The hotel ballroom in downtown Madison was packed with cheering supporters as Chris Taylor gave her victory speech Tuesday night after her huge, 20-point win over her conservative opponent Maria Lazar, cementing a 5-2 liberal majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The four other liberal women on the Court high-fived Taylor as she took the stage. The deliriously joyful crowd repeatedly interrupted Taylor’s remarks with shouting and applause, including to chant the name of her dog when she mentioned it during a lengthy list of thank-yous: “Ollie! Ollie!” 

Democrats are so hungry for success they are ready to throw their arms around any champion, including canines — yellow, blue, whatever. 

Eager to catch that wave of enthusiasm, many of the seven gubernatorial hopefuls in the Democratic primary field hovered around the ballroom. After the results were tabulated, party operatives began circulating statistics showing Taylor’s big margins of victory in Republican-leaning counties, using those results to forecast a crushing blue wave in November. Democratic Party Chair Devin Remiker called Taylor’s win “an indictment of Trump and Tom Tiffany,” the GOP candidate for governor.

Without question, Taylor’s 60-40 percentage point drubbing of Lazar is good news for Democrats, who poured money and organizing energy into the nominally nonpartisan race. And it’s a serious loss for Republicans, who backed Lazar, an anti-abortion election skeptic. But Taylor’s lopsided victory does not mean that Wisconsin has turned, overnight, from a 50-50 purple state that narrowly elected both Presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump into a liberal stronghold where Democrats can expect to run the table in November. 

The reality is that Republicans gave up. After repeated, double-digit losses in the last three Supreme Court elections in a row, including the 2025 record-breaking $100 million race — when Elon Musk proved that all the money in the world and even outright bribery couldn’t convince Wisconsin voters to embrace the Republican-backed candidate Brad Schimel — they threw in the towel. This year, the state Republican party gave $64,000 to Lazar, compared to the $775,000 the Democratic party gave to Taylor. Republican donors also held onto their wallets. Final fundraising reports ahead of the election showed Taylor had raised more than $2 million while Lazar reported about $472,000. 

The Wisconsin GOP has concluded that spring judicial elections are a lousy bet, especially in the Trump era. Democratic voters are energized for these races, while Republican voters, especially the MAGA base, turn out in low numbers. The voters who care about April judicial races are disproportionately college educated liberals, as political analyst Craig Gilbert explains. 

All of these are reasons to take Democratic optimism pegged to Tuesday’s results with a grain of salt. After all, liberal Justices Jill Karofsky and Janet Protasiewicz posted big wins in the Wisconsin Supreme Court elections of 2020 and 2023, followed by Trump’s 2024 Wisconsin victory. 

Still, Taylor’s 20-point triumph matters. For one thing, the failure of the Republicans to put up much of a fight for Lazar comes at the same time that the GOP leaders of both chambers of the Legislature have announced they are calling it quits, along with several key members of those bodies who would face tough reelection battles now that the state’s voting maps are no longer rigged in their favor. The whole Wisconsin Republican Party seems to be in retreat. 

The only thing that got legislative Republicans off the couch recently was the UW Regents’ decision to fire their ally, University of Wisconsin President Jay Rothman. They are so outraged they’re planning to hold long-delayed confirmation hearings this week just to fire the regents. Nothing motivates Wisconsin Republicans like spite, and the defense of their own diminishing power. 

After steadfastly refusing to confirm most of Gov. Tony Evers’ appointees during his entire two terms in office, they are coming back into special session, not to strike a deal to fund schools or lower property taxes or address any of the other issues that matter to voters they didn’t get around to by the end of the session, but to take revenge on the regents and showcase their own pettiness. It’s their last power grab before they lose their gerrymandered power altogether. The regents were apparently willing to take the risk to get rid of Rothman, who is no longer needed to make nice with a soon-to-depart Republican majority.

Taylor’s huge win on Tuesday bolsters the growing sense among Wisconsinites that the Republicans are about to lose more than one judicial race. By not fighting harder, the Republicans showed their own lack of confidence. And who can blame them? As Taylor’s victory party kicked off, the news was all about whether Trump would make good on his pledge to annihilate an entire civilization in Iran — a threat so unhinged even Sen. Ron Johnson felt compelled to renounce it. 

Trump’s approval numbers are in the toilet. He is, as investigative reporter Ken Kippenstein points out on Substack, the first president in U.S. history to get no public approval bump at all for going to war. Members of Congress and even some former Trump supporters are openly discussing the need to invoke the 25th Amendment to put the Republican Party’s national leader in a straitjacket.

Add to that the cost of gas, groceries, and the deliberate destruction of affordable health care and you have a recipe for a massive midterm rebellion. The Wisconsin Supreme Court race is part of that picture, even if it’s a lopsided measure of Democratic energy and Republican depression.

Plus, the new, now locked-in majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court will be a bulwark against GOP efforts to limit voting rights and interfere with fair elections.

All in all, it’s pretty terrible news for Republicans. That barking dog that’s chasing them might have a nasty bite.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Late last month, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum announced the federal government will pay a French energy company nearly $1 billion — not to build clean energy here in the U.S., but to kill it.

The developer, which was set to invest private dollars in two offshore wind projects that could have powered more than a million American homes, will be paid off by our government to simply walk away. In exchange for this extraordinary payment of taxpayer dollars, the company will use the government payoff to expand fracking and drilling operations in the U.S. 

“The era of taxpayers subsidizing unreliable, unaffordable and unsecure energy is officially over,” declared the secretary as he unveiled the deal. 

The comment is laughable in the face of skyrocketing energy prices caused by — no surprise — unsecure, unreliable oil and gas. The price of gas has risen more than a dollar per gallon in a matter of weeks as the war with Iran upends global oil markets.

Fossil fuels always come with volatility. Even American oil is sold on a global market influenced by geopolitics, supply shocks and other events outside our control. Wind and solar, on the other hand, can be paired with battery storage to offer reliable American power at the lowest cost.

That was the plan in 2022 when Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), a historic investment in domestic clean energy like wind, solar, and battery storage. The idea was simple: generate more energy here, reduce dependence on global fuel markets and give families more control over their energy bills. It was a hedge against exactly the kind of volatility we’re seeing right now.

But that strategy was dismantled through the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill.” That law repealed the IRA’s clean energy tax credits, ripped away help for families to install better insulation and rooftop solar and rolled back pollution protections. Now, energy costs are on the rise as the federal government chokes the supply of wind and solar, the cheapest forms of energy. In states like Wisconsin, where more than $140 million in clean energy grants have been canceled, the ugly side of that “beautiful bill” is showing. 

Over the next decade, projections show that Wisconsin could miss out on about 17 gigawatts of generation capacity due to measures in the bill. That’s more energy than current peak demand for the entire state. Meanwhile, Wisconsin is spending about $14 billion to bring in oil, coal and gas from out of state — money that could be kept in Wisconsin if we prioritized capturing abundant and free energy resources like wind and solar. Despite this, state energy regulators have approved expensive new gas-burning power plants to power the surge of energy-hungry data centers. Wisconsinites will pay more for electricity and breathe dirtier air as a result.

As these long-term consequences take shape, utilities are moving ahead with rate hikes that will cost Wisconsinites even more. In 2025 alone, Wisconsin utilities proposed or enacted more than $2.7 billion in increases, affecting millions of customers.

So, Mr. Burgum, where is this “affordable energy” and who is benefiting from it?

There’s a deep contradiction in turning away from clean energy in this moment. At a time when electricity demand is rising dramatically from data centers, why are we choosing to build fewer of the resources that can be deployed most quickly, scaled most affordably and insulated most effectively from unstable global markets?

There is simply no path to American energy independence that relies heavily on fossil fuels. Wisconsin families and businesses could be enjoying lower bills and cleaner air instead of bracing for the next geopolitical shock. 

The good news is that none of this is set in stone. Congress could restore clean energy tax credits and invest in energy sources that are built here, priced here, and controlled here. But they need to hear from their constituents to understand how important this is. If the past few weeks have shown us anything, it’s that the most unreliable and unaffordable energy system is the one we don’t control.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Wisconsin is not that MAGA. That’s one top-line takeaway from the latest Marquette University Law School poll, released this week, which shows 56% of Wisconsin voters disapprove of the job President Donald Trump is doing — his worst approval rating so far during his two terms in office. Violent immigration raids, a dangerous and ill-conceived war in the Middle East, high gas prices, ruinous trade wars, devastating health care cuts and economic uncertainty are clearly eating away Wisconsin voters’ enthusiasm for Trump, whom they elected by a narrow margin in 2024. That’s not great news for fervent Trump ally U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, who won Trump’s endorsement in his campaign for governor.

It might also have something to do with the exodus of Republican leaders from the Legislature, with both Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu announcing their retirements, along with a growing crowd of other departing Republicans, some of whom represent newly competitive districts. 

Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chair Devin Remiker has been gleefully proclaiming that all those Republican retirements foreshadow a Democratic sweep of state races in November.

But while Tiffany will almost certainly be the Republican candidate for governor, on the Democratic side, we don’t know who will emerge from a seven-way primary race.

Which Democrat has the best shot at beating Tiffany was the main question on the minds of a handful of Democrats who gathered at a coffee shop in downtown Madison Tuesday evening to listen to a pitch from Joel Brennan, Gov. Tony Evers’ affable former secretary of the Department of Administration. Brennan, the only white, male candidate in the Democratic field, seems like the safe bet to many of the people who came out to hear him — more “electable” than the rest of the field of progressive women and people of color, as several attendees sheepishly told me. That assessment is entirely subjective at this point. The leading Democrat in the last three Marquette polls is Madison-based state Rep. Francesca Hong, a socialist, who is the top choice of 14% of Democratic primary voters, followed by former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes at 11%. All the other candidates are in the single digits, including Brennan, who only pulls down 2%. A large majority of voters — 65% — say they have not yet decided on a candidate. 

There’s no simple formula for “electability” in Wisconsin, a state where a majority of voters helped elect former President Barack Obama twice, then twice chose Trump. Wisconsinites also enthusiastically embraced Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary, when he won 69 of 72 counties. U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin has proven it’s possible for a progressive lesbian from Madison to win in conservative, rural areas of the state, by listening and working hard on the issues that matter to her constituents. A successful, independent populist campaign by a candidate who is not a centrist or an establishment type is definitely possible in Wisconsin.

