said. “I don’t know why we wouldn’t negotiate in good faith to try to find something that can actually get across the finish line.”
Vos said Evers’ point about special education funding is a “legitimate” one, noting that leaders said during the state budget that they would fund it at 42% and 45% but the available revenue will not cover those amounts.
Senate Republicans, however, are not happy with Evers’ suggestions.
LeMahieu called the proposal “ridiculous” and said it was only a “BandAid” on the issue that would “saddle the next Legislature with a huge ongoing commitment.” He is referring to the 400-year partial veto exercised by Evers on the 2023-24 budget that has allowed school districts to continue an annual $325 per pupil increase.
“Your property taxes are still going to go up because the 400-year veto is still there?” LeMahieu said incredulously.
LeMahieu said he thought the negotiation “seems like a purely political stunt” or an effort to get something through the Assembly, adjourn and put pressure on the Senate to pass it. He noted that the Assembly is less than a week away from its planned final adjournment for the year.
Vos has said the Assembly plans to be done Feb. 19. The Senate could still pass bills after then, but the same bills must pass the Assembly to make it to Evers’ desk.
“There is no vehicle for whatever plan they come up with… What’s the time frame for all of this to get done?” LeMahieu asked, referring to the process by which a bill must be introduced, have a public hearing and get a vote on the floor of the both Assembly and the Senate.
LeMahieu pointed out that his bill has support from 16 out of 18 Senate Republican caucus members. He added that several Assembly members have reached out with support for the proposal and said the Senate plan “actually makes sense.”
“There has been no communication between offices… Hopefully we are here past next week,” LeMahieu said, adding that there are session days scheduled for March, when the Senate plans to meet, and lawmakers could also work in April.
No action would likely leave decisions about the budget surplus until after the November elections when the makeup of the next Legislature could look quite different with control up for grabs and the next governor, could be either a Republican or a Democrat and will be new to the office.
Vos said rebates are “less easy” and “more expensive,” but he said his caucus believes that negotiating “to find an answer that gets across the finish line is the best answer for Wisconsinites” and he thinks they need to sit down to do so.
“I don’t think [Evers’] idea is a bad one, but I would say it has to be paired with some reductions,” Vos said. “Based on where the Senate is, it looks like they want to have something that’s way bigger than what we were looking at. Bigger is not necessarily better, but it’s not necessarily worse, so I think that’s part of sitting down and understanding what the perspectives are, and finding something that, again, can pass the Assembly, pass the Senate, and get signed by the governor and not just have an argument.”
The Senate bills received a public hearing in the afternoon. Democratic lawmakers questioned whether the rebates would place the state in a precarious position in the future.
After the state budget was completed in July, but before the recent projections, the Wisconsin Policy Forumwarnedthat Wisconsin is spending more than it brings in through taxes which creates a projected structural deficit.
“Why wouldn’t we just put this money in the bank to help us cover the structural deficit?” Sen. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit) asked.
“I think we’ll be fine,” LeMahieu said.
Under the bill, the rebate checks would need to be delivered to Wisconsinites by Sept. 15, 2026.
Spreitzer said he thought the proposal could place the state budget in a “bad situation” going into future budgets and suggested that the timing of the rebate payments are suspicious, coming just ahead of the November election.
Wisconsin’s fall elections take place Nov. 3, and many legislators are eager to return to their districts to start campaigning.
LeMahieu on WisconsinEye and other issues
A tax relief package is among several bills Wisconsin lawmakers are trying to get across the finish line. LeMahieu spoke to the chances for action on several issues. He said the issue that is the closest to getting done is a bill that would extend the state’s stewardship program.
State funds will run out for the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship program on June 30, 2026, without action. A bill that the Assembly passed and that recently received a public hearing in the Senate would extend the program, but drastically cut the land acquisition portions of the program.
“We don’t want to give a blank check to our bureaucrats to go buy a bunch of land across the state of Wisconsin, however, we do own a lot of land in Wisconsin and our caucus feels it’s very important to maintain that,” LeMahieu said.
Another issue that has received a lot of attention in the Capitol is the livestreaming of government proceedings. LeMahieu said he thought there has been mismanagement at WisconsinEye, the state’s version of C-SPAN, and his caucus wants to see other alternatives before providing funding for WisconsinEye.
“Is there some other company out there? Do we need five full-time employees when we aren’t doing a whole lot of work after Feb. 17 in the Assembly and March… outside of interviews of candidates who are running for office? We’re using taxpayer money for that?” LeMahieu said.
A Senate bill to solicit bids for livestreaming received a public hearing Thursday, though LeMahieu said he thinks lawmakers could also start the process through a vote on the Joint Committee on Legislative Organization.
LeMahieu said Senate Republicans have not spent a lot of time discussing efforts to legalize online sports betting and he wasn’t sure if that proposal would get through the Senate or Assembly by the end of session. He said he thought that “from a policy standpoint it makes sense.”
