A Milwaukee police officer has been accused of abusing his access to the department’s Flock camera network, according to a criminal complaint filed by the Milwaukee district attorney’s office Tuesday. Josue Ayala is charged with one count of misdemeanor misconduct in public for allegedly using MPD’s Flock network to determine the locations of two people, one of whom was in a romantic relationship with Ayala. 

If convicted, Ayala could face up to nine months in prison and up to $10,000 in fines. The criminal complaint states that a negotiation is underway, “a condition of which requires Josue Ayala to resign his position as a police officer” for MPD. 

Flock cameras continuously photograph and identify vehicles with AI-powered Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) technology, and then store that data in a network which can be searched by law enforcement agencies across the country. Distributed by the multi-billion dollar company Flock Safety, the cameras have been criticized for facilitating mass surveillance of citizens using a system that can be easily abused or misused by law enforcement. 

According to the criminal complaint, one of the alleged victims used a website to determine that Ayala had conducted numerous searches of that person’s license plate. “VICTIM ONE believed that Officer Ayala ran VICTIM ONE’S license plate over 100 times,” the complaint states. Detectives reviewed audit data from MPD’s Flock network showing that one victim had been searched by Ayala 55 times while the other victim had been searched 124 times over the same time period. 

Detectives learned that both victims used to be in a relationship together but had since broken up. After the relationship ended, one of the victims began to date Ayala. The investigation revealed that Ayala had used Flock while dating the victim.

The complaint states that Ayala was on duty when he conducted the searches. When officers use Flock, they need to put in a reason for the search. Ayala used “investigation” in order to conduct the unlawful searches. Last year, an analysis by the Wisconsin Examiner found that “investigation” was the most common search term Wisconsin law enforcement agencies used to access Flock during the first five months of 2025. Other agencies used even more vague search terms, including  just a dot. Agencies disagreed about whether officers should be held accountable for using vague terms. 

In December 2023, MPD leadership issued a memorandum warning that staff who used Flock for reasons unrelated to law enforcement could face discipline. MPD’s policy on ALPR technology and Flock also states that the system should only be used for “bona fide law enforcement purposes.” 

Ayala had been assigned to the MPD’s District 2 station on Lincoln Avenue, but is now on full suspension. The resignation agreement is pending with the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office, a police department press release states. 

Police Chief Jeffrey Norman said in a statement, “I am extremely disappointed to learn about the incident and expect all members, sworn and civilian, to demonstrate the highest ethical standards in the performance of their duties.” 

“If a member violates the code of conduct, they will be held accountable,” Norman added.  “… I want to remind the public that everyone is afforded the right of due process under the law, and as such, are innocent until proven guilty.” Norman also directed his department to create additional auditing mechanisms, although the department’s press release does not explain what exactly those mechanisms are. 

Ayala’s alleged use of surveillance technology for personal reasons is not an anomaly. In Menasha, an officer is facing felony misconduct in public office charges for using Flock to track a person’s vehicle while he was off duty. In Kenosha County, a sheriff’s deputy is also accused of using Flock and a squad car tracking system called Polaris to track one of his co-workers. The Examiner has filed records requests to obtain the internal investigation regarding the Kenosha sheriff’s deputy. 

The chief of the Greenfield Police Department is also facing felony misconduct in public office charges for installing a department-owned pole camera system on his property for personal reasons, and then deleting texts which may have been related to the investigation of the camera’s use. WTMJ reported that the chief captured himself deleting the messages using a body camera he’d worn to document a meeting where he was being offered the chance to retire. 

Residents in Milwaukee have been increasingly critical about the use of Flock cameras and facial recognition technology by both the police department and sheriff’s office. After a Fire and Police Commission meeting earlier this month related to facial recognition, where dozens of residents denounced the use of surveillance technologies, Norman announced that MPD would ban facial recognition for its staff. Locals have called for more oversight and transparency around police surveillance technology in the city.

The Milwaukee Police Association (MPD’s union) denounced Norman’s decision to restrict facial recognition. After the charges were announced against Ayala, the union posted on Facebook that he is innocent until proven guilty, that it respects “the integrity of that process,” and clarified that Ayala is not related to the union’s president Alex Ayala. 

Jon McCray Jones, policy analyst for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin, said in a statement that these latest accusations of Flock misuse “exemplify just how easily Flock cameras can be turned against the very people the technology purports to protect.”

McCray Jones criticized the use of vague terms to search Flock’s network, referencing reporting from the Examiner. “These meaningless, one-word descriptions make it impossible to know what the technology is being used for or whether it’s justified,” he said. McCray Jones called for greater public reporting and oversight of surveillance technologies in Milwaukee.

This story has been updated with comment from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump told governors Friday during a meeting at the White House he has no plans to surge federal immigration operations in states where it’s not wanted. 

New York Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul said during an afternoon press conference with several other governors that Trump was asked during the closed-door meeting about what lessons he learned from immigration enforcement operations in Minnesota, where federal officers killed two U.S. citizens. 

“The president said, ‘We’ll only go where we’re wanted.’ And said, for example, ‘I won’t go to New York unless Kathy calls and says she wants me to come to New York,’” she said. “I took that as a very positive outcome from this meeting. And I would want to hold him and the administration to that statement.”

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, vice chair of the National Governors Association, said Democratic governors were able to express “how problematic” actions by immigration enforcement officials have been, especially after Republicans in Congress drastically increased funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement as well as Customs and Border Protection in their signature tax and spending cuts law.  

“We were actually encouraged to hear the president say that one of the takeaways from Minnesota was that he only wants to go places that he is welcomed. So we were very glad to hear that,” he said. “I want to be very clear that until we can have an accountable agency, the type of surge that we saw in Minnesota is not welcome in the state of Maryland.”

Louisiana Republican Gov. Jeff Landry said during the press conference at the NGA’s winter conference there have been “no problems” with federal immigration enforcement actions in his state. 

“Why? Because it was a completely integrated operation under which local, state and federal partners worked together,” he said. “We did not allow people to break our laws and get in the way and impede law enforcement in doing their lawful duty.” 

Landry said Trump “made it very clear, if you don’t want our help, we won’t give you any help.”

Tariffs ruling interrupts meeting

Governors from throughout the country traveled to Washington, D.C., this week to attend their annual winter conference and meet with Trump at the White House, though that meeting was diverted somewhat after the Supreme Court ruled on tariffs. 

Trump is scheduled to host a black tie dinner for some of the governors this weekend, though he decided not to invite certain Democrats to that event, provoking controversy throughout the lead-up to the governors’ meeting. 

Oklahoma Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt, chairman of the National Governor’s Association, said during the afternoon press conference the morning meeting with Trump included 12 GOP and 10 Democratic governors. 

“It was overall a really productive meeting and a great show of ‘Hey, here is how the governors can come before the president and bring up issues that affect all of us,’” he said. 

Moore said the White House meeting was “productive” and “a chance for us to be able to share our thoughts and our perspectives and our ideas with the Cabinet secretaries and the agency heads and with the president himself.”

“We had a chance to talk about the things that matter to the people of our states. We had a chance to speak with Cabinet secretaries about energy prices and how we have to have a singular focus to bring energy prices down,” he said. “We had a chance to speak with the Transportation secretary about transportation issues. In the case of Maryland, it was the American Legion Bridge and the Francis Scott Key Bridge.”

Moore added the meeting was an important opportunity to “speak truth to power” and show that bipartisanship still exists on certain issues.

Sewage spill, Gateway Tunnel 

Moore said he didn’t bring up Trump blaming him for a sewage spill that began with a discharge into the Potomac River in the District of Columbia, opting instead to use the meeting to focus on talking with Cabinet secretaries on infrastructure, natural disaster relief and housing. 

“I am here to focus on helping the people of my state,” he said. “I am not going to spend a second talking about a petty attack that the president of the United States had.”

Hochul said she appreciated the Cabinet secretaries were at the meeting and that governors were able to talk with them about several issues. 

“I was able to talk about the Gateway Tunnel and keeping the funding on for the largest infrastructure project in America today,” she said, referring to a project to build new rail track between New York and New Jersey under the Hudson River. “We’d like to keep our offshore wind on and not have to go to court constantly to get that turned back on.”

North Carolina Democratic Gov. Josh Stein said he was able to speak directly with Trump about the state’s ongoing recovery needs from Hurricane Helene.