But it’s easy to see Brennan appealing to a broad cross-section of voters in the state. He seems like a decent guy with a folksy, well-meaning aura not unlike two-term Democratic Gov. Tony Evers. Like Evers, he talks a lot about reaching across the aisle and getting things done for the people of Wisconsin, regardless of the national political circus. He also warns that Democrats in the Legislature have been out of power so long they haven’t used the “muscles” one needs to engage in the work of compromise and deal-making that will inevitably be necessary to govern a closely divided state.

Under Wisconsin’s new, fair voting maps, Republicans can no longer act like they are the undisputed rulers of a one-party state. But Democrats, even if they win majorities in both houses of the Legislature, are likely going to have to manage narrow margins and make some efforts at bipartisanship. It’s also possible that we will continue to have a divided government. 

Many Democrats have been disappointed in the compromises Evers made with legislative Republicans. Maybe he could have driven a harder bargain on budget deals that allowed the state surplus to balloon while schools were starved of resources and property taxpayers picked up more and more of the tab. Maybe we could have done more to expand health care than the belated, one-year postpartum Medicaid deal that allowed us to finally get in line with 48 other states. Maybe we could have adequately funded our state’s SNAP program and avoided ruinous federal penalties for high error rates without tying that money to a ban on candy and soda that stigmatizes poor people and micromanages small pleasures but doesn’t actually improve people’s health.

On the other hand, dealing with the obstructionist, power-grabbing Republican majority was a thorny problem Evers dealt with essentially by himself. His most significant contribution is probably the passage of new, fair maps, which are suddenly changing that dynamic. Republicans are showing signs of dropping their obstructionist habits as they face newly competitive elections even as their national leader’s popularity craters. But even on fair maps, legislative Democrats didn’t close ranks behind Evers. After the state Supreme Court forced Republicans to abandon their gerrymander, their willingness to vote for the maps Evers endorsed made many legislative Democrats suspicious. Most of them didn’t vote for the new un-gerrymandered reality.

If Democrats win, that new reality will involve a new kind of struggle for both parties — moving from fighting tooth and nail with the other side to trying to move the state forward.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Democracy in the United States is in trouble. According to the 2026 Democracy Report, produced by thousands of scholars and experts around the world for the Varieties of Democracy Institute (V-DEM), “The speed with which American democracy is currently dismantled is unprecedented in modern history.”  Civil rights, equality before the law and freedom of expression and the media in the U.S. are at their lowest level in 60 years, the report finds.

The press is under tremendous pressure from the Trump administration, which is cutting off access to journalists, suing media organizations that produce critical stories, and demanding that national news organizations toe the administration’s line.

Meanwhile, at the state and local level, news coverage is shrinking. 

In Wisconsin, which has a proud tradition of public access to government and open records, we’re experiencing a contraction in local news coverage and, recently, the temporary shutdown and uncertain future of WisconsinEye, which offers CSPAN-like video coverage of the state Legislature.

A bill banning Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAAP) that passed the Wisconsin Assembly died on Tuesday in the Wisconsin Senate, leaving media organizations vulnerable to lawsuits designed to discourage news coverage and silence free speech. Now-state Sen. Cory Tomczyk filed a SLAPP suit against the Wasau Pilot & Review back in 2021, after the news outlet reported he was overheard using an anti-gay slur. Although the news outlet prevailed, legal expenses took a heavy toll, driving the publisher to the brink of bankruptcy.

The fight to keep government open and accountable to the public is never-ending. Just this week, a bill that awards $14.6 million in taxpayer funds annually to the University of Wisconsin athletic department and sets rules for sponsorship deals by UW athletes also creates a sweeping exemption for UW athletics from the state’s open records law — shielding all revenue, spending and financial records within the UW athletic department from public view.

That kind of secrecy about the use of public funds violates public trust. So does the exemption from public records law the Legislature drafted for itself, allowing state lawmakers to delete emails to avoid turning them over to journalists and members of the public who want to know whose interests their representatives are serving.

This week is Sunshine Week, the annual collaboration among journalists and civic groups around the country to highlight the importance of public records and open government. 

Here at the Examiner, we sent out a few special newsletters this week on our reporters’ use of open records requests to investigate government activities, from Isiah Holmes’ reporting on police officers who misused surveillance technology to spy on their romantic partners to an award-winning story by Andrew Kennard and Frank Zufall about the policy of shredding mail from attorneys to their clients in Wisconsin prisons.

The Kennard-Zufall story was one of 12 by Examiner staff that the Milwaukee Press Club announced this week won top-three journalism honors, with gold, silver and bronze winners to be announced in May.

We have encountered high fees and long delays in some of our records requests, but our reporters persist. Just this week, Zufall, a Criminal Justice Project fellow, finally received a response from the Bureau of Indian Affairs to a Freedom of Information request he made in February 2025. The request was part of his reporting on a new public defender service the Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa is creating, citing unspecified complaints about the Wisconsin Public Defender. Stay tuned for more on that story.

We don’t do this work in a vacuum.

On Thursday night, journalists and engaged citizens gathered to honor this year’s recipients of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council Openness in Government Awards.Wisconsin Watch reporter Tom Kerscher and the group Midwest Environmental Advocates were each honored for their work exposing the secrecy surrounding the development of massive data centers.

“The idea that tech companies whose goal is to learn everything about us are coming into the state and trying to prevent us from learning anything about them, it really has become a politically toxic issue for them,” said Michael Grief, an attorney for Midwest Environmental Advocates. MEA received  its award for lawsuits the group filed challenging the secrecy surrounding a data center project in Racine and against the state Public Service Commission, contesting the “trade secret” status of energy demand data for Meta’s proposed data center in Beaver Dam. 

Kertscher’s investigation exposed four projects in which local officials signed nondisclosure agreements with companies, much to the consternation of their constituents.

Data centers are a growing concern for the public, and we need to know about the deals to build these giant facilities.

Here at the Examiner we are proud to stand with other Wisconsin journalists and nonprofits fighting for open records and public access to government.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Zabi Sahibzada, refugee resettlement director for Jewish Social Services (JSS) in Madison, Wisconsin, has lived through war, displacement, the collapse of Afghanistan and the cataclysmic consequences of shifting U.S. policies abroad and at home.

Today, even as our country plunges into a new war in the Middle East, the Trump administration has pulled back from its commitments to people who helped the U.S. during the long, brutal war in Afghanistan. 

Sahibzada talks to his family every day as they cope with the hardships of living under Taliban rule. He had hoped to bring his family to the U.S. as part of a family reunification program for people who helped our country in Afghanistan. But that program was suspended by President Donald Trump. Now his family is in limbo. He is particularly concerned about his two daughters, ages 18 and 11, who can no longer go to school because of the ban on education for girls. 

Meanwhile, Sahibzada is managing a program that has been severely disrupted by the Trump administration, which set a record-low refugee admissions ceiling of only 7,500 people for Fiscal Year 2026 — down from 125,000 the previous year — with most slots reserved for white South Africans. JSS is no longer resettling hundreds of refugees from around the world in South Central Wisconsin. Instead, the group is focused on continuing to serve the people it has already resettled here. Part of that work involves fielding panicked calls from people who are losing their status as the Trump administration strips protections from those who fled to the U.S. seeking a safe haven from persecution.

Because of funding cuts, JSS, which traces its roots to the Madison Welfare Fund, created in 1940 to help resettle Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust, has had to let go of most of its staff. “Currently we have three full-time case managers that are working with a huge population that’s already here, and we cannot afford more,” Sahibzada said.

JSS works with about 450 people, most of them in Dane County. Among the services the group provides are help with finding employment, health care, housing, language instruction and financial assistance for up to five years. The organization is scrambling to raise money privately to make up for the loss of federal funds. 

Sahibzada estimates that staff salaries cost JSS about $300,000 per year, with another $250,000 going to cover direct assistance for clients — but that amount rises and falls depending on need. This year, he expects need to rise significantly because of Trump administration policies, including the cancellation of Temporary Protected Status for people from Afghanistan and Haiti. 

“Those people, they’re not having documents anymore to work,” he said. “They’re losing their job, they’re losing their driving license, they cannot renew it. And then those will be knocking on our doors that they may need a lot of help … they’ll not be able to pay their rents, they’ll not be able to receive any other benefits from the government. And by the next few months, there will be cuts to health insurance. They’ll be cut from the food assistance or the cash assistance that a lot of people were depending on. So they will be coming and knocking on our doors, and that’s the gap that we may need to fill with the help from the communities.”

The gap, he estimates, will likely be between $300,000 and $400,000.

“I would say it’s a very chaotic moment for all the refugees and immigrants in the country,” Sahibzada said during a recent interview in his office on the west side of Madison.

Confronting chaos is, unfortunately, a familiar experience for Sahibzada.

A perilous escape from Afghanistan

Before he came to the United States from Afghanistan in 2022 on a special immigrant visa, Sahibzada worked for USAID in Afghanistan for more than a decade. As a software engineer, he helped create a text-messaging system that allowed farmers to get timely information about agricultural markets, and he was the main point of contact for people in rural areas in his region who wanted to get in touch with USAID-funded projects. “My name was the contact person on billboards and brochures and reference cards,” he said. “Everyone in the community knew my name. They knew my face.” 

That was a dangerous position to be in as the Taliban came back into power. Even before the U.S. withdrawal and the Taliban’s resurgence, Sahibzada began receiving threatening calls and social media warnings. He was approved for a special immigrant visa for Afghans who worked with the U.S. government — a program President Donald Trump suspended this year — but he had no idea how he would get out of the country, he said. The U.S. government offered to help him relocate to Doha, Qatar. 

“That was a time where it was not easy to go through the custom borders in Afghanistan, like, through the airport,” he said.  “I was afraid, like … how can I just go and will they allow me, or will they just keep me in prison, or will they just, I don’t know what will happen to me.”

“Thankfully, I made it to the airplane,” he said. He attributes his escape in part to the fact that he used an unfamiliar, formal name on his passport. “When I was working with USAID, my name was Sunny, which is like my nickname,” he explained. But on his passport, “I just put my last name as Sahibzada, which is our family name. So that helped me. When I was going to the airport, I was like, OK, whatever they’re having on their list will be not similar as what I have on my passport.” As a result, he thinks, he was able to slip past the Taliban and fly to Doha and from there, after a month-long process of vetting and background checks, to Wisconsin, where he has been living and working since December 2022. 

After resettling in Madison, Sahibzada got a job with the Milwaukee transit system, and commuted to work for a couple of months. He started at JSS in 2023 as a program manager and was promoted this year to direct the resettlement program.

During the time he has worked at JSS, much has changed.

A lot of clients call JSS with legal questions, worried that they might be deported. “We are connecting them with legal service providers,” Sahibzada said, “because we cannot answer.”