The Assembly delayed a vote on a bill to legalize online sports betting at the end of last year.
Sports betting has been allowed in Wisconsin since 2021, but bets have to be made in person at tribal casinos. Lawmakers are seeking to legalize online sports betting by implementing a “hub and spoke” model that would allow servers running betting websites and apps to be housed on tribal land. The state Constitution requires gambling to be managed by the state’s federally recognized Native American tribes.
LeMahieu said he hopes the Legislature takes some action on data centers, though he said he hadn’t looked closely at the bill that passed the Assembly in January. He said he thought data centers are good for local communities, though there are some concerns about ensuring that ratepayers don’t see their utility bills go up.
“Hopefully we can take action and provide some framework around it. I don’t know if the bill that the Assembly passed needs to be amended,” LeMahieu said.
Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) told reporters on Wednesday ahead of a floor session that he hadn’t spoken recently with Gov. Tony Evers or Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) about property tax relief proposals. LeMahieu speaks at a 2023 press conference with Vos (left) and other Assembly Republicans standing behind him. (Wisconsin Examiner photo)
Senate Republicans are not on the same page as Assembly Republicans and Gov. Tony Evers when it comes to how to use the projected $2.5 billion state surplus to provide tax relief to Wisconsinites.
Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) told reporters on Wednesday ahead of a floor session that he hadn’t spoken recently with Evers or Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) about property tax relief proposals. Vos told reporters on Tuesday that he was negotiating with Evers on a property tax proposal and was backing off a demand to repeal the partial veto that extended school revenue limit increases for 400 years.
LeMahieu said his caucus was working on fine tuning its own proposal.
“When you have a surplus, you want to give it back to the people who are paying taxes in Wisconsin, the hard working families of Wisconsin,” LeMahieu said.
Hours later, LeMahieu announced the introduction of SB 1, which would provide rebate payments of up to $1,000 to taxpayers, and SB 995, which would provide a sum sufficient appropriation for the proposal.
“You and your family know how to spend your hard-earned dollars best, not the state government,” LeMahieu said in a statement. “So, whether you need more room in your budget for groceries, or if Governor Evers’ 400-year veto sent your property tax bill through the roof, the State Senate intends to vote next week to return the surplus to the people who created it in the first place: you, the taxpayers.”
Wisconsin leaders are debating ways to provide some financial relief to residents in the aftermath of a significant jump in property tax bills in December. The hikes were fueled by a state budget that increases school revenue limits while keeping state general aid flat — pushing education costs onto local taxpayers — as well as voter approval of school district referendum requests. Further property tax hikes are expected if there is no action from policymakers.
The Senate bill would provide a one-time rebate to taxpayers who filed a Wisconsin individual income tax return in tax year 2024 and owed for that year. It would provide a rebate of $1,000 for joint married filers and a $500 rebate for other individuals.
The Department of Revenue (DOR) would make the payments without the taxpayers having to take any further action and they would need to be made by Sept. 15, 2026. The rebate would not exceed the amount of the taxpayer’s 2024 net income tax liability.
The bill will receive a public hearing Thursday afternoon in the Senate Agriculture and Revenue committee. The committee chair, Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point), called the 400-year veto “irresponsible” and said Republicans “know that many families across Wisconsin are struggling financially” and they believe their proposal “will go a long way toward reducing the tax burden on our residents.”
Asked about the new proposal, Evers’ spokesperson Britt Cudaback referred the Wisconsin Examiner back to a statement she made on Tuesday.
“The governor’s been clear that any bipartisan bill on property taxes must include investments to ensure our K-12 schools receive the resources they need and were promised in the state budget,” Cudaback said. “We look forward to hearing back from Republican leaders regarding whether they will support the governor’s plan that both addresses property taxes and invests in our kids and our schools.”
According to emails shared by Cudaback, Evers has proposed to Republican lawmakers a bill that would pair funding for schools with tax relief. The proposal would include $200 million, including $80 million to bring the special education reimbursement rate to 42% in 2026 and $120 million to bring it to 45% in 2027, as well as $450 million in 2027 in general school aids to buy out the projected statewide school property tax levy.
In exchange, Republicans would get $550 million for the school levy tax credit to help with property tax relief and $97.3 million in 2027 for tax exempt cash tips.
According to the email, Evers was willing to discuss changes to the 400-year veto but only if Republicans would “approve a significant and ongoing state investment in K-12 schools, including, at minimum, closing the gap in special education funding from the 2025-27 Biennial Budget and making special education aid a sum sufficient appropriation,” meaning it would cover all special ed costs at the set rate, unlike a “sum certain” appropriation which is a limited pot of money regardless of increased expenses.
“However, we understand from our conversation that neither of the two leaders would like to have discussions about the 400-year veto,” Madden wrote in the email.