“We’ve got to rebuild houses. We’ve got to rebuild roads and bridges. We’ve got to rebuild businesses. And we cannot do that in North Carolina without the partnership of the federal government,” he said. “We have a $13.5 billion request with (the Office of Management and Budget) and with the Congress. And I asked the president and he said that they are eager to talk about that. 

“So I came away very encouraged that he will bring renewed focus from this administration to help western North Carolina recover from Hurricane Helene.”

Landry said the Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs, which was released during the meeting, “completely overshadowed, which, in my opinion, was getting ready to be a very productive meeting with the president.”

“It was unfortunate that the Supreme Court came out with a bad ruling at that time because I think we were going to have a great meeting,” he said. 

Trump vowed to keep the tariffs in place under other authorities he believes he holds during an afternoon press conference at the White House, where he also rebuked the six Supreme Court justices who wrote “that (the International Economic Emergency Powers Act) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.” 

Hochul disagreed with the assertion the Supreme Court’s decision wasn’t the right one. 

“I think the Supreme Court, many of whom are appointees by the president, sided with supporting the Constitution and doing what’s right,” she said. “So we support this decision and hope that we can continue to find ways to work together to drive down costs, not do the opposite as we saw tariffs do in our states.”

WASHINGTON — Democratic governors headed to an annual bipartisan gathering in the nation’s capital will not participate in a traditional White House black-tie dinner after President Donald Trump disinvited several Democrats from the event.

A joint statement Tuesday from the Democratic Governors Association said the state leaders “have a long record of working across the aisle to deliver results and we remain committed to this effort. But it’s disappointing this administration doesn’t seem to share the same goal.”

“At every turn, President Trump is creating chaos and division, and it is the American people who are hurting as a result,” the statement continued. “If the reports are true that not all governors are invited to these events, which have historically been productive and bipartisan opportunities for collaboration, we will not be attending the White House dinner this year. Democratic governors remain united and will never stop fighting to protect and make life better for people in our states.”

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, the association’s chair, and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, vice chair, led the statement, and were joined by 16 Democratic governors from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Wisconsin. 

A traditional formal working meeting at the White House including governors of both parties also appeared to be off the agenda.

Brandon Tatum, the National Governors Association’s acting executive director and CEO, said, “The bipartisan White House governors meeting is an important tradition, and we are disappointed in the administration’s decision to make it a partisan occasion this year.”

“To disinvite individual governors to the White House sessions undermines an important opportunity for federal-state collaboration. At this moment in our nation’s history, it is critical that institutions continue to stand for unity, dignity, and constructive engagement. NGA will remain focused on serving all governors as they deliver solutions and model leadership for the American people. Traditionally the White House has played a role in fostering these moments during NGA’s annual meeting. This year, they will not,” Tatum said in a statement.

Reports surfaced over the weekend that Trump had planned to exclude some Democratic governors from the annual White House events when Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, the National Governors Association vice chair, made public that the president had “uninvited” him from the dinner.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Tuesday at the daily briefing that Trump “can invite whomever he wants to dinners and events here at the White House.”

Leavitt said Tuesday that Moore “did not show up” to last year’s dinner, and “nobody reported on it.”

“But again, the president has the discretion to invite whomever he wants to the White House, and he welcomes all those who received an invitation to come, and if they don’t want to, that’s their loss,” Leavitt said.

The association’s 2026 gathering is scheduled for Feb. 19-21. The gathering will include “special guests and national experts for solutions-driven conversations on pressing national issues including education, energy, economic growth, artificial intelligence and more,” according to the association website.

The office of National Governors Association Chair Kevin Stitt, an Oklahoma Republican, said in a statement: “Governor Kevin Stitt has been honored to chair the National Governors Association this past year and has found that its strength does not rest on a single annual event but in its facilitation of ideas and best practices among leaders of 55 sovereign states and territories. In light of White House events no longer being associated with NGA, he is working with NGA leadership to adjust programming to ensure all governors coming into town have a productive time together. “

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump decided to exclude Democratic governors from a traditional annual meeting at the White House and to disinvite several others from a black-tie dinner, according to the White House, the governors and the National Governors Association.

The National Governors Association organizes the bipartisan winter gathering that usually includes a working meeting with the U.S. president and a major dinner at the White House. Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican, serves as current chair of the association, and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, a Democrat, is vice chair.

The governors’ visit to the nation’s capital comes amid rising tensions over Trump’s deployment of the National Guard and surge of federal immigration border patrol agents into Democratic-led states, including California, Illinois, Minnesota and Oregon.

Moore: ‘blatant disrespect’

Moore issued a statement Sunday that he was “uninvited” from the dinner, adding that the decision was “especially confounding” given that he was among a bipartisan group of governors at the White House in recent weeks to discuss lower energy costs.

“My peers, both Democrats and Republicans, selected me to serve as the Vice Chair of the NGA, another reason why it’s hard not to see this decision as another example of blatant disrespect and a snub to the spirit of bipartisan federal-state partnership,” Moore said. “As the nation’s only Black governor, I can’t ignore that being singled out for exclusion from this bipartisan tradition carries an added weight — whether that was the intent or not.”

Moore’s exclusion also comes on the heels of Trump’s posting of a racist video Friday depicting former President Barack Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama as apes. Trump deleted the post following loud disapproval that included criticism from his own party but has declined to apologize.

The offices of Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz did not immediately respond for comment. Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek decided “some time ago” not to attend the event so that she could be in her state during the legislative session, according to spokesperson Elisabeth Shepard.

Moore added: “As Governor of Maryland and Vice Chair of the NGA, my approach will never change: I’m ready to work with the administration anywhere we can deliver results. Yet, I promised the people of my state I will work with anybody but will bow down to nobody. And I guess the President doesn’t like that.”

The office of Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, learned Friday about the exclusion of Democratic governors and similarly issued a statement of concern.

“Gov. Polis has always been willing to work with anyone across the political spectrum who wants to help work on the hardest problems facing Colorado and America, regardless of party or who occupies the White House. This is a disappointing decision for a traditionally bipartisan event between governors and whomever occupies the White House,” according to a statement from his office emailed to States Newsroom. 

California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office confirmed Monday he had also been uninvited.

‘Many Democrats’ invited, but not all

A White House official on Monday confirmed Trump’s exclusion of some Democratic governors from the annual dinner.

“Many Democrats were invited to dinner at the White House, and others were not. These are White House events and the President reserves the right to invite whomever he wants,” the official told States Newsroom in an emailed statement.

Brandon Tatum, the National Governors Association’s acting executive director and CEO, said, “The bipartisan White House governors meeting is an important tradition, and we are disappointed in the administration’s decision to make it a partisan occasion this year.”

“To disinvite individual governors to the White House sessions undermines an important opportunity for federal-state collaboration. At this moment in our nation’s history, it is critical that institutions continue to stand for unity, dignity, and constructive engagement. NGA will remain focused on serving all governors as they deliver solutions and model leadership for the American people. Traditionally the White House has played a role in fostering these moments during NGA’s annual meeting. This year, they will not,” Tatum said in a statement.

This year’s meeting follows a tense exchange during the 2025 gathering between Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, and Trump, who threatened to withhold all federal funding from the state unless Mills complied with the president’s executive order to ban transgender athletes from women’s sports.

The association’s 2026 meeting is scheduled for Feb. 19-21. The gathering will include “special guests and national experts for solutions-driven conversations on pressing national issues including education, energy, economic growth, artificial intelligence and more,” according to the association website.

Julia Shumway contributed to this report.

A years-long debate over the use of facial recognition software by the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD) came to a head at a contentious Thursday meeting of the city’s Fire and Police Commission (FPC) attended by more than 60 local residents. Over the course of questioning, stretching late into the evening hours, commissioners learned from MPD leadership that the department had continued using facial recognition software, even as a draft policy to put guardrails on the technology was still being developed outside of the FPC’s control. 

By meeting’s end, FPC vice chairwoman Bree Spencer expressed a desire for the commission to consider finding some way to push for a pause to MPD’s use of facial recognition software, though the FPC itself did not take any immediate formal action. Less than 24 hours later, MPD Chief Jeffrey Norman announced that the department would ban the use of facial recognition technology, and discontinue its efforts to acquire permanent access to the technology. 

During the Thursday meeting, Norman and his staff were grilled by FPC commissioners after hours of impassioned public testimony. The sweltering meeting room was packed almost shoulder-to-shoulder, with every seat taken and people standing along the wall in spaces not already taken by the local news station’s bulky cameras. Many others waited in the hallway, as an overflow room had not been set up.