The group is planning “know your rights” and emergency preparedness training sessions for April, and working on creating a hotline for ICE sightings, staffed by volunteers speaking multiple languages, coordinated statewide with Wisconsin’s eight refugee services agencies.

Meanwhile, Sahibzada calls home every morning and evening to talk with his family, including his parents, his wife and his two daughters and three sons. “It’s really hard just staying home, not going out, and not going to school,” he said of his daughters. When he talks to them, “They’re always asking me, ‘What’s gonna happen?’ And I’m just giving them sometimes, like some false hopes that it will get better, which I don’t think it will in the very near future, but this is the hope that I’m giving.”

His family, seeking to join him in the U.S., traveled to Pakistan during the Biden administration and waited for months to have their papers processed by the U.S. embassy there. But their visas expired and they were forced to return to Afghanistan. Now, with the new U.S. immigration restrictions, things have gotten even more difficult. Sahibzada continues to hold out hope that things will eventually improve.

 “I’m hopeful that it gets changed, either with this administration or any other administration in the future,” he said. “I’m hopeful that this will change and people will be turning back to their normal life.”

More information about making a donation or volunteering is available on the JSS website

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Public concern about rising costs is fueling hopes for a blue wave in the November midterm elections, as well as Democratic wins in Wisconsin that could deliver trifecta control of the Legislature, governor’s mansion and state Supreme Court.

But even if the would-be autocrat in the White House does not find a way to disrupt the midterms, the rise of affordability as the dominant public issue is a both blessing and a trap. The intense focus on micro (household) economics neglects a bigger battle Democrats must fight. 

It’s dangerous to make too narrow a response to President Donald Trump’s authoritarian threat. Democracy is menaced on two fronts: first the immediate attack on its institutional bedrocks — fair elections, equal justice, constitutional checks and balances — and second by the underlying cause of the civic emergency: a profound crisis in legitimacy arising from a chronic failure of government to deliver on the most pressing problems affecting peoples’ lives and futures. 

The long-term failures of the U.S. government to promote and protect a decent life for most people have  produced combustible political kindling, exploited by an authoritarian movement and its charismatic leader, to seize power  and ignite the most profound crisis in democracy since the darkest days of the Great Depression.

Thousands of our neighbors in Minnesota and Illinois, thrust into the first front of the struggle, are responding with courage and discipline. They are demonstrating the power of organized people and civil society groups with active members, aided by the elected officials they inspire to action, to hold the line for democracy. Grassroots defenders of democracy must continue to peacefully resist every authoritarian offensive, but if we fail to also address the underlying drivers of the crisis, victory will be fleeting.

Wisconsin’s crucial role

As a state that will determine the outcome of the 2028 presidential election, Wisconsin may be fated to play its most important role on the second front: the challenge of demonstrating that democracy is up to the task of meeting the challenges of 21st century life. To meet this charge we must come to terms with the depth of public discontent that has opened millions to the scapegoating rhetoric of authoritarian demagogues while demoralizing and disengaging still more who have come to believe, through embittering experience, they have no stake in democracy.

The affordability crisis is not transitory, it is a symptom of a long-term decoupling of the general economy, and democratic government itself, from the bread-and-butter worries of working people. The widespread realization that the economy is stacked against most people casts a pall over American politics. According to a recent New York Times/Siena poll, two-thirds of respondents believe the middle class is beyond the reach of most Americans. 

Until the late 1970s, majorities of voters could believe that a thriving economy would benefit them personally, and that most had a pathway to the middle class. There were glaring inequalities along racial, gender and geographic lines, yet for millions of working class people, including immigrants from around the globe and Black refugees from the Jim Crow South, macro and micro economics were conjoined.

After 50 years of economic rigging orchestrated by the ultra wealthy, the most rapacious corporations, and pliant politicians from both parties, this faith has been dashed. While lacking the suddenness of the 1929 crash, the cumulative effect is like a slow motion slide towards depression for the working and middle classes. In the richest country on Earth a stunning 60% of Americans worry about affording the basics of life, while in Wisconsin 35% of all households, and 60% of Black households, make less than a survival income.

This is no accident. As Harold Meyerson details in The American Prospect, through a half century of deliberate policy choices most of the benefits of growth have been funneled to the privileged few, resulting in a $79 trillion shift in assets to the top. If national income were distributed now as equally as in 1975, each wage earner would make an astounding $28,000 more per year on average. Combined with the deliberate encouragement of massive corporate monopolies with the power to jack up prices, this immiseration is pushing people to  a breaking point, making affording health care, housing, energy, food and education more and more challenging for the less than rich.

Despite its effectiveness in abetting the largest wealth transfer in history, government at all levels has been rendered stunningly inept when it comes to public works, social policy, and almost everything else that benefits the working and middle classes. 

A parallel crisis in the 1930s

In the New Deal economic order, there seemed to be nothing the government could not accomplish, from the work programs of the 1930s, to the economic mobilization against fascism, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, and the moon mission. Now everything from high speed rail to rural broadband, affordable housing, health care, child care, public education and cheap, renewable energy is tied up in knots.

While much of the blame can be placed on  the deliberate sabotage of government by an unholy alliance of grasping billionaires, big corporations, and right wing ideologues, a growing chorus of social critics also point the finger at a major shift in liberalism in the 1960s and 1970s. Recent books by Paul Sabin, Marc Dunkelman, Richard Kahenberg, Yoni Appelbaum, Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, and to significant degrees Bill McKibben and Gary Gerstle, make parts of a compelling case that the reaction against abuses of administrative power provoked liberals to overcorrect by creating so many regulatory and legal hurdles that government struggles to get anything big done that benefits the working and middle classes.

Further tarnishing public trust, this impotence does not apply to oligarchic power. The only force with the political and economic resources to cut through all the landmines and bottlenecks to bold action are the giant corporate monopolies, as we are seeing with the reckless buildout of highly unpopular AI data centers without guardrails to protect the public interest in affordable energy, clean air, and the stability of the climate on which we all depend.

The most useful historical analogy to our perilous situation is what Franklin Roosevelt confronted after Herbert Hoover’s futility in responding to the calamity brought on by that era’s economic royalists. Jonathan Alter and Eric Rauchway show that top opinion leaders of the era such as Walter Lippmann and William Randolph Hearst believed democracy too paralyzed to succeed, and openly advocated for Roosevelt to suspend Congress and assume dictatorial powers. 

Roosevelt was reportedly quite taken with the movie Gabriel Over the White House, a Hearst-funded production about a president seizing dictatorial power and curing the Great Depression. Ultimately, Roosevelt refused to take this path, although he fretted that failure would make him the last president. Democracy’s last near death experience in the 1930s has passed from collective memory only because Roosevelt did not fail. 

Drawing on reforms developed over three decades of progressive and labor organizing, Roosevelt amassed sufficient power to take radical action within the constitutional order to restructure and democratize the economy. Despite atrocious racial discrimination baked in by segregationist Democrats, the reforms tangibly improved material circumstances enough to restore the public’s belief that democracy could deliver. Despite receiving only half a loaf, even Black voters defected from the GOP in droves.

A difference between 1933 and 2026 is that authoritarians had not yet seized power, and despite sharp policy disagreements, Hoover and Roosevelt were committed to democratic norms. Today’s political crisis, like the crisis of the 1930s, is driven by economic elites capturing public policy and destroying democracy’s capacity to deliver what people need to thrive.

Divided Democrats

Within the big tent of the current pro-democracy coalition there is a comparable division to that of Roosevelt’s time on the necessity of structural reform. The division is even more dangerous now, in the face of an actual authoritarian takeover. This fissure is exemplified by the vast gulf between two of the most successful “blue wave” candidates of 2025: New York Mayor Zoran Mamdani, and Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger, who gave the Democratic response to Trump’s State of the Union. 

Spanberger’s affordability agenda focuses on the cost of health care, housing, and utilities. Although strongly messaged, substantively she offers a series of opaque technocratic fixes and small bore policies that will not shift pricing power away from monopolies, nor raise the incomes of workers. For example, she nibbles around the edges of health care, yet keeps the foxes in the henhouse, leaving hospital monopolies, big insurance and Big Pharma in control of setting grossly inflated prices.

This contrasts sharply with Mamdani, who offers remarkably clear and understandable solutions — a rent freeze, fast free buses, a $30 minimum wage, free universal child care, paid for with a wealth tax — which would make one of the world’s most expensive cities more affordable for working and middle class New Yorkers. While Mamdani’s agenda is challenging to achieve in a system stacked against bold action, in contrast to Spanberger’s suite of solution-ettes, its clarity means voters can fulfil their democratic role by holding either the mayor or those who block his agenda accountable.

This divide among Democrats does not necessarily map on a left to center axis but on whether the affordability crisis requires small adjustments to an otherwise healthy system or structural reform that democratizes power and tangibly improves material circumstances. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA), the co-chair of the centrist Blue Dog Democrats, declares: “You do not save democracy by running around, yelling about saving democracy. You do it by demonstrating that democracy and Democratic values deliver better quality of life for normal people.”

Springing the affordability trap

Donald Trump is feeling the brunt of public outrage for his false sales pitches on affordability. If he actually had a program to lower prices and raise wages he would have built greater support for his authoritarian project. We may not be so fortunate if a more effective autocrat is elected in 2028.

This is why affordability is a trap for Democrats: winning elections on empty promises will only deepen the crisis in democracy, setting the table for future authoritarians. Josh Bivens writes for In These Times that creating a more equal and affordable economy requires a “sharp change” in the “policy path” of the last half century.

The only solution to the ails of democracy is deeper and more robust democracy. As I wrote in the Wisconsin Examiner after Gov. Evers ignored public pressure to fight for a better state budget, the future of multiracial democracy does not depend on elected officials alone. It depends on more people organizing effectively to push them towards compelling and forceful action. Movements make leaders, not the other way around. 

We have already seen this happen on the first front of the fight to save democracy. Democratic leadership in Congress is fighting harder and using the power they have to more assertively check Trump’s lawless usurpations only because of immense pressure from organized people and everyday Americans. We must now apply this same pressure to demand that candidates and electeds fight to transform the rigged economy and ossified governing structures stacked against effective action. 

Because of Wisconsin’s enormous influence in presidential elections, we have a special obligation to light a fire under Democratic candidates for the Legislature and governor in a crowded primary field. We need more people to push the candidates, and more to join with organizing groups that are working to impel them to fight for bold and impactful reforms that a beleaguered and disillusioned people will feel in their daily lives. How Wisconsin Democrats run in 2026, and especially how they govern in 2027, will have a tremendous influence on how presidential contenders run in 2028, a year that could be democracy’s last best hope.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Attending the State of the Union Address last month as Congresswoman Gwen Moore’s guest was, in a word, surreal.