While Vos may not be set on eliminating the partial veto, LeMahieu told CBS58 on Wednesday that the veto would need to be repealed to do anything on property tax relief.
“Maybe, we are getting the best value currently with WisconsinEye, but we don’t know... We want to be responsible with taxpayer money," Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) said at a press conference in Feb. 2026. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)
Senate Republicans are proposing that Wisconsin solicit bids for parties interested in taking over livestream coverage of the state government — making WisconsinEye, the nonprofit that has done the job since 2007, compete for the job.
The introduction of SB 994 follows the state Assembly unanimously passing a proposal Tuesday that would eliminate match requirements for $10 million that was set aside in the state budget for WisconsinEye, and place it in a trust fund from which the organization could draw interest.
WisconsinEye had to halt its coverage for about a month due to financial difficulties and has turned to state lawmakers for a long-term funding solution, and while the Assembly has been on the same page, the Senate has expressed skepticism about providing help.
Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) told reporters Wednesday that his caucus wants to see whether there is another party that could do the job for less. He said his local county board livestreams its meetings and it “doesn’t seem like it’s rocket science.”
LeMahieu said his caucus has been frustrated trying to get answers from WisconsinEye and with the lack of fundraising by the nonprofit since state funds were first set aside in 2023.
“There was a promise to raise funds to keep going over the last three years with state matching funds. That has not worked, so we think there is a different path,” LeMahieu said. “Maybe, we are getting the best value currently with WisconsinEye, but we don’t know… We want to be responsible with taxpayer money.”
WisconsinEye’s current annual operating budget is nearly $1 million. The Assembly proposal would allow the organization to use the interest on the trust fund for its operating expenses, though it is expected the organization would still need to fundraise hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to meet its annual costs.
The coauthors on the Senate bill include 15 of the 18 Republicans; those not on the bill include Sens. John Jagler, Chris Kapenga and Eric Wimberger. The Assembly lawmakers coauthoring the Senate bill are Reps. Lindee Brill (R-Sheboygan Falls) and Chuck Wichgers (R-Muskego). Both voted in favor of the Assembly bill this week.
Under the Senate proposal, the state Department of Administration would solicit bids for the operation of a statewide public affairs network that would provide unedited live video and audio coverage of state government proceedings.
Those proceedings would include Senate and Assembly floor sessions, legislative committee meetings, state agency meetings, state Supreme Court and other judicial meetings. The bill states that if “practicable,” the network can also cover eligible news conferences and civic events.
Lawmakers said in a cosponsorship memo that the bill would ensure “high-quality, secure, and cost-effective coverage of legislative, executive and judicial proceedings while maintaining strict nonpartisanship.”
“For years, the state has relied on a single public affairs network model without a competitive procurement process that ensures taxpayers receive the best return on their investment,” the cosponsorship memo on the bill states. “As technology evolves and expectations for public access increase, it is time to modernize how Wisconsin provides live coverage and archives of government proceedings.”
The bill also requires the network to prohibit coverage from being used for campaign purposes.
The Senate proposal would prohibit fees from being charged to access live and archived coverage of floor sessions and Joint Finance Committee meetings. Other meetings are not covered under this part of the bill.
The Assembly bill, in contrast, would generally require WisconsinEye to provide free online public access to all of its live broadcasts and archives. That bill would have WisconsinEye focus its coverage primarily on official state government meetings and business.
Assembly lawmakers also wanted to implement some additional accountability measures, requiring WisconsinEye to submit an annual financial report to the Legislature and place additional members on its board of directors who would be appointed by legislative leaders.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer speaks to reporters at the U.S. Capitol on June 17, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)
WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans blocked a Democratic proposal Thursday to sue the Trump administration over allegations that it did not fully release the Epstein files, as mandated under a law unanimously approved by senators and signed by the president nearly three months ago.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., asked for unanimous consent on a resolution compelling the Republican-led Senate to challenge President Donald Trump in court to release more records from the government’s investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who died in 2019 awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges.
Department of Justice Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump’s former personal defense attorney, said Jan. 30 that the department had finished complying with the new law after a final release of 3 million pages, containing 2,000 videos and 180,000 images. In total, the department released about 3.5 million records since the law’s passage.
The latest tranche revealed a global network of numerous men in powerful positions in communication with Epstein.
Late and redacted
The legal deadline to release the files was Dec. 19.
“Fifty days past the deadline, at best, according to the Department of Justice’s own admissions, maybe half of all the available Epstein files have been released,” Schumer said on the floor Thursday morning.
Schumer said that among the records released, many have been “redacted to an absurd degree.”
“This is not what the law requires. This is a mockery of the truth and an insult to the survivors. What makes this all the more sickening is that in over 1,000 instances, the Justice Department failed to follow the law and leaked the identities of over 100 victims. But do you know who the Justice Department did seem to protect? Epstein’s co-conspirators,” Schumer continued.