One by one, local residents expressed a variety of grievances about facial recognition. Some decried MPD’s prior use of software without disclosure to the public or FPC, while others expressed fears about how the technology could be used against Milwaukeeans by what many called an authoritarian federal government. 

Paul Smith, a member of the Oneida Nation who serves on Milwaukee’s Equal Rights Commission, was the first to speak. Smith described how his relatives had been among the first to come down from the Oneida reservation to Milwaukee seeking factory work. “We are also people who have to carry two IDs all the time,” said Smith. He suggested that facial recognition and other camera technologies are methods the government uses to track people it considers enemies. 

“I live in fear every day,” said Smith, describing how his heart rate accelerates when he drives out of Milwaukee County. Smith added that facial recognition technology is unreliable.  “My dad can use my phone because his face looks like mine,” he said.  “These cameras don’t work and they punish people, and there’s no presumption of innocence when you’re being watched all the time.”

Nadiyah Johnson, founder and CEO of the Milky Way Tech Hub, highlighted the notoriously high error rates facial recognition software has for people of color. Johnson said that federal tests have shown false positive rates as much as 10 to 100 times higher for Black people. “I’m sure that we all can understand why that would be a problem for the city of Milwaukee,” said Johnson. She added that “guardrails do not fix the core problem.” 

When surveillance infrastructure is created, Johnson said, the scope of who is targeted expands. She and other community members who spoke brought up Flock license plate reader cameras which, like facial recognition, are AI-powered and a top concern for many who attended Thursday night’s FPC meeting. Flock has attracted criticism for being used for vague or unlawful reasons by police, and for leaving some feeds exposed on the open internet. “This is not a future concern, this is already happening nationally,” said Johnson. “The public cannot meaningfully consent to systems we can not see, audit, or challenge.”

Amanda Merkwae, advocacy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, recounted her attempts to learn more about MPD’s use of facial recognition by filing open records requests. After waiting five months and threatening to sue, the ACLU was sent a response that the MPD does not track requests made for use of facial recognition in individual investigations. When the city’s IT department ran an email search, the term “facial recognition” appeared in 196,688 emails from 2020-2025. 

When the ACLU narrowed the request to 16 cases which MPD cited in presentations to city commissions, they found that “in a handful of those cases” which had been “hand picked” by MPD for those presentations, “the police reports did not mention [Facial Recognition Technology] at all,” Merkwae told the FPC. “In conversations with some defense attorneys, it appears that [Facial Recognition Technology] use was not turned over to the defense in discovery in some cases,” said Merkwae. “In cases where attorneys filed pre-trial motions to get insight into the notoriously racially biased [Facial Recognition Technology] algorithms, they hit a brick wall because that information is proprietary.” 

In its presentations to city officials, MPD had said that facial recognition helped identify suspects in cases including sexual assault and shooting investigations.

Much of the public testimony Thursday focused on the potential for surveillance technologies to harm democracy. Speakers focused on the immigration crackdown in Minnesota, where thousands of people have been arrested and two people killed by federal agents. Videos posted online show immigration agents taking pictures of protesters, legal observers and vehicles, using facial recognition technology to identify detainees, and taunting members of the public by saying their pictures were going to be uploaded to a database of  domestic terrorists. An immigrants’ rights group recently discovered what it describes as a watchlist of immigration attorneys created by ICE.

Taleavia Cole and her husband Caliph Muab-El have experienced police surveillance after protesting the killing of Cole’s brother Alvin. Several of Cole’s family members, their lawyers and dozens of others were placed on a list created by the Wauwatosa Police Department. The list, which also included a Wisconsin Examiner reporter, was shared with numerous state, local, and federal agencies and was also referred to by police as a “target list”.

Muab-El said Black and brown communities have been used as test subjects for surveillance and militarized policing. This is how he views MPD’s deal with the data company Biometrica, which has offered to trade 2.5 million jail and booking photos from Milwaukee for MPD to have access to facial recognition software. 

“We’re talking about people,” said Muab-El. “And when we’re talking about people, we need to focus on the things that are most important for people to thrive in circumstances like this. Everything in our society and our community has been gutted from us almost. The resources are very scarce already…To institute something like this that will exacerbate the circumstances of our already falling and broken-in-pieces communities is definitely an attack on justice on our people.” 

He stressed that “anybody can be misidentified at any time,” and that the city will not be able to prevent federal agencies from accessing the data it collects using facial recognition software. “No one is safe,” said Muab-El. “Bystanders who believe in justice and the cause of people, these people are going to become more vulnerable. These attacks are going to become more prevalent…They’re going to become more intense.”

Cole recounted her own experiences of being placed on the target list, and her belief that even her family’s phone calls were being monitored. “So whose side are you on is the real question, because someday it could be your family member,” she said. “And next thing you know, they want to know what you know, what you’re saying, what you’re doing. Like you’re a criminal, like you’re nobody.” 

Testimony went on for several hours, pausing for a presentation on facial recognition technology from the New York University Law School Policing Project. The presenters said that while facial recognition can assist law enforcement investigations, the technology also carries serious constitutional and civil risks. Whether a city or town uses facial recognition software should be a decision made by the entire community, the presenters said, adding that having guardrails to prevent abuse of the technology is important. 

Late in the meeting, after many people had left, Chief Norman and MPD staff provided an update and took questions from the FPC. Norman said a draft policy his department’s use of facial recognition technology had not yet been finalized, and that he was “slow walking” the process to get as much input as possible. He stressed that facial recognition software is used to develop leads, and cannot be used as the sole basis for establishing probable cause for an arrest. The department had also begun logging uses of facial recognition, but those records only captured uses since 2024. 

Under sharp questioning from FPC Commissioner Krissie Fung the commission learned that MPD had continued using facial recognition technology even as the drafting of a policy was ongoing. Some sort of of a draft policy — described by Fung as a “draft of a draft of a draft” — appeared to have been viewed by at least some members of the city’s common council, but not the FPC. 

Although several commissioners expressed concerns about facial recognition technology and MPD’s deal with Biometrica, the FPC’s power to do anything about it is limited, since the Republican-controlled Legislature had worked to eliminate the FPC’s policy-making powers for the Milwaukee police. The debate over the use of facial recognition software in Milwaukee had gone on since last year, with members of the public speaking against its adoption consistently and in great numbers. Spencer, the FPC’s vice-chairwoman, said that the public shouldn’t have to attend more meetings to say the same things, and that her own trust in the department on the issue had eroded. 

In a statement issued Friday, Heather Hough, Norman’s chief of staff, said the police department understands “the public concern, particularly in light of national circumstances…Despite our belief that this is useful technology…we recognize that public trust is far more valuable.” Hough’s statement continued, “therefore, effective immediately, Chief (Jeffrey) Norman will issue a department directive banning the use of facial recognition for all members.” 

Hough said that MPD will continue work on creating a policy, but will not use facial recognition technology until that process is complete. While MPD appeared to be responding to the public outcry, the Milwaukee Police Association (the department’s union) said in a statement that it was “deeply concerned and disappointed” by the decision to restrict facial recognition technology. The police association was also irked by recent restrictions on vehicle pursuits saying that both policy shifts do not “eliminate crime or danger,” but instead “risks shifting that danger onto Milwaukee residents and the officers sworn to protect them.” 

The union’s statement described facial recognition as “an investigative tool that can assist detectives in generating leads in violent crime cases. It does not replace traditional police work or serve as a basis for arrest without further investigation. When used responsibly and with appropriate safeguards, this technology can help identify violent offenders, support victims, and improve case clearance rates.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A bill to regulate Wisconsin's cottage food industry has drawn opposition from home bakers. (Photo courtesy of Becca Barth)

A Wisconsin Senate committee held a public hearing Tuesday on legislation that would create a regulatory system for the cottage food industry in Wisconsin. 

In the hearing of the Committee on Transportation and Local Government, representatives of restaurants, commercial bakeries and grocery stores supported the proposal arguing that the bill would treat all food sellers equally, while the home bakers who would be affected by the bill complained that it would institute harsh income restrictions while subjecting them to requirements that aren’t relevant to the specifics of selling food out of a home kitchen. 

Authored by Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto), the bill has largely Republican support but Milwaukee-area Democratic Reps. Russell Goodwin and Sylvia Ortiz-Velez have signed on as co-sponsors. 