As a child care provider and small business leader in Wisconsin, I spend my days thinking about how rising costs affect my staff and the families whose children we care for. I never imagined I would one day sit in the Capitol for an address like this.

Watching at home does not capture the scale of it: the formality, the history, the gravity of the room.

Last year, for the first time in my life, I began speaking publicly about health care affordability. For years, I relied on Affordable Care Act enhanced tax credits to afford my own coverage. When those credits expired, I watched members of my team face impossible decisions: pay dramatically higher premiums or go without health insurance altogether. That is not an abstract policy debate for us; it is a real and immediate stressor.

Congresswoman Moore invited me to share those experiences. She  and I had many conversations about the realities facing working families, including how the expiration of those tax credits is affecting millions of Americans, particularly the educators and families I see every day. We talked about the pressure of rising rent, utilities, groceries, child care and other costs, and how health care is increasingly becoming the expense that pushes families over the edge.

So when I took my seat in the Capitol, surrounded by university presidents, members of the military and leaders from across the country, I listened carefully.

I hoped to hear a serious plan to address health care costs.

Instead, health care received only brief mention in what I later learned was the longest State of the Union address in American history.

The President spoke about a “golden age” and a booming economy. But for whom? And in what parts of the country?

That’s not the reality I see.

Certainly not in the everyday lives of the people who form the foundation of our workforce: the teachers, farmers, caregivers, service workers and small business owners I interact with every day.

A golden era for a select few does not make a golden era for a country.

Not for teachers standing in classrooms.

Not for farmers working their fields.

Not for the caregivers, service workers and small business owners whose work sustains our communities.

They are the threads in the quilt that holds this country together. When policies ignore their struggles or make basic necessities like health care more expensive, those threads begin to fray.

Nearly 44% of U.S. adults say it is difficult to afford health care right now. Premiums have doubled, tripled or even quadrupled for millions of families following the expiration of enhanced ACA tax credits, a policy decision now affecting nearly 22 million Americans.

More than one million Americans have already dropped coverage, including more than 20,000  Wisconsinites.

We all know there are people behind those numbers.

They are assistant teachers deciding whether they can risk going uninsured. They are kitchen staff weighing premiums against rent. They are parents of toddlers delaying doctors’ appointments because another bill is already overdue.

In child care, those decisions ripple far beyond a single household. When educators cannot afford health care, they leave the field, and when they leave, classrooms close and parents lose the care they rely on to go to work. In that way, health care affordability is not just a personal issue; it is a workforce issue and an economic issue for the entire country.

At the same time, proposed cuts of more than $1 trillion from Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act are putting enormous pressure on the health care system itself. Across the country, over 750 hospitals, maternity wards and nursing homes are facing service cuts or closure because of these changes.

Every closure, every service reduction and every essential worker lost means higher costs, longer delays for care and greater risk for families.

None of that made it into the speech.

Meanwhile, billionaires have seen their wealth increase by $1 trillion, and pharmaceutical companies reported more than $130 billion in profits last year alone.

But the working families I know are making impossible trade-offs.

I attended the State of the Union hoping to hear that relief was coming —  that health care affordability would be treated as the urgent economic issue it is for my family, the families we serve at the daycare and for all working families.

Instead, I heard a version of the economy that does not match the reality I see every day.

In our corner of America, parents are postponing appointments. Employees are calculating whether they can risk going uninsured. Small business owners are wondering how long they can keep absorbing rising costs.

Being present in the Capitol did not change that reality.

Because for those of us entrusted with caring for children and for the families who rely on us, health care affordability is not a political talking point.

It is basic survival.

And Americans do not need to be told that we are living in a golden era.

We need to feel it.

That means passing legislation, making real investments, and taking meaningful action that improves the daily lives of the people who hold this country together. It means proving, not just promising, that the American people are worth investing in.

Because a truly golden era is not measured in stock market gains or applause in a chamber.

It is measured in whether everyday families can afford to live, work and care for one another with dignity.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Vice President JD Vance did not utter the word “tariffs” a single time during his upbeat speech at a Plover, Wisconsin, machining plant Thursday. The visit, aimed at shoring up vulnerable Republican U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden ahead of the 2026 midterms, was part of a post-State of the Union victory lap Vance is taking to market the so-called Golden Age of prosperity President Donald Trump claims he and the Republicans have delivered to rural and blue-collar voters.

It’s a tough sell. 

The latest Marquette University Law School poll, released the day before Vance parachuted into Wisconsin, shows Trump hitting a second-term low with Wisconsin voters, with 44% saying they approve of the job he’s doing and 54% saying they don’t approve. Across partisan affiliations, the rising cost of living is voters’ No. 1 concern, while 55% of respondents told pollsters tariffs are hurting Wisconsin farmers. Manufacturers are not happy, either.

“I can tell you from my experience running our company, from everyone I talk to in my networks — 95% of people in manufacturing — 99% do not support the tariffs,” said Sachin Shivaram, CEO of Wisconsin Aluminum Foundry, a Wisconsin-based company with locations across the Midwest.

Shivaram spoke on a press call with Wisconsin Sen. Tammy Baldwin ahead of Vance’s speech Thursday. Many business owners, he said, are afraid to publicly share their criticisms of the Trump administration. When he meets other leaders of manufacturing companies in boardrooms, he said, “It’s like, look, we can’t say anything about how dumb the tariff policy is, because we’re going to be the next one whacked on X.” But, he added, “it’s costing all of them, all of us, a lot of money.”

Tariffs have caused “chaos and uncertainty” for businesses, agreed Kyle LaFond, owner and founder of American Provenance and Natural Contract Manufacturing, a small business that makes personal care products. “Last year, when these tariffs were first instituted, I absorbed those costs as much as possible. I did that for about eight months,” LaFond said. “But that is not a sustainable business practice.” Ultimately, he said, businesses have to pass along the cost to their customers:  “Tariffs are just attacks on the American consumer.” 

There’s a reason slim majorities of Wisconsin voters chose Trump in 2016 and 2024. Vance put his finger on it in his speech at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. “When I was in the fourth grade, a career politician by the name of Joe Biden supported NAFTA, a bad trade deal that sent countless good jobs to Mexico.”

Wisconsin manufacturing workers and farmers suffered tremendously from global trade deals. Democrats and Republicans alike brushed aside their pain and tried to tell them that the booming stock market and increasing corporate profits were worth the crashing prices and job losses. Never mind the communities ruined and all the families that fell out of the middle class.

Trump and Vance spoke to those voters. In his convention speech, Vance cleverly tied global trade deals supported by both political parties to immigration.“Now, thanks to these policies that Biden and other out-of-touch politicians in Washington gave us,” he said, “our country was flooded with cheap Chinese goods, with cheap foreign labor.”

But the immigrants who make up 70% of the labor force on Wisconsin dairy farms did not drive the collapse of Wisconsin’s small-farm economy. They, too, were displaced by globalization that drove down prices and accelerated a “get big or get out” economy that has taken a heavy toll on working people on both sides of the border. The arrival of immigrants willing to work long hours for low pay on farms that were forced to expand rapidly to stay afloat was a blessing to farmers who simply couldn’t find American workers to fill those jobs.

Today’s increasingly virulent, demagogic attacks on those hardworking immigrants should make everyone queasy. 

Alex Jacquez, a former White House economic official in the Biden administration who also worked for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 2020 presidential campaign, sees Vance’s rise as a big win for the populist right. Vance’s criticism of global trade deals that hollowed out American manufacturing, and his appeal to the “forgotten” American workers who have never recovered from outsourcing, struck a nerve with voters across the industrial Midwest. 

“But I think the question is whether the actual policies put forward are having the outcomes that they intend here,” Jacquez said in a phone interview Thursday.

Trump ‘s failure to deliver the economic miracle he advertised, along with devastating cuts to health care and the safety net, pose a looming problem for Republicans ahead of the midterms. The solution they’ve hit on is a combination of bluster, bullying and straight up lies. 

In his Plover speech, Vance doubled down on Trump’s scapegoating of immigrants and Democrats in the State of the Union. Following up on Trump’s racist characterization of the entire Somali immigrant community in Minnesota as “pirates” responsible for plundering public aid, Vance  blamed “‘illegal aliens” for fraud in public benefits programs and voting. He brought up Trump’s lurid descriptions of crimes committed by immigrants and, like Trump, excoriated Democrats for not standing up and cheering as the president subjected grieving parents to a gory rehash of violent attacks on their children.

The reason Democrats didn’t stand up during Trump’s speech, Vance suggested, is that “they answer to people who have corrupted this country. They answer to people who opened the border. They answer to people who got rich off of illegal immigrant labor. … We want American workers to get rich for working hard, not illegal aliens.”

Sucker-punching Democrats on immigration was a goal of the State of the Union speech. And Republicans will keep on punching. Their sanctimonious horror at the very idea of their colleagues not standing up and cheering for the victims of violent criminals is a way of changing the subject away from the spectacle of masked federal immigration agents spreading murderous mayhem in Midwestern neighborhoods, and, of course, the fact that none of this is making American workers better off. 

As Jacquez pointed out, “Certainly Trump has cracked down on immigration, but that doesn’t seem to be redounding to the benefit of native-born workers. We’ve seen the unemployment rate creep up even while fewer immigrants are working these days on the manufacturing side.”

“We lost manufacturing jobs in every single month of 2025,” he added. “There has been no resurgence whatsoever in actual people getting jobs in manufacturing and, in fact, in many sectors, some of the trade policies that Trump has advanced have been actively harmful.”

At the end of his speech, Vance took questions from local media that reflected the immediate concerns of voters in western Wisconsin. 

What can his administration do to stop the closure of rural hospitals that are creating a health care desert in the district he was visiting?

Vance blamed the problem on the Biden administration, although rural hospital closures did not begin under Biden and are severely exacerbated by Medicaid cuts under Trump. Vance also claimed the Trump administration is now turning things around with the rural hospital fund included in the “Big Beautiful Bill Act” — $200 million of which was awarded to Wisconsin in December.

Derrick Van Orden also pumped the rural hospital fund in remarks ahead of Vance’s speech, saying it’s “just a lie” that Democrats care about rural health care, because they didn’t vote for the massive tax- and spending-cut bill that contained the rural health care fund. 