The minority leader entered into the congressional record a letter he brought along from roughly 20 Epstein victims decrying the “reckless and dangerous” release of victims’ identities.
Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., blocked the resolution, chalking it up as “another reckless political stunt designed to distract Americans from Democrats’ dangerous plan to shut down the Department of Homeland Security.”
Barrasso was referring to negotiations underway to fund DHS. Democrats have demanded changes to immigration enforcement tactics after two U.S. citizens were fatally shot by federal agents in Minneapolis, and numerous other U.S. citizens were injured by federal agents during Trump’s surge into blue states.
Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., criticized Barrasso’s objection on the floor, calling it “morally wrong.”
The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
A DOJ official told States Newsroom in an email that the resolution presented “a tired narrative.”
“Just because you wish something to be true, doesn’t mean it is. This Department produced more than 3.5 million pages in compliance with the law and, in full transparency, has disclosed to the public and to Congress what items were not responsive. I assume all members of Congress read the actual language before voting on it, but if not, our press release and letter to Congress clearly spells this out,” the official wrote, including a link to the department’s Jan. 30 press release.
‘Hunger or thirst for information’
Blanche told reporters on Jan. 30, “There’s a hunger or a thirst for information that I do not think will be satisfied by the review of these documents. There’s nothing I can do about that.”
He said no information uncovered in the files warranted new prosecutions.
The new law, dubbed by lawmakers as the Epstein Files Transparency Act, required the DOJ to make publicly available “all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in DOJ’s possession that relate to the investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein,” including materials related to Epstein’s accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell.
Epstein avoided federal charges in 2008 when he pleaded guilty to Florida state prostitution charges, including for the solicitation of a minor.
A 2007 draft of a federal indictment that laid out more robust charges was among the files released by the DOJ on Jan. 30.
U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., talks to reporters at the U.S. Capitol on Saturday, June 28, 2025. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)
WASHINGTON — Vice President JD Vance broke a tied Senate vote to block advancement of a war powers resolution that would have stopped President Donald Trump from taking further military action against Venezuela without congressional authorization.
Senate Republicans used a procedural maneuver Wednesday night to halt debate on the Vietnam War-era statute that gives Congress a check on the president’s deployments abroad.
Sens. Todd Young of Indiana and Josh Hawley of Missouri flipped on their previous votes to advance the resolution, splitting support at 50-50 — and delivering a victory to Trump, who had strongly criticized Republican senators who earlier defected from the administration.
Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky voted to keep the effort alive in the Senate. Paul is the only Republican co-sponsor of the bill. Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia was the leading Democratic co-sponsor.
Young said while he “strongly” believes Congress must be involved in any decisions about the commitment of U.S. troops, administration officials assured him that is not the state of play in Venezuela.
“After numerous conversations with senior national security officials, I have received assurances that there are no American troops in Venezuela. I’ve also received a commitment that if President Trump were to determine American forces are needed in major military operations in Venezuela, the Administration will come to Congress in advance to ask for an authorization of force,” Young said in a written statement after he cast his vote.
Rare rebuke doesn’t last
The vote came less than a week after Young and Hawley were among the five Senate Republicans who broke with party ranks to move the resolution across an initial procedural hurdle — a rare rebuke of Trump from some in his own party.
Trump pointedly attacked the five GOP senators after they voted, writing on his Truth Social platform that the lawmakers “should never be elected to office again.”
Senate Republicans argued a resolution to rein in Trump’s military actions against Venezuela is not relevant because “there’s no troops there, there is nothing to terminate,” as Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Jim Risch said on the floor ahead of the vote.
“Now, I know some of my colleagues will argue that a vote for this resolution is a prospective statement about limiting future action in Venezuela. That’s not what it says. They argue, ‘we still have ships in the Caribbean, and clearly the president is ready to invade again,’ they say. But again, that is not what the resolution says. … No language in this resolution addresses future action,” said Risch, R-Idaho, who moved to table the measure.
The vote came 11 days after U.S. special forces apprehended Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores, from their bedroom during a surprise overnight raid. The couple was wanted by U.S. authorities on federal drug and conspiracy charges.
The vote also comes after a monthslong bombing campaign on small boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean in which U.S. strikes killed more than 115 alleged “narco-terrorists,” according to U.S. Southern Command.
Within an hour before senators voted to block any advancement of the war powers resolution, Trump posted on social media that he “had a very good call” Thursday morning with Venezuela’s interim President Delcy Rodríguez.
“We are making tremendous progress, as we help Venezuela stabilize and recover. Many topics were discussed, including Oil, Minerals, Trade and, of course, National Security. This partnership between the United States of America and Venezuela will be a spectacular one FOR ALL. Venezuela will soon be great and prosperous again, perhaps more so than ever before!” Trump wrote on his own platform, Truth Social.