Under the bill, cottage food producers would be required to register with the state Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. As part of that registration, people would need to provide a list of all the foods they sell and an ingredient list for each item. Any producer that earns between $10,000 and $40,000 in revenue from their home business would be subject to inspections by DATCP. 

Anyone who makes more than $40,000 in revenue would no longer be considered a cottage food producer and would be required to obtain work space in a commercial kitchen. 

The cottage food industry in Wisconsin was allowed to grow after a 2017 lawsuit struck down a state law banning the sale of home baked goods. Since then, the state has operated with just the court precedent guiding the industry. 

Throughout the hearing, commercial industry representatives pushed for the passage of the bill as it’s written. Lobbying records show that the Wisconsin Bakers Association, Wisconsin Restaurants Association and Wisconsin Grocers Association have supported the bill. 

“You have created these rules for me, and I get to be surprise inspected and tested on them to ensure consumer food safety,” Chrissy Meisner, owner of a bakery in Bloomer and member of the Wisconsin Bakers Association, said. “It is clear, even in my small town, that your honor system of them following the rules doesn’t work. There seems to be a need for the same oversight you require of me to sell bread and cookies applied to everyone.”

While much of the testimony in favor of the bill focused on food safety issues, some of those in favor also said they were concerned about competition from home producers. 

“There’s only so much food that can be sold into a community,” Susan Quam, executive vice president of the Wisconsin Restaurant Association, said. “And everyone needs to fight for their share of those sales, whether it’s the grocery store, the local bakery, the restaurant or the cottage food baker. However, the first three are regulated, licensed, and have a lot of different and additional requirements that are put upon them to get that same very low profit margin.”

Home producers at the hearing said they would welcome regulation to tame their industry’s current wild west landscape, just not the regulations under the bill as currently written. The Wisconsin Farmers Union and the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty have both lobbied against the bill. 

The 2017 lawsuit that helped the industry bloom was litigated by the Institute for Justice, a national non-profit law firm focused on civil liberties. Ellen Hamlett, the organization’s activism manager, said she believes there’s “been a lot of industry pressure” to draft the current version of the bill. 

“Wisconsin’s cottage food laws are overdue for reform,” Hamlett said. “It is very important to note that the way that this bill is structured will jeopardize the living of many cottage food producers.”

Jobea Murray, president of the Wisconsin Cottage Food Association, said that the bill represents a huge administrative burden for both the home producers and for DATCP, which will not receive any additional funding for implementing the registration and inspection requirements under the bill. She also said the food safety certifications required under the bill are specific to restaurant-like settings, which won’t help make home produced products safer. 

“So we want to work with you to get this right,” Murray said. “[The bill] is a great starting point, but it needs significant changes to truly support Wisconsin’s cottage food economy.”

A lot of the opposition to the bill was centered around the $40,000 revenue cap. Several speakers noted that most states that allow the sale of cottage foods have no cap or else set their caps much higher. Iowa and Illinois do not set a cap on their cottage food sales while Minnesota’s revenue cap is $78,000.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A young woman asks AI companion ChatGPT for help this month in New York City. States are pushing to prevent the use of artificially intelligent chatbots in mental health to try to protect vulnerable users. (Photo by Shalina Chatlani/Stateline)

Editor’s note: If you or someone you know needs help, the national suicide and crisis lifeline in the U.S. is available by calling or texting 988. There is also an online chat at 988lifeline.org.

States are passing laws to prevent artificially intelligent chatbots, such as ChatGPT, from being able to offer mental health advice to young users, following a trend of people harming themselves after seeking therapy from the AI programs.

Chatbots might be able to offer resources, direct users to mental health practitioners or suggest coping strategies. But many mental health experts say that’s a fine line to walk, as vulnerable users in dire situations require care from a professional, someone who must adhere to laws and regulations around their practice.

“I have met some of the families who have really tragically lost their children following interactions that their kids had with chatbots that were designed, in some cases, to be extremely deceptive, if not manipulative, in encouraging kids to end their lives,” said Mitch Prinstein, senior science adviser at the American Psychological Association and an expert on technology and children’s mental health.

“So in such egregious situations, it’s clear that something’s not working right, and we need at least some guardrails to help in situations like that,” he said.

While chatbots have been around for decades, AI technology has become so sophisticated that users may feel like they’re talking to a human. The chatbots don’t have the capacity to offer true empathy or mental health advice like a licensed psychologist would, and they are by design agreeable — a potentially dangerous model for someone with suicidal ideations. Several young people have died by suicide following interactions with chatbots.

States have enacted a variety of laws to regulate the types of interactions chatbots can have with users. Illinois and Nevada have completely banned the use of AI for behavioral health. New York and Utah passed laws requiring chatbots to explicitly tell users that they are not human. New York’s law also directs chatbots to detect instances of potential self-harm and refer the user to crisis hotlines and other interventions.

More laws may be coming. California and Pennsylvania are among the states that might consider legislation to regulate AI therapy.

President Donald Trump has criticized state-by-state regulation of AI, saying it stymies innovation. In December, he signed an executive order that aims to support the United States’ “global AI dominance” by overriding state artificial intelligence laws and establishing a national framework.

Still, states are moving ahead. Before Trump’s executive order, Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis last month proposed a “Citizen Bill of Rights For Artificial Intelligence” that, among many other things, would prohibit AI from being used for “licensed” therapy or mental health counseling and provide parental controls for minors who may be exposed to it.

“The rise of AI is the most significant economic and cultural shift occurring at the moment; denying the people the ability to channel these technologies in a productive way via self-government constitutes federal government overreach and lets technology companies run wild,” DeSantis wrote on social media platform X in November.

‘A false sense of intimacy’

At a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last September, some parents shared their stories about their children’s deaths after ongoing interactions with an artificially intelligent chatbot.

Sewell Setzer III was 14 years old when he died by suicide in 2024 after becoming obsessed with a chatbot.

“Instead of preparing for high school milestones, Sewell spent his last months being manipulated and sexually groomed by chatbots designed by an AI company to seem human, to gain trust, and to keep children like him endlessly engaged by supplanting the actual human relationships in his life,” his mother, Megan Garcia, said during the hearing.

Another parent, Matthew Raine, testified about his son Adam, who died by suicide at age16 after talking for months with ChatGPT, a program owned by the company OpenAI.

“We’re convinced that Adam’s death was avoidable, and because we believe thousands of other teens who are using OpenAI could be in similar danger right now,” Raine said.

Prinstein, of the American Psychological Association, said that kids are especially vulnerable when it comes to AI chatbots.

“By agreeing with everything that kids say, it develops a false sense of intimacy and trust. That’s really concerning, because kids in particular are developing their brains. That approach is going to be unfairly attractive to kids in a way that may make them unable to use reason, judgment and restraints in the way that adults would likely use when interacting with a chatbot.”

The Federal Trade Commission in September launched an inquiry into seven companies making these AI-powered chatbots, questioning what efforts are in place to protect children.

​​“AI chatbots can effectively mimic human characteristics, emotions, and intentions, and generally are designed to communicate like a friend or confidant, which may prompt some users, especially children and teens, to trust and form relationships with chatbots,” the FTC said in its order.

Companies such as OpenAI have responded by saying that they are working with mental health experts to make their products safer and to limit chances of self-harm among its users.

“Working with mental health experts who have real-world clinical experience, we’ve taught the model to better recognize distress, de-escalate conversations, and guide people toward professional care when appropriate,” the company wrote in a statement last October.

Legislative efforts

With action at the federal level in limbo, efforts to regulate AI chatbots at the state level have had limited success.

Dr. John “Nick” Shumate, a psychiatrist at the Harvard University Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and his colleagues reviewed legislation to regulate mental health-related artificial intelligence systems across all states between January 2022 and May 2025.

The review found 143 bills directly or indirectly related to AI and mental health regulation. As of May 2025, 11 states had enacted 20 laws that researchers found were meaningful, direct and explicit in the ways they attempted to regulate mental health interactions.

They concluded that legislative efforts tended to fall into four different buckets: professional oversight, harm prevention, patient autonomy and data governance.

“You saw safety laws for chatbots and companion AIs, especially around self-harm and suicide response,” Shumate said in an interview.

New York enacted one such law last year that requires AI chatbots to remind users every three hours that it is not a human. The law also requires the chatbot to detect the potential of self-harm.