KFF projects the fund will only make up for about one-third of the Republicans’ cuts to Medicaid in rural areas. And that offset is temporary. The rural health fund expires in five years. In Wisconsin, meanwhile, 250,000 people are losing their health care coverage because of the Medicaid cuts and changes to the Affordable Care Act passed by Republicans. Those losses are concentrated in rural areas, and have a cascading effect on rural hospitals and entire rural economies.

Van Orden, who has spent his whole political career calling for the elimination of the Affordable Care Act, reversed course and voted with Democrats to extend ACA subsidies last month — right after voting to block the same measure when Democrats brought it up the day before. 

In answer to a question on the health care worker shortage and the aging population of rural Wisconsin, Vance took a swipe at college students who major in women’s studies. The Trump administration — which has focused on repealing a pandemic-era pause on student loan repayment, resumed garnishing the wages of student debtors and imposed less affordable repayment plans — wants to make it easier for people to study to become doctors and nurses without getting “layered up with debt,” Vance declared.

Will the Trump administration withhold Medicaid money from Wisconsin as it recently announced it will do to Minnesota, as punishment for the state’s refusal to hand over the sensitive, personal information of food assistance recipients and of voters?

In answer to that question, Vance said it was outrageous that Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers and the Wisconsin Elections Commission have refused to hand over the data Trump is demanding, and left the open the option of withholding federal Medicaid money, saying Democrats “like to cheat” in “voter rolls and welfare rolls.” 

Asked about farmers facing wildly fluctuating commodity prices, Vance celebrated the administration’s success in getting China to open up its market to U.S. soybeans. That’s a head-scratcher, since China was purchasing about half of all U.S. soybeans a year ago, before it stopped amid a trade war caused by Trump’s tariffs. That was a big problem for Wisconsin farmers who were suddenly stuck sitting on a bumper soybean crop after losing their biggest buyer. Even with the new deal, those farmers will not be made whole, Darin Von Ruden, president of the Wisconsin Farmers Union, told Wisconsin Public Radio, and China has now found new markets, setting up a long-term business loss.

Among Vance’s many preposterous claims, perhaps the most incredible was the picture he tried to paint of a caring, empathetic Trump, who wakes up every morning asking what he can do to solve the problems of the American people. Do even Trump’s supporters buy the idea that the man who made $4 billion off the presidency after just one year in office is driven by selfless concern for the needs of others? 

On one occasion, Vance said, during a discussion of the soaring stock market, Trump asked earnestly what could be done for people who don’t own any stocks. The answer, he said, was Trump’s brilliant plan to give low-income workers a $1,000 federal match for retirement. That idea was actually signed into law by Biden four years ago.

Asked for his further ideas for investing in rural communities, Vance said his administration will mostly “just listen” to voters. He held up Van Orden as the administration’s point man for keeping in touch with constituents in rural Wisconsin. Unfortunately, Van Orden is so notorious for avoiding in-person contact with voters, Democrats have made a regular practice of visiting his district to hold town halls from which he is reliably, notably absent. 

The claim that either he or the Trump administration is concerned about solving the problems of Wisconsin voters is the biggest lie of all. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Before Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) announced his retirement Thursday, it was obvious something had changed. The longest serving speaker in Wisconsin history, known for keeping Assembly Republicans on a tight leash, slipped out of a caucus meeting late Wednesday night. Capitol reporter Baylor Spears tracked him down at a fundraiser at the Madison Club, where, she reported, Vos told her his caucus was meeting without him. Later that evening, Assembly Republicans announced that Vos had suddenly dropped his yearslong opposition to letting Wisconsin expand postpartum Medicaid coverage for new mothers for one year. Vos’ last-minute change of heart allowed eight Republicans facing competitive reelection races to hold a late-night press conference proclaiming the news that they planned to pass postpartum coverage, along with another measure extending life-saving breast-cancer screenings that Vos was suddenly permitting to come up for a vote. Vos himself didn’t bother to attend. 

With both Vos and Gov. Tony Evers retiring, the two most powerful politicians in the state — and the often dysfunctional dynamic between them — are going away. It’s the end of an era characterized by toxic partisanship, although probably not the last we’ll see of divided government in our 50/50 state. 

Still, as Vos relaxes his grip, Wisconsin Republicans are starting to wrap their heads around the new reality that they no longer hold complete control over what was once, effectively, a one-party state. 

New, fairer voting maps have already eroded gerrymandered GOP supermajorities in the Legislature that previously endured even when Democrats won every statewide race. In the upcoming November elections, the new maps will, for the first time, take full effect.

The creation of more competitive districts has not immediately ushered in an atmosphere of productive bipartisanship in the Capitol. But it did cause enough of a thaw that Wisconsin could finally join the other 48 states that have already expanded postpartum Medicaid. Republicans running in newly competitive districts can campaign on this bit of belated progress. Two cheers for Wisconsin! We’re 49th!

At the Vos-less press conference Wednesday night, Republicans gave emotional testimony about “the women who need this protection.” They thanked the speaker for finally listening to their pleas. Then, instead of reaching across the aisle, they delivered a scorching rebuke to Democrats who had been pushing for months for a vote on both of the women’s health bills they were celebrating. When the bills were not scheduled, Democrats vowed to bring them up as amendments to other bills, holding up action on the floor and threatening to put their GOP colleagues in the embarrassing position of having to vote down their efforts.

“I’m very angry at what happened today — very angry,” Rep. Patrick Snyder (R-Weston) said. “I talked to my Democratic colleagues and told them that I was close, that it was going to get done, but then they throw this crap at us today. It almost blew it up.”

By speaking up, Democrats nearly ruined Republicans’ efforts to gain support within their own caucus, according to Snyder. That analysis caused Democratic Minority Leader Greta Neubauer to roll her eyes. “It seems that the bills are going to the floor after years of Rep. Pat Snyder telling us that these bills were going to be passed and them not being passed, so it does seem like our actions made a difference today,” Neubauer said. 

Partisan habits die hard. For much of the most recent legislative session, Republicans formed a Sorehead Caucus whose sole aims were rehashing grievances about their loss of power and trying in vain to recreate the dominance they enjoyed when they controlled every branch of government. 

Back in 2018, when Evers won the first time, breaking the GOP stranglehold by beating former Republican Gov. Scott Walker, Republicans held a lame duck session to claw back the incoming governor’s powers. Eight years later, as Evers is about to leave office at the end of his second term, they’re still at it. Motivated by spite over Evers’ line-item veto extending their modest, two-year increase in school revenue limits for the next 400 years, they have insisted on starving school districts of state funds, punishing not only Wisconsin schoolchildren but also the property taxpayers who, in the absence of state funding, are forced to pick up the tab. 

In a similarly spiteful vein, Republicans just killed off the popular, bipartisan Knowles Nelson stewardship program, setting up the 36-year-old land conservation effort to die this summer. Over and over in hearings on whether to renew the program or drastically cut it back, Republicans cited a state Supreme Court decision that held they cannot anonymously veto individual conservation projects. GOP legislators said the decision — written by the most conservative justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court — left them no option but to gut the program just to show who’s boss. 

As Henry Redman reports, a handful of conservation-minded Republicans could have joined forces with Democrats to save the program, but Republican bill authors insisted on negotiating only within their own caucus, ignoring Democratic efforts to make a deal and instead trying to please the program’s far-right enemies by making deeper and deeper cuts before finally giving up and letting the program lapse.

This style of governing — a hangover from the Walker era — might satisfy certain politicians’ hunger for power, but it’s ill-suited to getting anything productive done for the people who live in the state.

Let’s hope Vos’ departure marks the end of the petty partisanship that has blocked progress in Wisconsin for far too long.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Data centers, artificial intelligence and fossil fuels are dominating headlines. Across the  United States, more than $350 billion was invested in AI and data-center infrastructure, with  tens of billions of dollars proposed in Wisconsin. Investment and economic development are  often framed as unequivocal wins, but energy infrastructure is different. If built without  foresight, the consequences will reshape the future. 

Growth is certain; however the balance between positive and negative growth is yet to be  determined. 

I have worked in Wisconsin’s energy sector since 2019, beginning in residential and  commercial solar. Over the years, I’ve seen energy debates around renewable energy become  increasingly politicized, even as their original purpose remains unchanged: to produce reliable  electricity, reduce dependence on fragile infrastructure, and give communities more control  over their energy supply. Yet, the existing industry stakeholders have blocked deployment and  ownership for everyone but themselves. While homeowners, farmers, tribal nations and  small businesses face mounting restrictions on deploying their own power systems, the state  has moved quickly to approve massive new energy loads for data centers. These agreements  are also accompanied by preferential rate structures, infrastructure guarantees and the ability  to negotiate. 

That contradiction should concern all of us. 

Wisconsin residents have grown accustomed to electric rate increases justified by grid  maintenance, system upgrades and long-term reliability. According to federal energy data,  Wisconsin already ranks among the top 15 states for electricity costs, and utilities have  signaled additional increases in the years ahead. At the same time, power reliability has  deteriorated in both rural and urban areas. 

In parts of Milwaukee, aging poles lean precariously, and low-hanging lines form tangled  webs that look untouched for decades. In rural Wisconsin, the impacts are similar. Tribal  nations such as the Sokaogon Chippewa and the Menominee Nation have experienced  long-duration outages lasting days or even weeks, disrupting health care, food systems and  economic activity. These are not isolated incidents; they are symptoms of an overstretched  and unevenly maintained grid. 

Against this backdrop, Wisconsin is welcoming some of the most energy-intensive facilities  on the planet. A single large data center can consume as much electricity as a small city,  operating around the clock, every day of the year. The rise of AI only accelerates this demand.  Unlike the rest of the state, these facilities do not proceed without firm assurances of power  availability, reliability, transmission access,and cost certainty. 

Data centers operate under a different set of rules.  

Utilities and regulators are willing to negotiate specialized rate structures, accelerate  infrastructure investments, and prioritize reliability. Meanwhile, everyday ratepayers, who  collectively use far less power and have far less leverage, are asked to shoulder rising costs  and accept declining service quality.  

This is not a free market. Wisconsin’s energy industry has become an unregulated monopoly.  Large utilities control generation, transmission and distribution, and they largely determine  who is allowed to produce power and under what terms. While utilities have invested heavily  in renewable energy they own, they continue to restrict external ownership and  community-scale generation knowing that distributed energy can reduce peak demand,  improve resilience, and lower long-term system costs.  

If utilities can justify new power plants, substations and transmission lines for data centers,  they must also explain why a similar urgency does not apply to grid reliability, ownership  opportunities for distributed energy systems and lower rates for Wisconsin residents. Why is  Wisconsin able to deliver gigawatts of electricity to data centers, yet unable to address  persistent grid failures in communities that have been struggling for decades?  