Trump hosted oil executives at the White House Friday for a meeting on potential investment in Venezuela’s oil industry. Prior to the meeting, the president announced the South American nation had already agreed to give the U.S. between 30 million and 50 million barrels of oil. Trump said he would control the money made from the sale.
‘We are heavily engaged’
Paul and Democratic sponsors of the war powers resolution vehemently disagreed with the GOP statements about the U.S. presence in and around Venezuela.
“You don’t have to be a great expert in military affairs to know that we are heavily engaged,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, ahead of the vote.
“Donald Trump says we’re not engaged in hostilities? Tell that to the 16,000 U.S. service members currently deployed in the Caribbean. Tell that to our service members on the Ford carrier strike force. Look at the Marine expeditionary unit operating in the region,” Schumer said. “Donald Trump is turning the Caribbean into a dangerous powder keg — and Congress must rein him in before one mistake ignites a larger, more unstable conflict.”
Kaine likened the Republicans’ procedural move to “a parliamentary gag rule on discussion of this military operation.”
“If this cause and if this legal basis were so righteous and so lawful, the administration and its supporters would not be so afraid to have this debate before the public and the United States Senate,” Kaine said on the floor ahead of the vote.
Paul said the administration’s claim that Venezuela is not an official war is “an absurdity.”
“The invasion of another country, blockading of a country and removing another country’s leader, to my mind, clearly, is war,” Paul said on the floor ahead of the vote.
U.S. Southern Command declined to confirm Wednesday the exact number of troops and warships present in the region.
Venezuelan Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello said more than 100 were killed in the raid, according to numerous media outlets that posted a video of his statement. The Cuban government announced on Facebook 32 of its citizens were among the dead.
Seven U.S. troops were injured in the incursion, according to the Pentagon. Five returned to work within days after the attack, while two were still recovering as of Jan. 8. Pentagon officials declined to comment further on their conditions Wednesday.
Louisiana Republican U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy speaks during a press conference on Wednesday, Jan. 14, 2026. Also pictured, from left, are Family Foundation of Virginia President Victoria Cobb, National Association of Christian Lawmakers Founder and President Jason Rapert, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill and Missouri Republican U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)
WASHINGTON — Republicans on a key U.S. Senate committee on Wednesday called on the Food and Drug Administration to wrap up its ongoing safety review of medication abortion and pressed for the Trump administration to once again require in-person dispensing.
Democrats on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee argued women, not politicians, are in the best position to determine whether to ask for a prescription for mifepristone.
Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, chairman of the panel, said he hopes FDA Commissioner Marty Makary will agree to testify before the committee on the process in the future, though he didn’t set a deadline.
“At an absolute minimum, the previous in-person safeguards should be restored and it should be done immediately,” Cassidy said.
Republicans and anti-abortion organizations have become increasingly skeptical about the FDA’s review after news broke in December that Makary wanted to delay its release until after the November midterm elections.
Washington Democratic Sen. Patty Murray questioned Cassidy’s reasons for holding the hearing, saying more than “160 high-quality studies have been conducted and millions of women around the world use mifepristone safely every year with fewer complications, by the way, than Viagra or penicillin.”
Supreme Court case
Access to mifepristone, one of two pharmaceuticals used in medication abortion, which is FDA-approved for up to 10 weeks gestation, surged to the forefront after the U.S. Supreme Court ended the nationwide right to abortion in 2022.
Many Republican state legislatures have moved to bar access to mifepristone for abortions, while Democratic states have enacted shield laws to protect health care providers who prescribe and ship it to people in states with limited or no access.
Dr. Nisha Verma, a fellow at Physicians for Reproductive Health in Atlanta, testified before the committee that “the science on mifepristone’s safety and effectiveness is long-standing and settled.”
“Over the past 25 years, medication abortion using mifepristone and misoprostol has been rigorously studied and proven safe and effective in over 100 high-quality, peer-reviewed studies,” Verma said. “Extensive data show that medication abortion through telehealth is equally safe and effective and provides vital access for those who live in rural areas and in the growing number of maternity care deserts in the country.”
Verma contended the likely reason for the hearing was not genuine concern from Republicans about the safety and efficacy of mifepristone but “because people in this room feel uncomfortable with abortion.”
“And that’s okay, and we can talk about that,” Verma said. “And we can have an honest conversation about that and complexity and the reasons that my patients need abortion care. But we should not pretend that this is an issue of the science.”
Louisiana attorney general testifies
Louisiana Attorney General Elizabeth Murrill, a Republican, criticized the FDA’s decision during the Biden administration to allow prescriptions via telehealth and for the pharmaceuticals to be shipped, sometimes into states that bar their use.
“Shield laws in some states protect providers from liability and effectively nullify laws in other states,” Murrill said. “Their purpose is to make it more difficult to sue or prosecute individuals in those states.”