“There’s no denying that in this country, we’re in a mental health crisis,” New York Democratic state Sen. Kristen Gonzalez, the law’s sponsor, said in an interview. “But the solution shouldn’t be to replace human support from licensed professionals with untrained AI chatbots that can leak sensitive information and can lead to broad outcomes.”

In Virginia, Democratic Del. Michelle Maldonado is preparing legislation for this year’s session that would put limits on what chatbots can communicate to users in a therapeutic setting.

“The federal level has been slow to pass things, slow to even create legislative language around things. So we have had no choice but to fill in that gap,” said Maldonado, a former technology lawyer.

She noted that states have passed privacy laws and restrictions on nonconsensual intimate images, licensing requirements and disclosure agreements.

New York Democratic state Sen. Andrew Gounardes, who sponsored a law regulating AI transparency, said he’s seen the growing influence of AI companies at the state level.

And that is concerning to him, he said, as states try to take on AI companies for issues ranging from mental health to misinformation and beyond.

“They are hiring former staffers to become public affairs officers. They are hiring lobbyists who know legislators to kind of get in with them. They’re hosting events, you know, by the Capitol, at political conferences, to try to build goodwill,” Gounardes said.​​

“These are the wealthiest, richest, biggest companies in the world,” he said. “And so we have to really not let up our guard for a moment against that type of concentrated power, money and influence.”

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

"What major purchase does anyone in this room make without knowing the cost before you make the purchase? It is inconceivable to me that we do not know what something is going to cost of that magnitude before we actually consent to the cost,” Sen. Mary Felzkowski said. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

A bill to implement state-level enforcement of federal hospital price transparency requirements in Wisconsin, with the goal of bringing down the cost of health care, received pushback from hospital representatives and support from employers on Wednesday.

Sen. Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin) told the Senate Licensing, Regulatory Reform, State and Federal Affairs Committee that ensuring that the cost of services provided would help with health care affordability.  

“When hospitals clearly share pricing information, patients can make informed decisions. Trust in the system grows and costs come down naturally,” Bradley said, adding that the bill would ensure Wisconsin “reaps the benefits” of changes made by the Trump administration. 

During his first term, President Donald Trump’s administration implemented rules to require hospitals to post pricing information online. The effects of the changes on patients’ costs have been mixed. At the start of his second term, Trump signed an executive order intended to bolster the effort and in December, the administration proposed a new rule that aims to simplify how price data is organized and shared with people. 

SB 383 would instruct the Wisconsin Department of Health Services to enforce federal price transparency requirements for hospitals. 

Bradley and Rep. Robert Wittke (R-Caledonia), the bill coauthors, said it is needed to help ensure that federal policies are being followed.

“Sometimes we need to take action to make sure that it goes all the way through the state and all of our residents have access to the things that are expected through federal law,” Wittke said. 

Bradley said the lawmakers aren’t trying to penalize hospitals, just ensure people have access to information. 

If a hospital is found to be out of compliance under the bill, Wisconsin DHS would be able to take several actions including providing a written notice to the hospital, requesting a corrective action plan or imposing a financial penalty. DHS would also need to keep a public list of any hospitals that have violated the requirements.

Hospitals would also need to be certified as being in compliance with the requirements when seeking judgment from a court against a patient who owes a debt for services.

Lawmakers introduced a similar bill in 2023, but it failed to receive a floor vote in the Senate and advance in the Assembly.

The current version of the bill includes a provision that says that if federal laws change and are eliminated, then provisions in the bill that establish state level requirements for publishing prices will take effect.

Under those provisions, each hospital would need to make a list of “shoppable services” — ones that can be scheduled in advance such as a knee replacement — available with the standard charge for each item that would be publicly available. A hospital’s list would need to include at least 300 “shoppable services,” and if a hospital doesn’t provide that many, it must list all of its shoppable services.

The change is meant to avoid overlapping and varying requirements, though hospital representatives expressed concerns that would happen anyway.

The Wisconsin Hospital Association (WHA) opposes the bill. Christian Moran, the WHA vice president of Medicaid and payer reimbursement policy, said during the hearing that the organization’s opposition to the bill is not opposition to price transparency.

“Our opposition is to the added regulatory complexity that is created by layering on state level enforcement and state level regulations and unlimited fines on Wisconsin hospitals when robust federal regulation and enforcement already exists,” Moran said.

Moran said no Wisconsin hospitals have been fined for noncompliance since the first federal regulations went into effect. 

“Personal experience, it’s somewhat inevitable: if you pass legislation on the state level that mirrors the federal level it will eventually not match up,” John Russell, president and CEO of Prairie Ridge Health, said. 

Hospital representatives also expressed concerns that not enough attention was being given to the role of health insurance companies. 

“The solution proposed to you in [SB] 383 is to double up on existing enforcement for hospitals while ignoring the state’s current responsibility to enforce and monitor insurance compliance,” Moran said.

Brian Stephens, CEO of the Door County Medical Center, said the state should be more focused on the “middlemen” including insurance providers, saying that bolstering the transparency of hospital costs has its limitations. He spoke to the work that his medical center has done over many years to improve transparency of prices.

“There’s a disconnect in this country between the concerted efforts of health care providers to provide reasonable and transparent prices and the costs that people are paying for health insurance. Unfortunately, hospital price transparency efforts have not put a dent in that dichotomy,” Stephens said. “Perhaps we need to be asking for more transparency from health insurance companies and other middlemen to understand the real drivers of health care costs in our country. Perhaps hospitals have just become a good punching bag for folks who need an effective sound bite. The reality is that, despite our wholehearted commitment to providing reasonable upfront prices, transparency has its limitations. What are the odds that a person waking up with pain will take the time to bring out his or her phone and search the most affordable hospital or clinic prior to seeking treatment.”

Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) said the testimony focused on the insurance companies’ role sounded like “a lot of finger-pointing.” 

Several other states have adopted laws or are in the process of advancing bills to bolster price transparency including Colorado, Washington State and Ohio. 

Patrick Neville, a former Republican state representative in Colorado who helped pass a similar law in his state, testified on the Wisconsin bill, saying provisions in his home state have already helped. He told the story of one patient who was charged nearly $80,000 for a hysterectomy, but didn’t have to pay the cost.

“Because we had the consumer protections in this bill in Colorado, and they weren’t compliant with price transparency. They couldn’t actually collect that $80,000,” Neville said. “That was really important and powerful for the actual consumer in this case, and so it’s actually working in Colorado.” 

Neville added that the Colorado legislation did not codify the federal rules, but he wishes it had. 

“Any president could get rid of those rules at any point and I think the way this bill is crafted… It’s hugely important,” Neville said. “That’s a clever way to craft it.” 

Several employers testified in favor of the legislation. 

Erik Sonju, president of Fitchburg-based Power System Engineering, described the unpredictable jumps in health care costs that his company has grappled with since 2018 when he started in his position. He said that 2023 was the year the “straw broke” as they dealt with a 20% increase in insurance rates and he wasn’t able to get clear answers about the rising cost. 

Sen. Mary Felzkowski (R-Tomahawk) told the committee that the cost of health care is too high. 

“This is common sense. What major purchase does anyone in this room make without knowing the cost before you make the purchase? It is inconceivable to me that we do not know what something is going to cost of that magnitude before we actually consent to the cost,” Felzkowski said.  

Felzkowski is the lead coauthor on two of the other bills the committee took up. SB 796 would require insurers to submit information about claims to the Wisconsin Health Information Organization (WHIO), a nonprofit organization that collects health care claims data, and SB 797 would provide a $600,000 grant for the WHIO to establish an online dashboard of health care claims information and to add new payer data.

The committee also took testimony on SB 703, coauthored by Wittke and Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield), which would establish that employers who sponsor group health insurance plans have a right to data relating to the employees and dependents covered under those plans, including claims data, utilization reports and other information necessary to understand and manage health care costs.

Wittke said the bill will maintain privacy protections by requiring employers to designate a HIPAA compliance privacy officer and ensure that the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance maintains oversight. The bill also includes a provision prohibiting data from being sold to any party without the permission of the plan sponsor and the person to whom the claims data relates.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

(Getty Images)

This article first appeared on KFF Health News.

As Congress debates whether to extend the temporary federal subsidies that have helped millions of Americans buy health coverage, a crucial underlying reality is sometimes overlooked: Those subsidies are merely a band-aid covering the often unaffordable cost of health care.

California, Massachusetts, Connecticut and five other states have set caps on health care spending in a bid to rein in the intense financial pressure felt by many families, individuals and employers who every year face increases in premiums, deductibles and other health-related expenses.