This moment calls for accountability, not ideology. Wisconsin deserves transparency in how  data center energy deals are structured, who bears the costs of new infrastructure and how  reliability risks are distributed. Ratepayers deserve to know why the largest electricity users  receive the greatest assurances, while households, businesses and communities are told to  accept less while paying more. Economic growth should not come at the expense of affordability,  resilience or fairness. If Wisconsin is going to power the future of AI and digital  infrastructure, it must also protect the people and communities that power Wisconsin itself.  

This energy crisis is not inevitable. It is the result of choices. And those choices will  determine whether Wisconsin’s energy future delivers reliable power for all, or a system  defined by higher costs, more frequent outages and growing divides between communities. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

I have visited many after-school and summer programs across Wisconsin, from large urban sites to small rural schools, and what I’ve seen has stayed with me. I’ve watched students immersed in creative writing, acting and robotics. I’ve observed staff working one-on-one with kids navigating intense emotional challenges. And I’ve seen the smiles on middle schoolers’ faces as they reconnect with trusted mentors at the end of the school day. These programs are not “extras”; they provide crucial support to kids, families, and entire communities.

The access gap

And yet, for far too many Wisconsin families, these opportunities remain out of reach. According to the latest America After 3PM report, nearly 275,000 Wisconsin children who would participate in after-school programs are not enrolled because none are available. Four in five children who could benefit from these supports are missing out. Parents cite cost, lack of transportation, and a simple lack of local programming as the biggest barriers.

The benefits are clear

The impact of these programs is undeniable. Parents overwhelmingly rate their children’s after-school programs as excellent or very good, reporting that they keep kids safe, build social skills, and support mental wellness. Research in Wisconsin shows that students who participate in extracurricular activities are less likely to report anxiety or depression and more likely to feel a sense of belonging.

Out-of-school time programs often provide the space for deep, long-term mentoring, a powerful protective factor in a young person’s life. While teachers are often stretched thin during the academic day, out-of-school time  staff can focus on the relational side of development.

The cost of instability

When funding is unstable, it undermines the very connections that make these programs transformative. Recently, a Boys & Girls Club director shared the human cost of budget constraints: they were forced to reduce a veteran staff member to part-time. This didn’t just trim a budget; it severed a multi-year mentorship. When that bond was broken, several youths stopped attending entirely.

Wisconsin lags behind national trends

Across the country, after-school and summer programs are increasingly viewed as essential to youth development. Twenty-seven states provide dedicated state funding for these programs; Wisconsin provides none. States as different as Alabama and Texas recognize that federal funding alone is not enough. So do our  Midwestern neighbors.

• Minnesota and Illinois have invested in these programs for years.
• Michigan established a $73 million grant program to expand before-school, after-school, and summer learning statewide.
• Pennsylvania created the $11.5 million Building Opportunity through Out-of-School Time (BOOST) program.

The opportunity to act

Public support for these programs is strong and bipartisan. Families across Wisconsin want safe, enriching opportunities for their children. With a significant budget surplus, Wisconsin is uniquely positioned to invest in its future.

State leaders should view out-of-school programming as a foundation for safety, mental health, and long-term economic opportunity. We have the resources; now we need the will. By committing to consistent state funding, we can ensure that every young person in Wisconsin has a place to belong when the school bell rings.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The federal administration’s decision to rescind the Environmental Protection Agency’s Endangerment Finding may sound technical. In reality, it targets the legal foundation that has allowed the United States to regulate climate pollution for more than a decade. For Wisconsin, the move introduces new uncertainty just as communities, farmers and businesses invest in cleaner energy, efficiency and more resilient infrastructure.

The 2009 Endangerment Finding concluded that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare. Courts have upheld that determination repeatedly. Eliminating or weakening it does not change the science behind climate change, but it could reshape how power plants, vehicles and industrial facilities are regulated. That shift carries consequences for states already dealing with smoky summers, heavier rainfall and rising infrastructure costs.

Wisconsin’s clean energy economy has expanded steadily, often without much attention. Renewable projects now generate enough electricity to power about 560,000 homes. Roughly 75,000 residents work in clean energy fields, and more than 350 Wisconsin companies supply technologies or services that reduce energy use or emissions. Together, these efforts reflect a broader reality: climate progress here tends to be practical and locally driven because it lowers costs and strengthens communities.

Examples are visible across the state. School districts and municipal buildings are cutting operating expenses through efficiency upgrades supported by Focus on Energy programs. Tribal and low-income households are receiving targeted weatherization investments that improve comfort and reduce utility bills. Builders and manufacturers are adopting higher performance standards to reduce long-term risk.

Federal rollbacks do not automatically halt these efforts, but they complicate financing and planning. Investors and local governments rely on predictable rules. When national standards shift, projects that once appeared viable can stall.

Some of the clearest examples are unfolding in rural Wisconsin. The SolarShare Wisconsin Cooperative is expanding community-owned solar projects that keep energy dollars circulating locally while pairing installations with pollinator habitat or sheep grazing. Hidden Springs Creamery installed a 50-kilowatt solar system to power its creamery and farm operations while continuing to produce artisanal cheeses. These projects reflect a simple idea gaining traction across the state: build it here, power it here, prosper here.

Wisconsin’s dairy sector has also become a testing ground for methane reduction strategies. Anaerobic digesters, renewable natural gas systems and advanced manure management technologies are already operating throughout the state. They reduce emissions while improving water quality and creating new revenue streams for farmers. If federal climate incentives weaken, fewer of these projects may move forward, leaving producers to absorb more risk and potentially slowing innovation that began here.

At the same time, new pressures are emerging from the rapid growth of artificial intelligence and large-scale data centers. Utilities are proposing infrastructure expansions to meet rising electricity demand, raising questions about cost allocation, water use and oversight. Small businesses, tribes, farmers and rural communities are organizing around siting decisions that affect farmland and ratepayers.

This week, the Power Wisconsin Forward campaign, supported by the Clean Economy Coalition of Wisconsin and more than 50 partner organizations, urged the Public Service Commission to ensure that data center costs do not shift onto ordinary customers. The debate highlights a broader reality. Wisconsin’s energy landscape is changing quickly even as federal climate policy moves in the opposite direction.

It would be misleading to suggest Wisconsin’s political environment has become less polarized. Recent legislative sessions show deep divisions and limited consensus on climate priorities. That context makes federal rollbacks more consequential. Without consistent national guardrails, states rely more heavily on local initiatives and market forces, which can advance progress but unevenly.

Legal challenges to the EPA decision are likely, but outcomes remain uncertain. In the meantime, utilities, farmers and local governments must make decisions without clear signals from Washington.

The practical question facing Wisconsin is not whether federal politics will shift. It is whether the state continues investing in projects that already deliver measurable results. Efficiency upgrades lower utility bills. Community solar keeps energy spending local. Methane reduction technologies help farms manage waste while improving soil and water conditions.

In a politically diverse state, climate progress rarely looks dramatic. It often appears as quieter momentum built through local partnerships and incremental gains. The federal rollback raises real risks, but it does not erase the infrastructure or collaboration already underway.

What happens next will be shaped less by national rhetoric and more by decisions made at the Public Service Commission, in county zoning meetings and on working farms across Wisconsin.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The winter of 2026 will go down in state history as among our finest hours. 

What happened here will be studied by social scientists and historians as one of the great victories of nonviolent resistance in recent times. Minnesotans showed that brutality and sheer numbers could not overcome communities that were united in their opposition to the usurpers.

People are right to be skeptical about whether the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown here is ending, as announced Thursday by $50,000 man and border czar Tom Homan.

But I’m confident they are leaving for a simple reason: They’re losing.  

What happened and why it happened offer important lessons for our future and for democracy defenders across the country, so let’s focus for a minute before we dance on the grave of the authoritarian attempt: 

The resistance was communitarian. By now it’s almost cliche: Minnesotans — and especially Minneapolitans — were looking out for their neighbors, be they immigrants or the people protecting them. Neighborhoods came together again as they did after the police murder of George Floyd and the chaos that followed, all during a pandemic. The lesson here is to get to know your neighbors.

The sense that we’re all in it together motivates great acts of both charity and courage. 

The resistance was libertarian. When I talked to friends and family around the country, I put it in these terms: Imagine that 3,000 masked, heavily armed outsiders were roaming around your community, routinely racially profiling people, including off-duty police (!); detaining immigrants here legally  — including young children — and shipping them across state lines; smashing the car windows of observers and arresting them before releasing them without charges; and, of course, shooting and killing two American citizens and injuring an immigrant in a case of mistaken identity. When you put it in these terms, Americans around the country got it.  

The resistance was nonviolent. (Mostly.) When authoritarians are employing brutality, armed resistance feels justified. Second Amendment enthusiasts might even say constitutional. But it often leads to a spiraling cycle of violence and repression, e.g., the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

Bullhorns, whistles, chants, shouts, songs, mockery and marches were more effective than violence could ever be.

This is not a new or untested strategy. As the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said during his Nobel Prize acceptance speech: “Nonviolence is not sterile passivity, but a powerful moral force which makes for social transformation.”

The feds’ support, meanwhile, collapsed when they engaged in indiscriminate violence.

The nonviolent resistance helped win the battle for public opinion, which was crucial. An NBC poll showed that two-thirds of Americans believe the Trump administration’s immigration tactics have “gone too far,” with similar numbers in Minnesota, according to another poll.

We too often think of authoritarians as omnipotent, acting with impunity in the face of all resistance. Nothing President Donald Trump says or does seems to matter. But this is not true, and that attitude of despair is precisely what the authoritarian needs. Authoritarians have frequently been defeated in the face of mass resistance, from the Eastern Bloc to Latin America. Once the authoritarian loses popular legitimacy, it’s only a matter of time before the regime collapses.

Our strong institutions were an important bulwark. Outsiders who kept bleating about “paid protesters” have clearly never stuffed themselves with hot dish and baked goods at a Minnesota PTA meeting, caucus, hockey game or church event on a subzero night.

Indeed, as Madison McVan reported this week, churches (and let’s add mosques and synagogues) were crucial to providing material and spiritual support to immigrants and those defending them.

Minnesota ranks highly — 2nd in the nation in one survey — in indices of social capital, i.e., family unity, social support and volunteerism. If you feel like we’ve taken a beating in recent years — the killing of Floyd and unrest and rioting that followed, the looting of our safety net programs, the assassination of former House Speaker Melissa Hortman — you’re right, but our strong institutions have helped us remain resilient.