Indiana Republican Sen. Jim Banks expressed frustration that FDA Commissioner Makary was not among the witnesses testifying at the hearing and urged the agency to release the results of its review of mifepristone quickly.
“I’m disappointed that the FDA under Dr. Makary’s leadership hasn’t moved faster to restore the in-person dispensing requirement and strengthen the (Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies) program for mifepristone,” Banks said. “I hope the rumors are false, some of them are in print, that the agency is intentionally slow-walking its study on mifepristone health risks.”
Emily G. Hilliard, press secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the FDA, wrote in a statement the department “is conducting a study of reported adverse events associated with mifepristone to assess whether the FDA’s risk mitigation program continues to provide appropriate protections for women.”
“The FDA’s scientific review process is thorough and takes the time necessary to ensure decisions are grounded in gold-standard science,” Hilliard wrote. “Dr. Makary is upholding that standard as part of the Department’s commitment to rigorous, evidence-based review.”
Cassidy said after Banks raised his concerns that he hopes to have Makary testify “before the committee very soon and we’ve been speaking with the FDA to facilitate discussion on this and other issues.”
Cassidy added that HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “did promise to come back and we have requested that he come back and testify.”
Republicans, Family Research Council urge action by FDA
During a press conference after the hearing, Cassidy joined a handful of other GOP lawmakers and Family Research Council President Tony Perkins to further press the Trump administration to change the prescription guidelines for mifepristone.
Perkins said the Trump administration could change FDA guidelines around how mifepristone is prescribed and distributed “overnight” if it wanted to.
He also said it should immediately begin enforcing The Comstock Act, an 1873 law that could block shipping medication abortion.
“This is a two-step solution. One, is the in-person requirement being reestablished, the medical examinations to ensure that the women, their lives, are not put at risk,” Perkins said. “But then also … simply enforcing the law as it pertains to Comstock.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., speaks with Secretary of State Marco Rubio as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stands to the side in the U.S. Senate basement following a classified briefing on President Donald Trump's foreign policy plans on Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2026. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)
WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Wednesday he will meet with Danish officials next week, following a recent push from the Trump administration to annex or even use the military against Greenland — a course of action questioned by several Republican senators.
Senators sat through a closed, classified briefing Wednesday with Rubio about ongoing U.S. intervention in Venezuela launched over the weekend, and Democrats said afterward that he did not address their concerns about the operation.
In addition, President Donald Trump is considering options to acquire Greenland, including possible military operations, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Tuesday.
Danish officials have repeatedly stressed any move to take the sovereign nation by force would violate NATO bylaws, which bar members from acts of aggression against each other. Greenland, with a population of about 56,000, has its own local government but is also part of the Realm of Denmark.
Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski told reporters she does not support Trump’s goals for Greenland.
“I hate the rhetoric around either acquiring Greenland by purchase or by force. And you know I don’t use the word hate very often. But I think that it is very, very unsettling,” Murkowski said. “And certainly concerning as one who has actually been to Greenland.”
Rubio told reporters following the Venezuela briefing — open to all senators — that Energy Secretary Chris Wright will outline the Trump administration’s plans for that nation’s oil reserves later Wednesday. Trump said Saturday that the United States will “run the country” of Venezuela until “a proper transition can take place.”
“We feel very positive that not only will that generate revenue that will be used for the benefit of the Venezuelan people … but it also gives us an amount of leverage and influence and control over how this process plays out,” Rubio said.
The Senate meeting with Rubio, which also included Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, followed days of escalation by the Trump administration abroad that included capturing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and bringing him to the United States to face criminal charges, threatening to take Greenland by force from NATO member Denmark and seizing a Russian-flagged oil tanker in the North Atlantic sea as well as a second tanker tied to Venezuela.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth speaks to reporters at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2026. (Photo by Ariana Figueroa/States Newsroom)
Hegseth after the briefing defended the U.S. capture of the vessels, arguing the Trump administration was enforcing sanctions placed on Venezuelan oil.
Leavitt said during an afternoon press briefing that Trump officials will meet with oil executives on Friday to discuss an “immersive opportunity.”
Hours after the Jan. 3 military operation to capture Maduro, Trump stressed that Venezuela’s oil reserves were a major factor in U.S. plans. Trump told reporters that major oil companies were notified before and after the operation in Venezuela.
Senate GOP skeptical
Besides Murkowski, a handful of other Senate Republicans also expressed concern about the White House statement leaving open the possibility of military action on Greenland.
Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford said “we need to not threaten a peaceful nation that’s an ally where we have a military base already.”
Maine GOP Sen. Susan Collins said she also disagreed with the Trump administration’s push to acquire Greenland and said she’s not sure if the Trump administration is serious about using military force.
“It surprises me every time it comes up,” she said.
GOP Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota said he doesn’t “think military intervention is on the table” for Greenland.