Hospitals and other health care providers are citing Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed by President Donald Trump in July, as one more reason to challenge those limits.

The law is expected to reduce federal Medicaid spending by more than $900 billion over a decade, which mathematically should help the overall health care system meet the caps. But the law is also expected to increase the number of uninsured Americans, mostly Medicaid beneficiaries, by an estimated 10 million people. Health care analysts predict hospitals and other providers will raise prices to cover the double whammy of lost Medicaid revenue and the cost of caring for an influx of newly uninsured patients.

Whether regulators in some states will allow providers to justify higher prices and exceed the spending caps is unclear. Only California and Oregon can penalize providers financially if they fail to meet targets.

“Are we going to say, ‘That’s OK’? Or are we going to say, ‘Well, you exceeded the target. We’re still going to penalize you for that’?” said Richard Pan, a former state lawmaker and a member of the California Office of Health Care Affordability’s board. “That has not yet been decided.”

The California Hospital Association, the industry’s main state lobbying group, filed a lawsuit in October asking a state court to strike down the spending caps, which it argued fail to account for all the cost pressures hospitals face. Those pressures, it said, include an aging, sicker population; the rising cost of labor; expensive advances in medical technology; large capital outlays on required seismic retrofitting; and changes in federal policy, including the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The hospital group’s lawsuit also asserted that the state affordability office, by hastily imposing ill-considered cost-cutting targets, was undermining its other key mission of improving health care access, quality and equity.

California’s affordability office last year set a five-year target to cap statewide spending growth, starting at 3.5% in 2025 and declining to 3% by 2029. The annual caps apply to a wide range of health care entities, including hospitals, medical groups, insurers and other payers.

Earlier this year, it imposed much lower spending growth caps — starting at 1.8% in 2026 and declining to 1.6% by 2029 — for seven “high-cost” hospitals.

“The spending caps set by politically appointed bureaucrats could force cuts that result in many Californians traveling farther for care, facing longer emergency room wait times, experiencing more overcrowding and losing access to critical services,” Carmela Coyle, the hospital association’s president and CEO, said in an October press release.

The California attorney general’s office, which will represent the affordability agency, has not yet filed a response to the hospital group’s complaint and did not respond to a request for comment.

Hospitals’ pushback

California is not the only state taking a close look at hospital prices, which are widely considered a primary driver of health care costs.

“States, armed with information that points to payments to hospitals as a driver of what is way beyond affordable commercial premiums, have begun to take increasingly targeted actions focused on commercial hospital prices,” said Michael Bailit, founder of the Needham, Massachusetts-based consultancy Bailit Health, which has advised multiple states, including California, on ways to tame health care spending. “It is not surprising that the hospital industry is going to oppose such state actions.”

In its lawsuit, the California Hospital Association said the affordability office’s own report showed that pharmaceutical and insurance companies are largely responsible for high costs.

Hospitals in some states with cost growth limits, including Connecticut and Massachusetts, have expressed objections similar to the ones raised in the California lawsuit. They could follow their counterparts in California if their lawsuit succeeds, said Peter Lee, who led California’s Affordable Care Act marketplace, Covered California, for over a decade and is now a senior scholar at Stanford Medicine’s Clinical Excellence Research Center.

Lee said the work of California’s affordability office and similar agencies in other states is just about the only systemwide effort being made to cut health care costs. They are basically saying, “‘Look, health care is taking money away from education, it is taking money away from the environment, it is taking money away from everything in the public sector, and in the private sector it is taking money away from wages,’” he said. “‘We don’t know how you, the health system, are going to do it, but it is your job not just to provide quality but to lower costs. Here’s the target.’”

To be sure, achieving the cost savings that California and those other states are seeking is no easy lift. It will ultimately require persuading large, financially powerful players that compete fiercely for health care dollars to adopt a different mindset and begin cooperating to reduce costs instead. And that, in many cases, will mean lower revenue.

But the status quo, as many people know all too well, means continued financial pain for millions.

In early 2020, Estevan Rodriguez, a bartender at California’s Monterey Beach Hotel, had surgery for a staph infection in his leg. The bill came to nearly $168,000. His insurance paid most of it, but he still owed $5,665, which took him two years to pay, more than $200 every month. “It may not be a lot to some people, but it was a lot to me,” Rodriguez said.

He said he dropped his Hulu subscription, switched to a lower-cost cellphone, and got cheaper car insurance. He started going to food banks rather than the grocery store, he said, and had a lot less time with his kids, because he was constantly working to pay off the hospital bill.

Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula, where Rodriguez had his surgery, is one of the seven hospitals identified by California’s affordability office as high-cost. A study by the office attributed high hospital prices in Monterey County to a lack of market competition “rather than higher operating costs or superior quality of care.”

The Monterey hospital referred a request for comment about its “high-cost” designation to the California Hospital Association. CHA spokesperson Jan Emerson-Shea declined to comment beyond the language of the lawsuit and Coyle’s press release statement.

Reduced competition

Health care analysts worry the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will reduce market competition even further by stressing already weak hospitals, leading some to shut services, merge with larger health systems, or close. One study estimates 338 rural hospitals are at risk of closing nationwide.

Less competition, in addition to fewer Medicaid dollars and an increase in uninsured patients, will only strengthen the incentive of health systems with the requisite market clout to raise their commercial prices, increasing premiums for employers and individuals.

“We think commercial prices will continue to increase as health care providers, and hospitals in particular, will seek to preserve or increase their revenue,” said Rachel Block, a program officer at the Milbank Memorial Fund, a foundation that focuses on health equity.

That in turn could pose a challenge to state affordability regulators tasked with overseeing compliance with growth targets for health care spending.

California’s affordability office is required to consider mitigating factors, including changes in federal and state laws. But some of its board members have expressed skepticism about letting hospitals offset Medicaid losses with higher commercial prices.

“There’s a lot of talk about using HR 1 and other federal policies as an excuse to raise prices on commercial payers,” Ian Lewis, an affordability office board member and policy director for UNITE HERE Local 2, a hospitality workers union in the Bay Area, said at the agency’s July board meeting, referring to the One Big Beautiful Bill. “There’s no more blood to be squeezed from this stone.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — an independent source of health policy research, polling and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Find the latest vehicle production data and budget reports, industry trends, and contact information for state, national and federal agencies, manufacturers, dealers, and suppliers.

Read the full 2026 Buyer’s Guide.

Data & Statistics
School Bus OEM Production Data
Industry Purchasing Trends
2026 Electric Powertrain Specifications

Organizations and Associations
State and Province Directory
National Associations
Federal Agencies

Bus OEM’s and Dealers

Components and Service Suppliers

Companies by Category
Company Listings

Publisher’s Commentary

The post Buyer’s Guide 2026 appeared first on School Transportation News.

A new report urges federal policy makers to reverse the decline in resources and staff for federal statistics agencies. (J Studios/Getty Images)

Federal agencies that count jobs, measure incomes, track health information and provide countless other forms of data are under unprecedented strain, according to a new report — compounding years of neglect by Congress and the federal government.

The report, released Wednesday by the American Statistical Association, calls on the federal government to reverse course, bolstering support for the national statistics infrastructure with staff, expertise and resources. It’s part of an ongoing project by the association to monitor the work of federal statistics agencies.

“In combination, we are seeing the system approach a crisis point unless immediate action is taken by Congress and the Executive Branch to reform the current trajectory,” the report states.

It’s a call that state and local officials say matters to them as well.

“It  might make people’s eyes glaze over, but for 235 years, we’ve understood the value of using federal data in particular,” said Zach Brandon, president of the Greater Madison Chamber of Commerce. “This has been an underpinning of how this country has been built and the resources we use to understand not only where we’ve been but where we’re headed.”

Federal data informed a 2019 think tank report that found Wisconsin was uniquely poised to become a national hub for biomedical research and development, Brandon said. That conclusion culminated in the state’s selection for a biohealth technology hub under a program included in the 2022 federal CHIPS and Science Act.

He considers accurate data not just a record of the past, but an assist to forecasting the future — “a flashlight that helps you see the challenges and the opportunities before they just become anecdotes.”

Brandon is skeptical that the private sector can provide an adequate substitute. “Even if it could be as robust, we likely couldn’t afford it,” he said.

Resources needed, report finds

The statistical association’s report states that for federal agencies to produce accurate data promptly that can be trusted, they need expert staff and enough resources for now and the future.