Our big corporations were not part of that institutional infrastructure. They were silent, and then mealy-mouthed. The days of corporate noblesse oblige are over, especially when the authoritarian demands unquestioning fealty from them. 

The judiciary stood up to the authoritarian attempt. Attorneys for immigrants worked under impossible conditions to defend constitutional rights and due process. 

More than a dozen federal prosecutors quit in disgust.

And, federal judges refused to be cowed. In scorching orders — from appointees of just about every recent president, including a protege of conservative icon Antonin Scalia — many refused to countenance the legal chaos and unconstitutional usurpation the federal government unleashed here. They provided a near daily drumbeat of evidence of the Trump administration’s lawlessness. This severely undercut the administration’s message that Operation Metro Surge was a “law enforcement operation” when anyone could see it was a politically-motivated, performative show of aggression.

During one hearing, Judge Jerry Blackwell — who was the lead prosecutor of Floyd’s killer, Derek Chauvin — reminded the federal government’s lawyers of the seriousness of the executive branch’s insubordination in failing to release detainees, as he’d ordered: “The DOJ, the DHS, and ICE are not above the law. They do wield extraordinary power, and that power has to exist within constitutional limits.”

Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara was a PR bonanza for the resistance, even though many Minneapolis activists loath MPD. I learned from O’Hara’s many local and national media appearances, for instance, that there’d been three homicides in Minneapolis as of late January, and two of them were committed by the feds. Considering the traditional blue wall of silence, you’d expect O’Hara to refrain from criticizing the feds, but he landed punches instead. (No permanent friends, and no permanent enemies: a political maxim worth considering.)

Although this moment was far bigger than party politics, there’s a few things worth mentioning:

Some Republicans provided important bipartisan messaging. I’m sure there are others, but Sens. Jim Abeler, Zach Duckworth, and Julia Coleman and Reps. Marion Rarick and Nolan West gave fellow Republicans and Republican-leaning independents a subtle signal that it was OK to question the constitutionality and effectiveness of Operation Metro Surge.

By contrast, Vichy Republicans, like U.S. Rep. Tom Emmer, turned against fellow Minnesotans and gave aid and comfort to the authoritarian outsiders. Grudges aren’t healthy, but we shouldn’t forget. Now they’ll receive their just deserts because the Democrats will likely win in November.

Which means those Republicans will be just another in the long line of Trump’s marks.

A lot of Democrats paused their endless factional disputes, or as one militant leftist posted on X last month: “Liberals, leftists, moderates, socialists, communists, and f*cking all the rest have an opportunity here to come together and fight fascism. That means, for the moment, FOR THE F*CKING MOMENT, to not be a dumb*ss b*tch about factionalism and old beefs. Just for now. For a bit.”  (I’m sure this very column will bring the requisite calumny from said factions — see item #8 — but that’s all to the good, as it signals a return to normalcy.)

Finally, respect localism. When the feds chased a man at high speeds through my neighborhood Wednesday, which led to a three-car wreck, I found myself in a state of agitation and contempt for the usurpers that was only matched previously by the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. 

It hits different when it’s your own neighborhood. Which, I realize, is morally provincial. After all, other neighborhoods have been dealing with this on a daily basis for two months. (Some communities have suffered under repressive policing for much longer.)

And, for that matter, other nations have been dealing with rulers’ boots on their necks  — including proxies of the United States government — for years, and, in some cases, decades.

So my final takeaway is that we ought to be extremely humble when we seek to impose our will on other people, communities, states, nations. 

Now, let’s spend the weekend toasting and dancing in the streets.

Before Operation Metro Surge sent thousands of armed federal agents into Minneapolis, terrorizing families and spreading chaos and violence in formerly peaceful residential neighborhoods, local parent organizations were already setting up networks to provide mutual aid and safely transport children of immigrants to and from school.

“My school group of friends formed our first network of communication in October, after we saw what had happened in Chicago,” the mother of an elementary school student in South Minneapolis named Elizabeth told me in a phone interview Wednesday. She asked that her last name not be published, because of the danger of reprisals. 

The encrypted neighborhood chat started chiming for the first time on Tuesday, Dec. 9, she recalls, when “there were two people abducted early in the morning within blocks of my kid’s school.” When her child asked what was going on, “I said, you know, people are concerned about the safety of coming to school today,” Elizabeth recalls. “And like a good Minnesotan, my child realized that it was foggy outside and said, ‘Well, fog creates ice, and so the roads are probably slippery …’ And I said, yeah, they’re worried about ice on the roads. And I really had hope in that moment of naivety that that would be the last time we’d have to have that conversation. But it wasn’t.”

Since December, when Operation Metro Surge began, Elizabeth said her child’s class has shrunk from 25 students to just five. The school district has offered a remote learning option to immigrant families who are afraid to let their children leave the house. Meanwhile, the neighborhood chat group, which began with five families whose children played soccer together, has connected with hundreds of volunteers, many of whom don’t have kids in the school.

Because most of the families at the school are people of color, “we really had to start relying on our neighbors around us to help us, because we don’t have enough families that are not in danger,” Elizabeth said. Residents of nearby neighborhoods joined to form a group of 200 people who patrol the playground in the morning and afternoon and during recess, guard the nearby bus stops, and drive children from home to school and back again. 

In addition, volunteers pick up laundry every other week from families that are shut inside, and bring groceries, shopping for food at local Hispanic markets, which have taken a heavy hit after losing employees and customers during the immigration enforcement surge. 

There are many similar mutual aid groups throughout the area, each doing things in different ways. “There are a lot of micro projects happening everywhere,” Elizabeth said. And things are constantly changing. “It’s a living process,” she said. “No two days are the same.” 

While she tries to avoid contact with federal agents, ICE is everywhere in their neighborhood, Elizabeth said. She no longer allows her child to walk to the corner store alone. 

“ICE is constantly driving through our neighborhoods. They’re not obeying traffic signals. They’re not obeying traffic laws. They’re running through stop signs. They’re going the wrong way on one-ways,” Elizabeth said. While she isn’t afraid that her child, who is white, will be snatched and sent to immigration detention, she worries about the possibility of her child stumbling upon a violent action, “or they could get tear-gassed, very easily.”

The Department of Homeland Security’s rationale for the federal immigration enforcement surge is to enhance public safety. But it’s very clear from talking to people in Minneapolis that armed agents speeding through neighborhoods, smashing car windows and dragging people out of their homes has shattered the sense of safety residents used to have. 

Elizabeth does not claim that her neighborhood group can overcome that, or effectively deter ICE. Instead, she describes its purpose as offering comfort to immigrant parents. And for the children, she says, “I really make sure that I’m there every day so they can see the same faces, so there’s some stability in their day.”

“We’ve got families that have been in hiding for nine weeks now,” she adds. “… I want them to know that we were here for them.”

As for her own child, “I have to be really honest,” she said. She’s had to give up her hope, before the surge, not to have to talk about the sickening danger all around them. “They live in a community, and they need to be part of their community,” she said. “Right now, their community is under attack, and so I think it is my responsibility as a parent to make sure that they see that, and that they understand that this is not how you treat your neighbors. That, like I said, our community needs love, help and support right now. And so we have lots of conversations about it.”

Her child misses the friends who aren’t coming to school, and makes an effort to stay in touch and fill them in on what is happening. And there are the daily car rides with the handful of kids Elizabeth drives to school and home again. 

Those car rides are important, she said. She has a bag of snacks and a playlist the kids get to curate. “We’ve listened to a lot of K-pop,” she said. “We try to have as much joy and fun as we can for them, and to create those safe spaces and make sure that there’s laughter.”

As Wisconsinites worry about whether we will be next, I asked Elizabeth about the reluctance of some public officials to make concrete community defense plans, for fear it might put a target on our so-called sanctuary communities, and draw the very ICE surge they dread. 

“It comes back to being a good neighbor,” she said. “I’m not sure that any organizing that we’ve done or did or will do is necessarily a flag calling attention to us. It’s just we’ve got neighbors that are hungry. How are we going to feed our neighbors? We have neighbors that can’t pay their bills. How are we going to help? … To some degree it’s somewhat selfish, right? Like, I need, in order for my child to succeed in school, there needs to be continuity … I care about my community.”

“I would recommend people not be scared and not think of it as organizing against the government, but organizing for the people in your neighborhood,” she added. “And if it’s not your neighborhood, if it’s a neighborhood next to you, know where those neighborhoods are that might be impacted, and find ways that you can support that neighborhood.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

In Port Washington, Wisconsin, many residents oppose a $15 billion data center campus that’s currently under construction for end-users Oracle and OpenAI. (No Data Centers in Ozaukee County Facebook group)

Big Tech is here in Wisconsin, looking to make Wisconsin families and small businesses pay for data centers. The Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC) is about to make a decision that will affect all of us: We Energies has proposed a new rate structure on data centers that, as drafted, favors profits and protections for Big Tech companies and We Energies executives themselves, but putting Wisconsinites at risk to subsidize the costs. Here’s what’s going on and how you can do something about it. 

What’s at stake?

We Energies, the largest and most profitable utility in the state, is preparing to spend $19.3 billion on electric generation due to data center proposals from Microsoft, Oracle, Vantage, and OpenAI.4. This is largely to build new gas plants in order to power the massive energy needs of Big Tech’s data centers. Here’s the problem: If sufficient protections aren’t in place now, the costs of these expensive gas plants may be forced onto families and small businesses, driving up people’s bills to keep the lights on and heat their homes in the winter.

We Energies’ proposals put us at risk for higher utility bills without fully ensuring that Big Tech is paying their fair share. As it currently stands, more expensive data centers likely means higher costs for all of us. Tech companies should be responsible for covering the cost of service needed to power their data centers, including the cost of building out power to service these high energy demands.

In addition to their problematic proposal, We Energies is proposing to add huge volumes of natural gas plants to feed these power-hungry data centers, which are expensive to build and take decades to pay off. These so-called “stranded assets” end up costing us more money for many years down the line, at times even when they are no longer in service. With rapidly changing AI technology, there is a very real risk that Big Tech does not move forward with planned data centers because they’re no longer profitable or needed. In short, data centers create short-term gains for Big Tech and We Energies with long-term consequences for Wisconsinites. 

What’s going on behind Big Tech’s closed doors?

We Energies’ proposal encourages Big Tech to make decisions behind closed doors, without considering Wisconsinites or how their decisions will impact Wisconsin lands, waters and natural resources. We should all be suspicious of this. What’s happening in these meetings that We Energies and Big Tech don’t want us to know about? If Big Tech builds data centers in Wisconsin communities, Wisconsin communities deserve to know what deals are being made with the utilities. 