Louisiana’s Republican Sen. John Kennedy said “to invade Greenland would be weapons grade stupid, and I don’t think President Trump is weapons grade stupid, nor is Marco Rubio.” He instead suggested possibly purchasing the territory, an offer that Denmark has already rejected.
Kentucky Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell, chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, wrote in a critical statement that “cooperation with Arctic allies from Canada to the Nordics already grants the United States sweeping access to positions of strategic importance.”
“Threats and intimidation by U.S. officials over American ownership of Greenland are as unseemly as they are counterproductive,” McConnell wrote. “And the use of force to seize the sovereign democratic territory of one of America’s most loyal and capable allies would be an especially catastrophic act of strategic self-harm to America and its global influence.”
U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., answers reporters’ questions during a press conference on Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2026. Also pictured, from left, are Florida Republican Rep. Carlos A. Giménez and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters following his weekly press conference he couldn’t comment on hypotheticals about a military takeover of Greenland, including whether Congress must approve such an action.
“No, I can’t because it depends on what that is. The Congress has a responsibility to declare war and I think there is no scenario where we’d be at war with Greenland,” Johnson said. “Under Article II, as we talked about in the room, the president has broad authority as commander-in-chief, as all previous presidents have. No one can forecast what is going to happen in Greenland. You’re asking a hypothetical that I cannot answer.”
Johnson said during the press conference that he doesn’t believe anyone in the Trump administration is “seriously considering” military action in Greenland. “And in the Congress, we’re certainly not.”
Democrats move toward vote on war powers
Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut called the administration’s plan regarding Venezuelan oil “insane.”
“They are talking about stealing the Venezuelan oil at gunpoint for a period of time undefined as leverage to micromanage the country,” he said. “The scope and insanity of that plan is absolutely stunning.”
Though Murphy said he was glad administration officials held a briefing, he also said he envisioned a “very, very rough ride” ahead.
Senate Democrats are gearing up to take another vote on a war powers resolution intended to curb Trump’s military actions abroad. An earlier attempt to pass a resolution was prompted by the administration’s multiple boat strikes in the Caribbean, which officials claimed were carrying drugs to the U.S., but backers failed to reach the 60-vote threshold in the Senate.
The next vote, led by Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine, is expected to take place this week.
Walking out of the briefing, Kaine said “it’s time to get this out of the (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) and get it in public hearings where senators can ask questions and the American public can learn what the hell is going on.” Such facilities are secure settings where classified information can be shared.
Kaine said he could not get a clear answer from the briefing if the Trump administration’s actions in Venezuela will be replicated for other countries like Greenland or Cuba.
Sen. Jacky Rosen questioned what the administration’s actions mean for the U.S., despite consensus Maduro is a “very brutal dictator” and satisfaction among many that he’s no longer governing Venezuela. While Maduro is no longer in charge, his vice president was sworn in, Delcy Rodríguez, effectively continuing the regime.
“We have problems right here at home,” the Nevada Democrat said, pointing to the recent expiration of enhanced tax credits for people who purchase their health insurance on the Affordable Care Act marketplace.
“Last time anybody checked, December 31st was just about a week ago, and how many people lost their health insurance because they couldn’t afford it because Donald Trump’s so busy, and Pete Hegseth’s so busy with the visuals of all these bombs going off all around the world that they’re not paying attention to people who are going to lose their health care?” asked Rosen.
Murphy, Kaine and Rosen all sit on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., center, joined by Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., left, and Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., speaks to reporters following a Senate Republican policy luncheon at the U.S. Capitol on Dec. 9, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Heather Diehl/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate in long-anticipated votes failed to advance legislation Thursday that would have addressed the rising cost of health insurance, leaving lawmakers deadlocked on how to curb a surge in premiums expected next year.
Senators voted 51-48 on a Republican bill co-sponsored by Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy and Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo that would have provided funding through Health Savings Accounts for some ACA marketplace enrollees during 2026 and 2027.
They then voted 51-48 on a measure from Democrats that would have extended enhanced tax credits for people who purchase their health insurance from the Affordable Care Act Marketplace for three years. A group of Senate Democrats in November agreed to end a government shutdown of historic length in exchange for a commitment by Republicans to hold a vote on extending the enhanced subsidies.
Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan of Alaska voted for the Democrats’ bill. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., voted against both bills.
Neither bill received the 60 votes needed to advance under the Senate’s legislative filibuster rule.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., criticized the ACA marketplace and the subsidies for leading to large increases in the costs of health insurance.
“Under Democrats’ plan insurance premiums will continue to spiral, American taxpayers will find themselves on the hook for ever-increasing subsidy payments,” Thune said. “And don’t think that all those payments are going to go to vulnerable Americans.”
Thune argued Democrats’ bill was only an extension of the “status quo” of a “failed, flawed, fraud program that is increasing costs at three times the rate of inflation.
Thune said the Republican bill from Cassidy and Crapo would “help individuals to meet their out-of-pocket costs and for many individuals who don’t use their insurance or who barely use it, it would allow them to save for health care expenses down the road.”
Schumer calls GOP plan ‘mean and cruel’
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said the three-year extension bill was the only option to avoid a spike in costs for people enrolled in ACA marketplace plans.
“By my last count, Republicans are now at nine different health care proposals and counting. And none of them give the American people the one thing they most want — a clean, simple extension of these health care tax credits,” Schumer said. “But our bill does extend these credits cleanly and simply and it’s time for Republicans to join us.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., speaks to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., during a Hanukkah reception at the U.S. Capitol Building on Dec. 10, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Schumer referred to the Cassidy-Crapo proposals as “stingy” as well as “mean and cruel.”
“Under the Republican plan, the big idea is essentially to hand people about $80 a month and wish them good luck,” Schumer said. “And even to qualify for that check, listen to how bad this is, Americans would be forced onto bare-bones bronze plans with sky-high deductibles; $7,000 or $10,000 for an individual, tens of thousands for a couple.”
After the votes failed, Schumer outlined some of the guardrails Democrats would put in place regarding negotiations with GOP colleagues.
“They want to talk about health care in general and how to improve it — we’re always open to that, but we do not want what they want — favoring the insurance companies, favoring the drug companies, favoring the special interests and turning their back on the American people,” he said.
Health Savings Accounts in GOP plan
The Cassidy-Crapo bill would have the Department of Health and Human Services deposit money into Health Savings Accounts for people enrolled in bronze or catastrophic health insurance plans purchased on the ACA marketplace in 2026 or 2027, according to a summary of the bill.
Health Savings Accounts are tax-advantaged savings accounts that consumers can use to pay for medical expenses that are not otherwise reimbursed. They are not health insurance products.
ACA marketplace enrollees who select a bronze or catastrophic plan and make up to 700% of the federal poverty level would receive $1,000 annually if they are between the ages of 18 and 49 and $1,500 per year if they are between the ages of 50 and 64.
That would set a threshold of $109,550 in annual income for one person, or $225,050 for a family of four, according to the 2025 federal poverty guidelines. The numbers are somewhat higher for residents of Alaska and Hawaii.
The funding could not go toward abortion access or gender transitions, according to the Republican bill summary.
Members of Congress have introduced several other health care proposals, including two bipartisan bills in the House that would extend the enhanced ACA marketplace tax credits for at least another year with some modifications.
Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has been reluctant to bring either bipartisan bill up for a floor vote, though he may not have the option if a discharge petition filed earlier this week garners the 218 signatures needed.
Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick wrote in a statement the legislation represents a “solution that can actually pass—not a political messaging exercise.”
“This bill delivers the urgent help families need now, while giving Congress the runway to keep improving our healthcare system for the long term,” Fitzpatrick wrote. “Responsible governance means securing 80 percent of what families need today, rather than risking 100 percent of nothing tomorrow.”
But Johnson said Wednesday that he will put a package of bills on the House floor next week that he believes “will actually reduce premiums for 100% of Americans who are on health insurance.” Details of those bills have not been disclosed.
Thune told reporters that if “somebody is successful in getting a discharge petition and a bill out of the House, obviously we’ll take a look at it. But at the moment, you know, we’re focused on the action here in the Senate, which is the side-by-side vote we’re going to have later today.”
Alaska’s Murkowski said lawmakers can find a compromise on health care by next week “if we believe it is possible.”
Political costs
The issue of affordability and rising health care costs is likely to be central to the November midterm elections, where Democrats hope to flip the House from red to blue and gain additional seats in the Senate.
The Democratic National Committee isn’t waiting to begin those campaigns, placing digital ads in the hometown newspapers of several Republicans up for reelection next year, including Maine’s Collins and Ohio’s Jon Husted.
“Today’s Senate vote to extend the ACA tax credits could be the difference between life and death for many Americans,” DNC Chair Ken Martin said in a press release. “Over 20 million Americans will see their health care premiums skyrocket next year if Susan Collins, John Cornyn, Jon Husted, and Dan Sullivan do not stand with working families and vote to extend these lifesaving credits.”
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt blasted Senate Democrats’ proposal during Thursday’s press briefing, calling it a “political show vote” meant to provide cover for Democrats, whom she blamed for creating the problem.
Trump and Republicans would “unveil creative ideas and solutions to the health care crisis that was created by Democrats,” she said. “Chuck Schumer is not sincerely interested in lowering health care costs for the American people. He’s putting this vote on the floor knowing that it will fail so he can have another talking point that he can throw around without any real plan or action.”
Shauneen Miranda and Jacob Fischler contributed to this report.
December 17, 20253:30 pmThis report was corrected to reflect Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., voted against both the Republican and Democratic health care bills.
Login