Instead, however, federal budgets have shortchanged them for years, it states. The Trump administration is proposing more of the same in its 2026 budget, with cuts to all 13 of the federal statistical agencies, the report warns.

“Immediate action must be taken to halt the severe decline in the federal statistical agencies’ ability to meet their basic mission and be positioned to keep up with increasing information needs and to address uncertainty in the trustworthiness of federal statistics,” the report states.

The 43-day federal shutdown that began Oct. 1 and ended Nov. 12 was an especially dramatic gap in data collection — among other things, for the monthly national and state jobs reports.

“People rely on reliable, consistent and timely data from the federal government when they make decisions,” said Haley McCoy, communications director for the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, which produces Wisconsin’s reports drawing on surveys conducted by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Whether a business owner is considering opening a new plant or shutting one down, “they need to have the most robust information that they can have to make a solid decision,” McCoy said. “It’s like taking the boat out on the water without looking at the weather forecast.”

That data was missing for the month of September because the shutdown began before the federal report could be completed, and the October data was never collected. DWD will post the state’s September numbers Wednesday — two months behind schedule.

“Those are the last statewide numbers that will come out this year,” McCoy said. “The most recent data we have are three months old.”

The next releases will come in January — November jobs numbers early in the month and December numbers later. But the October numbers are unlikely to be produced or posted ever, she said.

Long funding decline

The statistical association report documents declining fiscal support for federal statistical agencies over the last 15 years — suffering losses of 16% or more in real dollars since 2009, while facing new mandates from Congress.

Most agencies have also lost 20% to 30% of their staff, the report finds — from senior managers with important statistical knowledge to specialized data scientists and experts in methods that ensure greater accuracy.

The report finds that the Trump administration’s actions that have weakened the statistical agencies outweigh actions that would support them.

The administration has left leadership positions vacant, disrupted operations by relocating or attempting to relocate agencies, and eliminated some data collection projects unilaterally without consulting Congress, the public or stakeholders.

That’s coupled with deteriorating safeguards for the integrity of federal data. “In several cases, delays in releasing key data and administration officials’ statements questioning agencies’ neutrality have raised concerns about the protections for credible, objective statistics,” the report states.

Public trust of federal statistics has plummeted, according to the report. A University of Chicago survey found that among U.S. adults, trust in federal statistics fell from 57% in June to 52% in September.

Increased support recommended

The report makes a series of recommendations — for increased staffing, support for innovation, stable and sufficient funding for statistical agencies to fulfill their mission under federal law and systematic management of the agencies and their work, as well as other changes.

It also calls on the administration and Congress to strengthen public trust, including ensuring the data collected for statistical purposes isn’t used for law enforcement or to impose regulations.

At DWD, according to McCoy, there have not yet been concerns about the accuracy or reliability of the federal data it relies on, such as for state job reports.

“We trust how the data is collected,” she said. “It goes through rigorous checks for accuracy.”

But concerns remain about gaps in the data as some collection projects — such as  a report on food security — get turned off, McCoy said.

Steve Pierson, the statistical association’s director of science policy, told the Wisconsin Examiner Tuesday that so far data from the government has continued to be trustworthy.

“We believe that the federal statistics being issued are absolutely still objective and credible,” Pierson said. “What would really help, though, is comments to that effect from the administration.”

Pierson said he believes there are reasons for hope even in the face of grave concerns about the nation’s statistical resources.

Congressional budget writers have rejected the Trump administration’s proposals to cut budgets for the BLS and the National Center for Education Statistics — the latter of which the administration proposed virtually eliminating, he observed.

Key staffers in Congress “hear our concerns, and they share that they’re also concerned,” Pierson said. “That is encouraging.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services (NASDPTS) announced two bylaw updates, including a sunsetting of the School Bus Manufacturers Technical Council (SBMTC), “as it no longer adequately represents the Supplier Council membership.”

Formed as a subsidiary of the NASDPTS Supplier Council, SBMTC had two representatives on the National Congress on School Transportation steering committee. It was as a technical advisor on issues related to school bus manufacturing and safety and provided a forum for manufacturers to address technical and governmental relations issues concerning the production and acceptability of school bus chassis and bodies. SBMTC also contributed to national safety standards, such as those developed by NCST.

No timetable was given for its dissolution.

The other approved change to the bylaws was the prevention of the NASDPTS president or president-elect from also simultaneously serving as the National Congress on School Transportation Chair or Vice Chair. NASDPTS President Mike Stier said in a letter to state directors and Supplier Council members Tuesday that this is due “to the volume of work required by both leadership positions.”

NASDPTS also updated its Board of Directors, announcing that Wyoming state director Trenton Vonburg chose not to run for re-election as secretary this year. Instead, Fred Steward, the new Colorado state director, will take on that role.

Mike Bulman, the South Carolina State Director, was elected to his second term as Southern Region Representative. Chris Kath, the Indiana state director is also going on his second term as the Central Region Representative. And Dave Christopher, the New York Association of Pupil Transportation executive director, is serving his first term as State Transportation Associations Council chair.

---

Related: NHTSA Rulemaking at Heart of NCST Resolutions Focused on Safety
Related: National Congress Finishes Early After 10-Year Hiatus
Related: 6 Students Killed in Danger Zone, All by School Buses
Related: Circuit Court Orders Stay of FMCSA Rule on Non-Domiciled CDL Holders
Related: NHTSA Investigates Autonomous Waymo Rides After Illegal School Bus Passing

---

NASDPTS also announced the 2026 Annual Conference will be held Nov. 15-17 at the Ritz-Carlton Pentagon City in Arlington, Virginia.

“Holding the NASDPTS Conference in the Washington, D.C., area affords us the opportunity to hear first-hand from our federal agency partners, but also provides an excellent venue for us to come together, as an association, to get to know one another and to discuss the issues facing the school transportation industry every day,” said NASDPTS President-Elect and Conference Chair Tyler Bryan, of Delaware. “We thank our incredibly generous sponsors as this meeting is simply not possible without them.”

The post NASDPTS Sunsets School Bus Manufacturers Technical Council, Announces Updates appeared first on School Transportation News.

Reading Time: 6 minutes

Click here to read highlights from the story

• Eve Galanter created the Wisconsin Civics Games as a way to get high school students civically engaged.
  
• The quiz-show style contest first held in 2019 has been coordinated by the Wisconsin Newspaper Association, and has grown annually. 
  
• The competition has gotten to be such a large endeavor that WNA leaders asked the Universities of Wisconsin to take the reins. 
  
• The contest fits with the university system’s strategic plan, and Galanter is excited to see how the games expand in the coming years. 

It’s been nearly a decade since Eve Galanter, a retired teacher and reporter in Madison, read the news story that led her to start a statewide competition to get high schoolers excited about government. 

Galanter, now 84, had just read a Wisconsin State Journal article headlined “All three school board incumbents running unopposed.”

“I looked at that and I thought, ‘Are they really doing such a fabulous job, or is no one interested? Does no one have any idea what might be involved in being on a school board or a city council or a village or town board?”

Running unopposed is a modern norm in some Wisconsin public offices. Across the state’s 10 most populous counties, less than a quarter of races for county board supervisor were contested in 2020, according to an analysis by the Wisconsin Policy Forum.

Studies show a growing number of people in the United States and across the world can’t answer basic questions about how the government works. U.S. schools cut back on civics education decades ago. In Wisconsin, students can graduate high school without taking a single course on the subject, though they must pass a civics test.

For two years Galanter mulled ways to get more Wisconsinites interested in running for local office. She settled on a quiz game where high school students across the state would test their knowledge of democracy and rights for the chance to win college scholarships.  

“If people understood how government worked, then surely they would be more interested in public service as a future occupation,” said Galanter, who served on the Madison City Council, ran former U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl’s Madison office and used to open all her public presentations with the same line: “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

In 2018, she pitched her idea to the Wisconsin Newspaper Association, a membership organization of the state’s papers, figuring their publications could get the word out across the state.

The association agreed, and the Wisconsin Civics Games were born. Soon staff were making plans for regional playoffs and a state final at the Capitol where members of the winning team would each receive $2,000 in scholarships. 

Since then, teams from 76 high schools have competed, and interest continues to grow. This year’s regional playoffs, held in April, drew 205 students — twice as many as the first year. 

The competition has grown so much, in fact, that it’s too big for the five staff members of the Wisconsin Newspaper Association to handle. They’re now handing the reins to the Universities of Wisconsin, which has sponsored the event since its inception.

“It needs to continue to grow, but … it’s a really big project,” said Beth Bennett, executive director of the association. “We just needed to find a home for it where somebody could take it to the next level.” 

The games will be overseen by the university system’s Wisconsin Institute for Citizenship and Civil Dialogue, which will soon become the Office of Civic Engagement, said Universities of Wisconsin President Jay Rothman. Separately, that office will host civic education workshops for teachers across the state over the next three years, funded by a $1.1 million grant through the U.S. Department of Education’s American History & Civics Seminars program.

“This is consistent with our strategic plan focusing on freedom of expression, civil dialogue and really having students learn more about civics, which is important to our state and our nation,” Rothman said of taking the lead on the games. “So we are really excited about this opportunity.”

‘A republic, if you can keep it’

In preparation for the first Wisconsin Civics Games, Galanter pulled out a legal pad and began jotting questions. “What are the five freedoms identified in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?” “In 1982, Wisconsin was the first state to outlaw what type of discrimination?”

By the time she was done, she had over 100. 

Then she called school principals across the state to urge them to field teams. She contacted presidents of University of Wisconsin campuses to ask them to host playoffs. 

When students began registering, she looked up their local legislators to encourage them to congratulate the constituents and send them a Wisconsin Blue Book. She even wrote to Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor to ask her to speak at the finals.

“Her scheduler said that she was busy for the next several years,” Galanter said with a laugh, but the Justice agreed to send a letter congratulating the contestants.

“I strongly believe that the future of our nation depends upon your ability to practice democratic principles as thoughtful, informed citizens and public servants,” Sotomayor wrote. 

Sotomayor went on to recount the story of Benjamin Franklin leaving the Constitutional Convention in 1787, where he had just helped draft the new U.S. Constitution. 

“Benjamin Franklin was asked what sort of government he and his fellow framers had created. Dr. Franklin famously replied, ‘A republic, if you can keep it.’ By working to expand your civic knowledge in preparation for this tournament, you have begun the important undertaking of keeping our republic strong and vibrant,” Sotomayor wrote.

Galanter knew the games were a success when she overheard a comment from a participant at one of the regional playoffs that first year.

“One of the students said, ‘I’m going to go home and tell my parents about this,’” Galanter recalled. “I just thought that was the most wonderful thing: that they were so excited and wanted to share this opportunity.” 

The need for civics education persists today, though studies suggest Americans may be getting more knowledgeable. Each year, the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania asks Americans about the Constitution and the government. In 2022, just 47% could name all three branches of the U.S. government and a full 25% couldn’t name one. Three years later, 70% of Americans could name all three, and just 13% couldn’t name one.

New home, same games

Galanter recently filled a box with the materials and questions she’d prepared for past games and sent it off to Rothman.

“I am so excited that the Universities of Wisconsin will be taking the games to yet a higher level,” Galanter told Wisconsin Watch. She hopes the fact that the universities already have connections with high schools statewide will mean more students will hear about “the opportunities to undertake keeping our republic strong and vibrant.”

The behind-the-scenes shuffling won’t change things for contestants. Teams interested in the 2026 games can register for free through March 1 to compete and receive study materials. Regional playoffs will be held online April 8-9, and the finals, which are open to the public, will be held on May 1. For more information, visit wnanews.com/wisconsin-civics-games.

But while no changes are planned for the 2026 games, at least one could be coming in the future. When the games returned in 2022 after a two-year hiatus during the COVID-19 pandemic, the regional playoffs moved online. Rothman hopes they might eventually return to UW campuses. 

“I’m sure, as things go along, we will look for ways to continue to improve and upgrade the competition, but it’s a terrific competition today,” said Rothman, who attended the finals in May. 

“You see the engagement of those high school students, and you talk to them and you find out what their future plans are and the amount of work that they have put in, along with their faculty advisors,” Rothman said. 

“You can see it in those students’ eyes: They’re going to be active and engaged in their communities going forward, and that’s good for all of us.”

How a Madison woman’s question sparked a growing statewide civics contest is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

The National School Transportation Association named Long Island, New York contractor Suffolk Transportation as its Contractor of the Year and inducted NSTA past-president Carina Noble to its Hall of Fame during the Annual Meeting and Convention in Boston, Massachusetts.

School Transportation News is in its third year as sponsor of the NSTA Contractor of the Year award.

One of the largest school bus contractors in New York state, Suffolk Transportation Services and Suffolk Bus was established in 1955, though the company traces its origins to 1922, and was acquired in 1970 by John A. Corrado. John J. Corrado currently serves as president and CEO with his sons John R. and Joseph as assistant vice presidents. Suffolk Bus transports 62,000 students in 24 Long Island school districts each school day with 1,800 school buses over 1,500 routes.

“This award is a testament to the passion, integrity and professionalism of every member of our team,” said Thomas Smith, Suffolk’s chief operating officer. “Their dedication to safe, reliable service, a strong company culture, and leadership across the student transportation industry inspires me every day. We’re proud to stand with our fellow NSTA member companies in raising the bar for what excellence in pupil transportation truly means.”

Thomas McAteer is executive vice president and Angelo Carbone is director of the company’s transit and paratransit operations for Suffolk. 

Meanwhile, Noble joined the NSTA Hall of Fame following her term as the association’s president from 2021 to 2023. She is the senior vice president of communications for National Express, the second largest school bus contractor in North America.

NSTA credited her with helping to obtain a two-year exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration for under-the-hood requirements of the school bus inspection exam needed for the commercial driver’s license and amendments to the Clean School Bus Act that now allows private contractors direct access to grants.

“Carina Noble’s impact on NSTA cannot be overstated. She has served in a variety of capacities with the organization and left us in a better place each time. As government relations committee chair, Carina was focused and determined to use our advocacy platform in a positive way,” commented NSTA Executive Director Curt Macsysn. “Personally, I have leaned on Carina for advice and support over the years, and she has always come through with her calm and reasoned approach. I’m thrilled that she is entering into the NSTA Hall of Fame, and there isn’t a more worthy recipient.”

In all, NSTA awarded 18 members and two companies during its Annual Meeting and Convention, held July 20-23. STN President and Publisher Tony Corpin joined Macysyn in presenting the magazine’s Innovator of the Year award to Guarav Sharda, chief technology officer of Beacon Mobility, for his direction and implementation of AI-based HR tools for employees. Sharda was also recognized at STN EXPO West a week earlier.

Six individuals also received NSTA Golden Merit awards for their dedication and contributions to school bus safety, community service, business practices and vehicle maintenance. They are Glenn Brayman, fleet manager for First Student in Massachusetts; Melissa Castle, a location manager for Mid Columbia Bus in Oregon; Michelle Harpenau, manager for Durham School Services in Boston, Massachusetts; Kevin Kilner, director of safety for Beacon Mobility; David Kinley, vice president of operations in New York for Student Transportation of America; and Barbie Stucker, general manager of Big Sky Bus Lines in Montana.

Distinguish Service Awards were given to Paul Mori, the New York director of client relations for Beacon Mobility and Susan Rady of Johnson School Bus Service in Wisconsin, for “significant, substantial and special contributions to pupil transportation contracting.”

NSTA Outstanding Driver Service Award Recipients went to Linda Caudillo of Mid Columbia Bus Company; Jeffrey Flitcraft of B.R. Williams in Pennsylvania, Kilra Hylton of TransAction Associates in Massachusetts, Duane Versteegh of School Bus Inc. in South Dakota, and Becky Williams of Dousman Transport Company in Wisconsin.

First Student took home the Go Yellow, Go Green Award for adopting and advancing electric school buses, which the company operates over 2,000 across North America. Tim Weaverling of insurance provider RWR-Keystone was named Committee Member of the Year while John Benjamin, president of Benjamin Bus in Minnesota was named Committee Chair of the Year. Lee Edwards of Wells Fargo Equipment Finance was awarded Vendor Partner of the Year.

---

Related: Historic Year for Minnesota School Bus Contractor Punctuated by NSTA Award
Related: NSTA: The Bus Stop with Tony Corpin, Publisher, School Transportation News
Related: Update: I Squared Completes Acquisition of National Express School Bus Contracto

The post Suffolk Transportation, Past-President Noble Among NSTA Honorees at Recent Convention appeared first on School Transportation News.