Transparency and accountability are crucial. Big Tech and utilities like We Energies must make their data center reporting, planning and financials publicly available, so that regulators like the PSC can implement protections and ensure Wisconsinites aren’t being taken advantage of. We deserve to always know how and why our electric and gas bills are being affected.

The time to take action is now.

If We Energies builds new gas plants to power Big Tech’s data centers, all of us will live with greater risks of rising gas and electricity prices as well as environmental impacts to our communities. If Big Tech wants to come into our state and use our state resources, they shouldn’t be putting us in jeopardy, they should be the ones taking on the risks. 

As we prepare for the PSC to make a decision on data centers, we need to make our voices heard to decision makers: Big Tech and We Energies don’t get to decide what’s best for Wisconsin. You have a role to play in shaping the policies that affect you. Attend the virtual public hearing on Feb. 10 or by submitting a comment by Feb. 17.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

President Trump's statements that Republicans should take over and run elections in many states, the domestic deployment of armed agents who are shooting people in nearby cities, along with Wisconsin's long struggle over fair voting rules, makes for a tense election season. But voters still have the power to defend their rights. | Photo of an anti-gerrymandering sign in the Wisconsin State Capitol by the Wisconsin Examiner

Wisconsin was almost certainly on President Donald Trump’s mind when he said this week, “We should take over the voting, the voting in at least many — 15 places. The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.”

Our swing state was Ground Zero for the fake electors plot to overturn the results of the 2020 election after Trump narrowly lost here. Wisconsin U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson’s office was involved in the effort to pass off fraudulent Electoral College ballots cast by state Republicans for Trump. Our state Legislature hosted countless hearings spotlighting election deniers and wasted $2.5 million in taxpayer dollars on a fruitless “investigation” of the 2020 presidential results, led by disgraced former Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman, who threatened to arrest the mayors of Madison and Green Bay.

So how worried should we be about Trump’s election takeover threats?

“I wouldn’t be overly concerned that the president could get anything done that’s directly contrary to the Constitution,” says John Vaudreuil, a former U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Wisconsin and a member of the nonpartisan group Keep Our Republic, which works to promote trust in elections.

Not only does Article I of the U.S. Constitution expressly delegate elections administration to the states, Wisconsin has one of the most decentralized elections systems in the country, with about 1,800 local clerks running elections in counties, municipalities and townships throughout the state. “And they are Republicans, they are Democrats, they are independent,” Vaudreuil says. “Most fundamentally, they’re our neighbors, they’re our friends.” 

Trump’s threats of a federal takeover would be both legally and practically hard to pull off in Wisconsin.

But there is still reason to worry. Sowing distrust in elections takes a toll on clerks and poll workers, who have become less willing to put up with the threats and hostility generated by Trump’s attacks. Vaudreuil urges people to support their local elections officials and poll workers and spread the word that the work they do is important and that elections are secure.

Then there’s the danger that Trump could use his own false claims about election fraud to send federal immigration agents to the polls on the pretext that it’s necessary to address the nonexistent problem of noncitizen voting.

Doug Poland, director of litigation at the voting rights focused firm Law Forward, has been involved in election-related litigation in Wisconsin for years, including a lawsuit to block the Trump administration from forcing the state to turn over sensitive voter information. 

Poland sees Trump’s threats to “nationalize” elections as part of a pivot from Republican efforts to make in-person voting harder — on the dubious theory that there’s a huge problem with voter impersonation at the polls — to a new focus on stopping absentee voting after many people began using mail-in ballots during the pandemic. But really, it’s all about trying to make sure fewer people vote.

Under former Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Wisconsin passed a strict voter ID law, which one Republican former staffer testified made Republican legislators “giddy” as they discussed how it would make it more difficult for students and people of color to vote. 

Like Vaudreuil, Poland sees the current threat from the Trump administration not as an actual takeover of election administration by the federal government, but as an escalation of intimidation tactics.

“Noncitizens generally don’t vote. So it’s a lie,” Poland says. “But it’s, of course, the lie that they’re going to use as a premise to send, whether it’s ICE or whomever it may be, to polling places, probably in locations with Black and brown populations, and that is purely for the purpose of intimidation. And at the same time, they’re pushing back very hard on absentee voting by mail.”

If the Trump administration is preparing to send armed federal agents to the polls to intimidate voters, absentee voting will be more important than ever in the upcoming elections.

Yet, U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson recently told constituents that while he doesn’t think the federal government should take over elections administration, “I think we need to tighten up the requirements for absentee voting. I’m opposed to mail in register or mail in balloting.”

And as Erik Gunn reports, Wisconsin U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil’s Make Elections Great Again Act would restrict absentee voting, along with adding new layers of citizen verification steps while threatening to defund elections administrators who fail to comply with the bill’s onerous requirements.

“They’re going to do everything they can to try to make it harder to vote absentee by mail, to make it harder to vote absentee in person,” Poland says, adding, “They’re going to try to do it so they can put ICE agents around polling places and just try to intimidate people, to keep them away.”

So what can be done?

Voter intimidation is a crime, and specific instances can be addressed through lawsuits, Poland says. Still, he acknowledges (and Law Forward has argued in court) that once someone is deprived of the right to cast a ballot, there’s no remedy that can adequately compensate for that loss. That’s why it was so appalling when the city of Madison asserted that absentee voting is a “privilege” in response to a lawsuit brought by Poland’s organization over 200 lost ballots in the 2024 election.

Of course, in addition to worries about possible violations of individuals’ right to vote, there’s the fear that Trump could manage to subvert elections through heavy-handed tactics like the recent FBI raid to seize 2020 ballots from Fulton County. Both Vaudreuil and Poland think judges would step in to prevent such a seizure in the middle of an election, before the ballots were counted.

Meanwhile, in Wisconsin, absentee voting remains legal and many municipalities are using secure ballot drop boxes. We need to keep on making use of our right (not our privilege) to vote, using all the tools we have in place.

As for the intimidating effect of armed ICE agents at polling places, local officials and perhaps local law enforcement could have a role in protecting the polls and reassuring voters it’s safe to cast their ballots. Neighbors who have been organizing to warn people of ICE raids, bring food to immigrants who are afraid to leave their homes, and form a protective shield around schools could become self-appointed polling place protectors.

If we are going to defend the core tenets of our democracy against an administration that has demonstrated over and over again its contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law, it’s going to take massive public resistance and a flat refusal to give up our rights.

“What is it that will make them stand down from what they’re doing to break the law?” asks Poland. “I think the people of Minnesota have answered that for us better than anybody else can, which is that you have to stand up, you have to exercise your rights, First Amendment rights, the right to vote.”

Exercising our rights is the only way to make sure they are not taken away. Courage and collective action are the best protection we’ve got.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

(Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Gracias, Minnesota.

Gracias, America.

While Minnesota is where much of the resistance has been happening, my gratitude spills beyond its borders because the resistance has been virtually everywhere ICE brutality occurs.

Even before two citizens were killed by immigration authorities in Minneapolis recently, the country responded with a collective “ugh” to federal agents’  tactics.

It hasn’t escaped notice that this purge’s purpose, according to abundant evidence from the Trump administration, is to prevent the “civilizational erasure” white supremacists believe will be triggered by non-white immigrants. 

The deportations have gone far beyond the stated mandate of removing undocumented immigrants who have committed serious crimes. Undocumented immigrants with no criminal records, legal immigrants and citizens have been routinely ensnared as if relentless quotas are at work.

The U.S. Supreme Court gave immigration authorities permission for their campaign of terror against all immigrants, whether they are in the country legally or not. Justice Brett Kavanaugh undid an order by a lower court that barred immigration authorities from using ethnicity as cause to arrest and detain. This is now appropriately called the Kavanaugh Stop.

Americans, even those who believe immigration really is a problem, are saying, enough.

Protests and polling tell us as much. 

Trump supporters are turning on key architects of the purge, advocating a purge of their own. They are urging throwing Homeland Secretary Kristi Noem under the bus to appease voters as the congressional midterm election begins in earnest. The administration sent the guy who led the crackdown in Minneapolis, Border Patrol commander Greg Bovino, packing and replaced him with Border Czar Tom Homan.

This is progress.

Gracias, America, but the work won’t be done until Trump and Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller are effectively neutralized. They created and cheered on pedal-to-metal deportations that feature traumatizing children to deport them.

Other features of this purge:

• Harsh mass detention used as a cudgel to get immigrants to stop their claims for lawful stays.
• Inviting undocumented immigrants married to U.S. citizens and who are pursuing legal status to come in for interviews where they  are then arrested and detained for deportation.
• And the jack-booted tactics generally of masked immigration agents who trample rights and deny due process.

The protests grew after immigration agents killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti, white U.S. citizens who  had empathy for the scores of non-white victims of this purge.

They didn’t have to step up. And they haven’t been alone. 

Minnesota doesn’t have a large undocumented immigrant population relative to other states such as California, Texas, New York and Florida, but its citizens, armed only with whistles and cellphone cameras, have put themselves on the frontlines.

Empathy lives.

Enter hope.

U.S. history’s lesson: When injustices have been overcome, it is because people who don’t directly bear the brunt of the injustice have risen up. Good and Pretti were two of them.

More than 77 million people voted to reelect Trump in 2024. They knew exactly who and what they were getting.

It’s difficult to not give in to despair when your fellow Americans reelect venality and cruelty, Trump’s trademarks.

No, despair doesn’t quite capture the feeling. It is a gnawing pain in the soul that makes one feel so desolately alone. Cynicism and hopelessness beckon.

Gracias, America, for giving me and others hope that MAGA may not ultimately speak for America.

But, for now, it is a hope that requires nurturing. We’ve been disappointed before.

The midterm election and then the 2028 election will tell the tale. The first could make Congress a truly co-equal branch of government with the power to check this imperial presidency. The second will send an even stronger message if candidates who follow Trump’s playbook of nativist division are trounced at the polls.

It will take both those events to signal course correction.

Undocumented immigrants live in the crosshairs. It is part of their existence. They’ve always known that arrest, detention and deportation could happen. They’ve always known the risk but brave it to escape persecution and poverty in their native countries and to secure brighter futures for their children.

What’s different now is the brutality.

The broadening pushback is a signal that America may be at yet another turning point – that the direct targets of injustice are not alone, that others stand and fight with them because humanity counts and citizens feel called to stand up when they see American values betrayed.

From the son of people who were once undocumented, a heartfelt gracias.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE