The program recently moved to a new location at the Milwaukee County Research Park, which is more than triple the size of its former facility in Greenfield.
The post Wisconsin program treating brain injuries, PTSD for veterans and first responders is expanding appeared first on WPR.
Every holiday season has its twinkles of drama. For journalist Dan Simmons of Shorewood, his unforgettable moment involves losing the family Christmas tree.
The post ‘Oh Christmas Tree’: One family’s holiday fiasco appeared first on WPR.
Private nonprofit Wisconsin Eye offered nonpartisan, full coverage of Capitol events for nearly 20 years.
The post Wisconsin’s version of C-SPAN went dark this week, but there are new efforts to bring it back appeared first on WPR.
"A Little Princes," written by Francis Hodgson Burnett, airs through Dec. 29 on WPR's "Chapter A Day."
The post ‘A Little Princess’: The girl, the Raj, the jewel appeared first on WPR.
Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan has been found guilty of one count against her and not guilty of another.
The post Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan found guilty of felony appeared first on WPR.
The U.S. Justice Department sued three states and the District of Columbia on Thursday for not turning over requested voter information to the Trump administration.
The post US Justice Department sues Wisconsin, Georgia, Illinois and DC over voter data appeared first on WPR.
U.S. House Rep. Tom Tiffany cosponsored the bill this year with Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado and 30 other lawmakers.
The post US House passes bill to remove federal protections for wolves appeared first on WPR.
The case against Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan has pitted the authority of a local judge against the Trump administration's immigration crackdown.
The post Court awaits verdict in case against Judge Dugan appeared first on WPR.
The city of Green Bay recently loosened zoning regulations on residential neighborhoods. Wisconsin’s top housing official hopes other communities will follow its lead.
The post WHEDA head explains why housing is so expensive in Wisconsin and how to build more appeared first on WPR.
Both political parties blame each other for Wisconsin property tax bills rising in 2025.
The post How rising property taxes in Wisconsin could shape the midterm elections appeared first on WPR.
A sign advertises the availability of flu and COVID-19 vaccines at a pharmacy in Madison, Wisconsin. (Wisconsin Examiner photo)
Vaccination rates for influenza and COVID-19 are low in Wisconsin, and on Thursday, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services announced that two children have died within the last month: one from the flu in northeast Wisconsin and one from COVID-19 in the western part of the state.
The Vaccines for Children program makes shots available for people who have no health insurance or whose health insurance plans don’t cover vaccines. Wisconsin also has a Vaccines for Adults program that provides free or low-cost vaccines for adults 19 or older who have no health insurance coverage or whose insurance doesn’t cover vaccines.
For people without health insurance
Citing concerns for family privacy, DHS is not releasing the ages of the children. At a media briefing, Tom Haupt, the DHS respiratory epidemiologist, said they were the first deaths of people under 18 from those illnesses since the start of the flu season Oct. 1.
Although year-to-year comparisons in mid-season are difficult, “we are definitely seeing an increase in influenza and COVID-19 at this particular point,” Haupt said.
Haupt said DHS has not yet verified whether either of the two children were vaccinated. Both had “some underlying conditions that would increase their risk” for more serious illness, he said.
Five people under 18 died from flu in January and early February 2025, Haupt said. DHS monitors certain illnesses, including flu and COVID-19, through data from hospital emergency rooms, lab tests and studying municipal wastewater for evidence of the viruses responsible.
Vaccination is the best tool for preventing serious illness from both flu and COVID-19, Haupt said.
“Our vaccination status for children for both COVID-19 and influenza are very low,” he said. “We want them to be increased significantly.”
Across all ages, about 28% of Wisconsinites have been vaccinated against the flu and 10.6% against COVID-19. “These numbers are lower than what we’ve seen over the past few years and that’s very unfortunate,” Haupt said.
DHS recommends both vaccines for everyone 6 months or older. The COVID-19 and the flu shots can both be given at the same time.
Flu can have outcomes much worse than its usual symptoms.
“Influenza could lead to cardiac problems for both children and adults. It can lead to encephalitis,” Haupt said. “So, it’s not only the acute acute part of influenza, it’s what can happen later on.” With vaccination people are “protecting yourself and protecting those people who are around you.
For a third serious respiratory illness, respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV, DHS recommends the maternal RSV vaccine for expectant mothers who are 32 to 36 weeks pregnant, to protect their infants after they’re born.
DHS recommends the RSV vaccine for infants younger than 8 months if they were born to mothers who did not get the vaccine during pregnancy. DHS also recommends the vaccine for children 8 to 19 months old with a higher risk of RSV, as well as for adults 75 and older and for adults 50 to 74 years old who have an increased risk for the virus.
Haupt said doctors have told DHS that they’re encountering more vaccine hesitancy in the general public than in the past. One cause appears to be confusion about shifting recommendations from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the CDC advisory council that makes recommendations on vaccines, he said.
Haupt said that for people hesitating about getting vaccines for themselves or their children, the “most accurate sources” for information are the state health department, local public health departments, community clinics, pharmacies and primary care doctors.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
Gov. Tony Evers meets with children at a Fitchburg child care center in September 2023. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)
Gov. Tony Evers approved an administrative rule change Thursday meant to make it easier to place children, who are in foster care because they are unable to safely remain in their home, with relatives or “like-kin” caregivers.
“We know that kids do better when they have supportive and loving people around them, and they’re in settings where they feel safe and can be their best and full selves. Keeping adults in kids’ lives who know and love them can go a long way toward making sure a kid has the stability they need so they can be focused on being a kid,” Evers said in a statement. “This is about doing what’s best for our kids and helping increase the likelihood of youth being in an environment with their family and loved ones, especially during difficult, chaotic times in their lives.”
According to the Evers administration, the rule change will help by providing a separate, streamlined licensing pathway for relative and “like-kin” caregivers as well as ensure that there is fair financial support available for them.
The rule change is a continuation of work on the issue. In 2024, the state Legislature passed and Gov. Tony Evers signed 2023 Wisconsin Act 119 which expanded the definition of those eligible to be kinship caregivers to include first cousins once removed and adults with a “like-kin” relationship with the child, meaning people with a significant emotional relationship with a child.
According to the Department of Children and Families, in 2024, 39% of children in Wisconsin who entered out-of-home care were initially placed with relatives, increasing the likelihood that they would be placed with their siblings, experience more stability during their placement and help them achieve permanency with family.
“We know kids do better when they’re with family — however they define it. And families do better when they can spend less time running up against unnecessary administrative and financial barriers and more time together, being a family,” DCF Secretary Jeff Pertl said in a statement.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
A wolf makes its way across a road in Yellowstone National Park. (Jacob W. Frank/Courtesy of the U.S. National Park Service)
The U.S. House on Thursday passed, 211-204, a bill to remove Endangered Species Act protections for the gray wolf outside Alaska.
The bill, sponsored by Colorado Republican Lauren Boebert, would direct the Interior secretary to reissue a 2020 rule removing ESA protections that delisted wolves other than the Mexican wolf in the lower 48 states, while stipulating it could not be challenged in court.
The rule from President Donald Trump’s first administration was struck down by a federal court in 2022.
Five Democrats voted for the bill and four Republicans voted against it. The measure was considered during the chamber’s last vote series before a two-week break, and 18 members did not vote.
Sen. Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican, has sponsored a companion bill in that chamber. The measure faces an uphill road in the Senate, where passage of partisan bills is rarer due to the 60-vote threshold for most legislation.
The bill would remove gray wolves from the ESA list, even though they have not reached population figures that the Fish and Wildlife Service has said would indicate full recovery.
Rep. Donald S. Beyer, a Democrat from Virginia, said it would be reasonable to adjust population thresholds, but that congressionally mandated delisting was unwise and illegal.
“This bill fails to recognize the status of gray wolves today, taking us back to an outdated rulemaking that didn’t hold up in court,” Beyer said on the House floor Thursday.
House Natural Resources Committee ranking Democrat Jared Huffman of California said the bill set a “troubling” precedent by blocking judicial review.
“It tells the American people they no longer have the right to challenge unlawful government actions,” he said. “The ESA is simple and effective. It ensures decisions are grounded in science — that’s the heart of it — and this bill throws that principle out the window.”
Several Republicans on the Natural Resources Committee spoke in favor of the bill, saying it would delegate wolf management to states.
In a statement, Natural Resources Chairman Bruce Westerman, an Arkansas Republican, said the gray wolf has been “fully recovered” for two decades.
“States are more than capable of managing thriving wolf populations. This legislation restores a common-sense, science-based approach to wolf management, returning decision-making to states,” he said.
Republicans also argued the bill would protect livestock and humans.
Rep. Pete Stauber showed a photo from his district in Ely, Minnesota, of a wolf in a school parking lot.
“Because of the gray wolf’s listing status, nothing could be done to protect the lives of the students there,” the Republican said. “The broken ESA is putting my constituents’ lives at risk.”
Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan leaves the Milwaukee Federal Courthouse on May 15, 2025. Judge Dugan appeared in federal court to answer charges that she helped Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an undocumented immigrant, elude federal arrest while he was making an appearance in her courtroom on April 18. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Updated at 9:14 p.m. Thursday, Dec. 18
After six hours of deliberation, a federal jury found Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan guilty of felony obstruction but not guilty of misdemeanor concealing a person from federal immigration law enforcement. The high-profile federal trial stemmed from Dugan’s interaction with federal agents who came to her courtroom to arrest a man who was appearing before her on April 18.
“You don’t have to agree with immigration enforcement policy to see this was wrong. You just have to agree the law applies equally to everyone,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Kelly Brown Watzka told the jury in closing arguments.
Dugan’s case gained national attention, with her defense attorneys saying in closing arguments that the federal government was trying to make an example of the 66-year-old judge in an effort to “crush” those who try to stand up to federal power. Defense attorney Jason Luczak asked the jury to consider whether they were willing to accept the level of government overreach he and other attorneys argued was exemplified in the case.
Dugan invoked her Fifth Amendment rights and didn’t testify during the trial.
During their deliberations, the jurors asked multiple questions of the judge. Among them was whether Dugan needed to know exactly who immigration officers had come to the courthouse to arrest. The question went to the obstruction charge Dugan faced, and U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman decided that in fact Dugan would need to have known the federal agent’s target in order for the obstruction charge to apply. Prosecutors argued vehemently against Adelman’s decision.
Jurors also asked to see the policies of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in regards to serving warrants.
Later, after another jury question, Adelman advised jurors that Dugan needed to have “sufficient knowledge” of a “pending proceeding,” as defined in statute, in order to obstruct that proceeding.
Prosecutors made their closing arguments in the federal trial Thursday, asking jurors to consider what happens when judges decide which laws they want to follow based on their own personal beliefs. Dugan was accused of interfering with federal agents as they tried to make an immigration arrest outside her courtroom, and with helping their target to evade arrest. Jurors, the prosecution said, must draw a line, without which “there is only chaos,” and that “chaos is what the rule of law is intended to prevent.
Calling immigration enforcement a “polarizing issue” nationwide, prosecutors said that Dugan was not on trial for her personal beliefs, but because she “stepped outside of the law.” As they flashed slides and footage to the jury, the prosecution heavily featured statements from Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Kristela Cervera, who accompanied Dugan into the hallway at the courthouse to confront the agents. Cervera testified against Dugan saying, “judges shouldn’t be helping defendants evade arrest,” a quote prosecutors highlighted to the jury.
Dugan knew that the agents had a warrant, prosecutors argued, yet concealed Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, the immigrant they were there to arrest. Dugan’s obstruction of the agents was completed the moment she led Flores-Ruiz and his attorney, Mercedes de la Rosa, to a non-public door to exit her courtroom, the prosecution asserted. Flores-Ruiz exited into the same hallway where agents were waiting for him, and they arrested him shortly afterwards outside the courthouse. But “it simply does not matter what happened next,” prosecutors said.
Although de la Rosa, whom prosecutors described as “naive and inexperienced,” took the door to the public hallway where agents were waiting, they told the jury Dugan intended for Flores-Ruiz and his attorney to use a staircase to exit on the fifth floor. To buttress their argument, prosecutors played courtroom audio that captured Dugan talking with court reporter Joan Butz and saying “down the stairs” as well as Dugan saying, “I’ll do it…I’ll take the heat,” and Butz responding, “I’d rather get in trouble.”
Prosecutors argued that had Flores-Ruiz taken the stairs instead of going out into the hallway, that the agents “would have never found” the Mexican-born man, who was in the country without legal authorization. Repeatedly, prosecutors said that no one should ever “second guess” the decisions of ICE agents and law enforcement.
Dugan was described as “stern” and “angrily pointing” in the hallway, rounding up nearly the entire arrest team and telling them to go to the chief judge’s office. Cervera led the agents to the office, testifying that she felt “abandoned” by Dugan and “roped into” Dugan’s plan. “No one is above the law,” the prosecution stressed.
Attorney Jason Luczak, delivering the closing for Dugan’s defense, tried to poke holes in the prosecution’s narrative. “This is a very important case; this is a very unprecedented trial,” Luczak said. “Make no mistake…the government is trying to make an example” out of Dugan, he said. He added that the jury had the power to check what he described as “overreach” by the federal government.
Luczak stressed that prior to the second Trump administration, ICE arrests had never occurred at the Milwaukee County Courthouse. When the arrests began in late March, individuals had been reportedly arrested in elevators and before attending family court, actions which should have been reported up the agency’s chain of command but weren’t, he said. “They’re not even following their own policies,” Luczak said. “This caused concerns, legitimate concerns, among the judges.”
The jury was asked to consider whether they really believe that Dugan would put her career at risk for Flores-Ruiz. “This case is riddled with doubts,” said Luczak, stressing that the jury could only convict if they find Dugan guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. “There are consequences on rubber-stamping what the government wants you to rubber-stamp,” he said.
Jurors were reminded of the many emails sent by various judges asking for a policy, sharing stories of having people detained during court, and the slew of questions they had about how the county courthouse could respond. Chief Judge Carl Ashley had released a statement saying that ICE presence at the courthouse discouraged participation in the justice process and eroded trust in the courts’ integrity.
Luczak also cast doubt on Cervera’s testimony. Jurors were played mute security camera video and asked to decide whether they believe Cervera that Dugan told the agents three times that they needed a judicial warrant, something that didn’t appear to happen in the video. “Judge Cervera is wrong,” said Luczak. “I don’t know if she’s lying, but I could think of some reasons why.” Cervera, the attorney argued, was trying to save herself by throwing Dugan under the bus. “You’re either a friend or an enemy of the government,” he said, asking the jury to consider why prosecutors relied on her statements so heavily.
When Dugan spoke with the agents, Luczak said, “she’s not being confrontational, she’s being a judge.” He also highlighted that agents contradicted themselves in testimony and in the interviews they gave to FBI agents after the incident. Luczak pointed out that the agents never ran down the hallway to the elevators, as they’d implied. The audio evidence provided by prosecutors had also been taken from multiple microphones and put into one file, and was not audible in many areas, Luczak told the jury, adding, “I don’t think you can see this as very good evidence at all.”
“If you don’t trust the evidence that the government is putting forward, it’s just another reasonable doubt,” Luczak said. Dugan never concealed Flores-Ruiz from the agents, who never entered her court to keep eyes on him, he said, adding that she never told de la Rosa to take the stairs. Luczak highlighted that prosecutors showed the jury video of the hall, with the filmer going down the stairs and not into the hallway, the opposite of what actually occurred. He called the government’s downplaying of concerns around ICE “tone deaf,” and questioned why Cervera herself texted her sister to warn her about sweeping arrests coming to the courthouse if she, too, didn’t have concerns.
“Justice is not what the government is seeking today,” Luczak. “They’re just wrong.” He told the jury to rely on Dugan’s emails to determine her state of mind, including one where she wrote: “We are in some uncharted waters with some very serious and even potential tragic community interests at risk in the balance.”
The jury was given instructions by Adelman, and began deliberations shortly after 2 p.m. At around 3:45 p.m., the jury sent out a question to the judge. Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Brad Schimel, who lost a bid for the Wisconsin Supreme Court earlier this year, made an appearance in the gallery as Adelman read the question from jurors about whether they were allowed to see ICE policies, which were included among the exhibits.
As witness testimony in the trial against Dugan concluded Thursday morning, Milwaukee County judges and public defenders spoke about the confusion and questions they faced when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) began arresting people at the county courthouse. Former Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett was also called to the stand as a character witness, testifying that he’s known Dugan for over 50 years since they were in high school together.
Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judges Katie Kegel and Laura Gramling-Perez testified for the defense about emails local judges sent each other, asking for guidance and sharing stories about having people “snatched” out of their courtrooms and seeing ICE agents sitting in cars outside the court.
One judge chimed in on the chain, “does this mean that Milwaukee County is cooperating with ICE?” Milwaukee County does not cooperate with ICE detainer requests in the jail. The Milwaukee Police Department also has its own policies limiting cooperation with ICE.
In one of her emails, Gramling-Perez strongly urged the creation of a policy on courthouse arrests by ICE. Under such a policy, she testified, ICE agents would be required to check in with the chief judge before conducting any enforcement. When the arrest team arrived the morning of April 18, they checked in with security who notified their supervisors at the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office. Security initially believed the agents would need to be escorted by the sheriff’s office, but a sergeant told them that wouldn’t be necessary.
Gramling-Perez reviewed emails on the stand that said “the historic protocols are now shifting quickly,” and explaining that although state and local law enforcement have conducted arrests around the court in the past, those activities were always guided by clear policies or practices which were respected by law enforcement. “The ICE detentions are a different animal,” one email stated.
Prosecutors repeatedly attempted to get Gramling-Perez to say that ICE arrests were allowed in public hallways, per the “key takeaways” that she outlined in her email to Dugan and other judges. Gramling-Perez, however, didn’t budge. When prosecutors showed her images of documents they claimed were part of her presentation, she said she’d never seen them before. When they pressed her to say that ICE arrests could happen in public hallways, she countered that her emailed explanations were not all inclusive, that she is not an expert on the matter, but that even public hallway arrests have their limits.
Gramling-Perez testified that although discussion of a policy had begun, no policy had yet been established by the chief judge.
Attorney Maura Gingerich, a public defender, was also called to the stand as a defense witness. Gingerich testified wearing a black suit with a black mask she said she wore for health reasons — attire similar to what she wore on April 18, when security cameras captured her photographing the plain-clothes ICE, FBI, DEA, and Border Patrol task force members in the courthouse hallway. Gingerich testified that she took photographs of the agents to send to her supervisor, so that the chief judge would be notified that the agents had returned and could offer guidance.
“I think that it was very stressful to see what I thought were a number of law enforcement on the sixth floor without uniform,” Gingerich testified, noting she had already gone to another courtroom when Dugan approached the agents. One of the prosecutors suggested Gingerich followed the agents to another courtroom and was cooperating with Dugan, saying, “I know what you guys were trying to do,” but Gingrich denied that characterization. Gingrich said she never saw Dugan that morning.
Former Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett testified as a character witness for Dugan, saying he has known her and the Dugan family for half a century. They first met when they attended the same high school.
Barrett described Dugan as very active in the community, an enthusiastic participant in community organizations and in her church. “I think that she is extremely honest and I know that she will tell you exactly how she feels,” Barrett testified, adding that he feels that Dugan is a good person.
The defense rested its case ahead of a lunch break. Dugan invoked her Fifth Amendment rights not to testify. Defense attorney Steven Biskupic noted on the record that he objected to draft instructions the judge gave the jury, after Adleman chose jury instructions crafted by the prosecution instead of the defense.
Dugan faces up to five years in prison and a $350,000 fine for the felony conviction, but as a nonviolent offender with a record of service to her community is unlikely to be sentenced to time behind bars. Her sentencing hearing has not yet been scheduled.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz speaks at the Department of Health and Human Services in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 18, 2025. Oz and other Trump administration officials announced proposed rules that would limit gender-affirming care for minors. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s administration took major steps Thursday in a campaign to block minors’ access to gender-affirming care nationwide.
Under two proposed new rules from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, hospitals would be barred from providing gender transition treatment for children as a condition of participating in Medicare and Medicaid programs, and Medicaid funding would be prohibited from being used to fund such care for minors.
As most hospitals receive Medicare and Medicaid funding, the rules would essentially have the effect of a nationwide ban if they are finalized.
The announcement came a day after the U.S. House passed a bill that would impose federal criminal penalties for gender-affirming care for minors and hours before it advanced a separate measure that would prohibit Medicaid funding for gender transition treatment for minors.
The proposed regulations, which will next undergo a period of public comments, are certain to draw legal challenges.
The efforts build on Trump’s executive order in January that restricted access to gender-affirming care for kids.
More than half of states already have laws or policies aimed at limiting youth access to gender-affirming care, according to the nonpartisan health research organization KFF.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz announced the proposals alongside several other health officials at a press conference at HHS headquarters in Washington, D.C.
The room featured a handful of GOP members of Congress. At least two Republican state attorneys general — Ken Paxton of Texas and Todd Rokita of Indiana — were also in attendance.
At the press conference, Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary said the FDA is also sending “warning letters” to 12 breast binder manufacturers and sellers for “illegal marketing of breast binders for children for the purposes of treating gender dysphoria.”
Breast binders are used to flatten tissue in the chest.
Kennedy said his agency’s Office for Civil Rights is moving to “reverse the Biden administration’s attempt to include gender dysphoria within the definition of disability.”
The proposed rules are part of the Trump administration’s broader anti-trans agenda.
Trump has signed executive orders that make it the “policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female,” aimed to bar openly transgender service members from the U.S. military, and sought to prohibit trans athletes from competing on women’s sports teams consistent with their gender identity.
Meanwhile, efforts at the congressional level to restrict youth access to gender-affirming care face a dismal path in the Senate, where any legislation would likely need the backing of at least 60 senators to advance past the filibuster.
The House passed a measure Wednesday night, 216-211, that would subject medical professionals to up to 10 years in prison for providing gender-affirming care for minors.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who sponsored the legislation, called its passage a “win for children all over America,” in a social media post Wednesday.
It’s likely the last legislative achievement for the Georgia Republican, who is resigning from Congress in early January.
Four Republicans voted against the measure: Reps. Gabe Evans of Colorado, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Mike Kennedy of Utah and Mike Lawler of New York.
Three Democrats voted with the GOP to back the bill: Reps. Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez of Texas and Don Davis of North Carolina.
The House also passed a measure Thursday, 215-201, from Texas GOP Rep. Dan Crenshaw and Greene that aims to prohibit “Medicaid funding for gender transition procedures for minors.”
Cuellar, Gonzalez and Davis also backed the GOP-led bill, along with fellow Democratic Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington state.
Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group, blasted the administration’s proposals, saying they “would put Donald Trump and RFK Jr. in those doctor’s offices, ripping health care decisions from the hands of families and putting it in the grips of the anti-LGBTQ+ fringe.”
Robinson also emphasized that the rules are “proposals, not binding law,” and called on community members, health care providers, administrators and allies to “be vocal in pushing back by sharing the ways these proposals would be devastating to their families and the healthcare community at large.”
The American Civil Liberties Union also condemned the administration’s proposals and vowed to challenge the efforts in court.
Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Rights Project, dubbed the proposals “cruel and unconstitutional attacks on the rights of transgender youth and their families.”
Strangio said the proposals would “force doctors to choose between their ethical obligations to their patients and the threat of losing federal funding” and “uproot families who have already fled state-level bans, leaving them with nowhere to turn for the care they need to survive and thrive.”
A Tennessee voter casts his ballot in Nashville during a special election this month. The U.S. Department of Justice has sent confidential draft agreements on voter data sharing to more than a dozen states, including Tennessee — part of the Trump administration’s effort to obtain unredacted voter rolls from states. (Photo by Jon Cherry/Getty Images)
The U.S. Department of Justice has sent a confidential draft agreement to more than a dozen states that would require election officials to remove any alleged ineligible voters identified during a federal review of their voter rolls.
The agreement — called a memorandum of understanding, or MOU — would hand the federal government a major role in election administration, a responsibility that belongs to the states under the U.S. Constitution.
A Justice Department official identified 11 states that have expressed an interest in the agreement during a federal court hearing in December, according to a transcript reviewed by Stateline. Two additional states, Colorado and Wisconsin, have publicly rejected the memorandum of understanding and released copies of the proposal.
The 11 states “all fall into the list of, they have expressed with us a willingness to comply based on the represented MOU that we have sent them,” Eric Neff, the acting chief of the Justice Department’s Voting Section, said at the hearing. He spoke at a Dec. 4 hearing in a federal lawsuit brought by the Justice Department against California, which has refused a demand for the state’s voter data.
Neff’s courtroom disclosure, which Stateline is the first to report, comes as the Justice Department has sued 21 states and the District of Columbia for unredacted copies of their voter rolls after demanding the data from most states in recent months. The unredacted lists include sensitive personal information, such as driver’s license and partial Social Security numbers.
The states Neff identified are led by Republicans — Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia.
The draft memorandum of understanding represents a new effort by the Trump administration to gain access to some states’ voter data without litigation.
The administration’s lawsuits mostly target Democratic states, where election officials refused initial requests for voter data and allege the demand is unlawful and risks the privacy of millions of voters. They have also voiced fears that the Trump administration could use the information to target its political enemies.
Neff said four states with Republican secretaries of state — Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas and Wyoming — have “complied voluntarily” with the Justice Department’s demand without memoranda of understanding.
What the DOJ is trying to do is something that should frighten everybody across the political spectrum.
– David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research
The Justice Department says it needs voters’ detailed information to ensure ineligible people are kept off state voter rolls and that only citizens are voting.
Federal officials say they will follow federal privacy laws, but critics fear voter data is being shared with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which operates a powerful citizenship verification tool known as SAVE. The Trump administration has previously confirmed the Justice Department plans to share voter data with Homeland Security.
“What the DOJ is trying to do is something that should frighten everybody across the political spectrum,” said David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research. “They’re trying to use the power of the executive branch to bully states into turning over highly sensitive data: date of birth, Social Security number, driver’s license — the holy trinity of identity theft.”
Becker, who worked as a senior trial attorney in the Justice Department’s Voting Section during the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, told reporters on Dec. 8 that several states received the memorandum. But Neff’s identification of 11 states wasn’t widely available until the judge in the California lawsuit on Tuesday ordered the transcript of the Dec. 4 hearing immediately posted to the lawsuit’s public docket, where Stateline accessed it.
The draft memorandum of understanding, which is labeled “confidential,” outlines the terms of the proposed agreement between each state and the Justice Department. After a state provides its voter roll, the federal department would agree to test, analyze and assess the information. The department would then notify states of “any voter list maintenance issues, insufficiencies, inadequacies, deficiencies, anomalies, or concerns” found.
Each state would agree to “clean” its voter roll within 45 days by removing any ineligible voters, according to the memorandum. States would then resubmit their voter data to the Justice Department for verification.
While the Justice Department has demanded states’ voter rolls since this summer, the memorandum of understanding offers the most detailed picture to date of how the Trump administration plans to use the data.
“It lays out in a way that we haven’t seen in any other context their plan for one of the things, I will say, that they plan to do, which is disturbing,” said Eileen O’Connor, a senior counsel and manager in the voting rights and election program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, a progressive think tank.
O’Connor was a trial attorney in the Justice Department’s Voting Section during the Obama, first Trump and Biden administrations. “I think with each passing lawsuit, they are clearly trying to create a national database of every voter in the country,” she said.
The Justice Department didn’t answer questions from Stateline about how many states had been sent the memorandum and whether any had signed it.
Assistant U.S. Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who leads the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, wrote in a statement to Stateline that the department has a statutory mandate to enforce federal voting rights laws. Ensuring the voting public’s confidence in election integrity is a top priority of the Trump administration, she wrote.
“Clean voter rolls and basic election safeguards are requisites for free, fair, and transparent elections,” Dhillon wrote.
The Justice Department memorandum, if implemented, would mark a significant departure from how election officials typically maintain voter rolls.
States, often in coordination with local election officials, check lists for changes in address, deaths and other reasons for ineligibility, such as a felony conviction. States typically perform this task with little to no federal involvement.
Some states participate in voluntary programs that allow election officials to share voter information with other states for the purposes of looking for voters who may have moved or who are registered in multiple locations. But those don’t include the federal government, which plays a limited role in election administration under the United States’ decentralized approach to elections.
Matt Crane, executive director of the Colorado County Clerks Association, said clerks continually look at death records and other sources of data to update voter lists. He said the United States’ localized election system is a strength that guards against election interference.
“The federal government has no role in list maintenance,” Crane said.
But that has begun to change under the Trump administration, as President Donald Trump has made removing noncitizen voters a priority.
Earlier this year, Homeland Security overhauled the SAVE program into a tool that can scan millions of voter records against government databases for evidence of citizenship. The program was previously used for one-off searches to check whether noncitizens were eligible for government benefits.
Some Republican secretaries of state have agreed to upload their voter rolls into SAVE. Democratic secretaries of state object to using the program and say they are wary of what will happen to the voter information once it’s provided to the Trump administration, including its potential use by the Department of Homeland Security.
While SAVE can flag voters with potential eligibility issues, the onus now is still on state officials to investigate whether those voters are actually ineligible and decide whether to initiate a process to remove them from the rolls.
By contrast, the Justice Department memorandum would empower federal officials to take a more active role, allowing them to check the work of state election officials as they remove — or don’t remove — voters.
“We have a system that allows Americans to voice their opinions and to hold government accountable, and that is so fundamentally central to the way our system works,” Oregon Democratic Secretary of State Tobias Read, who has been sued by the Justice Department, said in an interview. “We should be focused on how to make that better, not on erecting artificial barriers and putting people’s privacy and confidence at risk for no reason.”
Some GOP election officials have welcomed the Trump administration’s interest and have accused the Biden administration of not doing enough to help states vet their voter rolls. In particular, they praise the overhaul of SAVE, which some GOP secretaries of state had requested before Trump took office.
Some secretaries have touted the removal of noncitizen voters after using SAVE. Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray, a Republican, in November announced three voters identified as noncitizens had been removed from his state’s voter rolls. Gray has also provided the Justice Department with full access to Wyoming’s voter roll.
“The voter list maintenance that we have been conducting is extremely important for election integrity,” Gray said in a news release.
But as of early December, nearly all states hadn’t provided the Justice Department access to their unredacted voter rolls, with Neff identifying only four that had shared their lists. It also remains unclear whether any state has signed the memorandum of understanding. No state has told Stateline it signed the document.
Nebraska Secretary of State Robert Evnen, a Republican, has received a memorandum of understanding and plans to comply with the Justice Department request, pending the outcome of an ongoing lawsuit, Evnen spokesperson Rani Taborek-Potter wrote in an email to Stateline. A voting advocacy group has sued to block the release of the data.
In an interview with Kentucky Lantern, Kentucky Republican Secretary of State Michael Adams said that his office was “going back and forth a little bit” with the Justice Department over what federal law requires.
“We’ve not really figured out exactly where that line is of what-all they’re entitled to,” Adams said. “What’s not in dispute is they’re entitled to the vast majority of information — people’s names, addresses, birthdays — and we’ve given them all of that.”
Adams added that many state officials “are in the same boat of trying to figure out what exactly they need to do their job and what our obligations are legally.”
Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, a Republican, confirmed in a statement to Stateline that her office received a proposed memorandum of understanding from the Justice Department. “We are in the process of reviewing the document with our attorneys and carefully considering our options,” Henderson wrote.
Rachael Dunn, a spokesperson for Missouri Republican Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, wrote in an email that the state hadn’t entered into an agreement with the Justice Department “at this time.”
The draft agreement would give the Justice Department wide authority to share the voter data of states that sign on.
The department would be authorized to share the data with “a contractor” who needs access “to perform duties related” to voter list maintenance verification, according to the draft agreement. The agreement doesn’t name any contractors or specify whether they would be inside or outside of government.
Two states have publicly rejected the draft agreement. Colorado Democratic Secretary of State Jena Griswold announced Dec. 11 she would refuse to sign the memorandum. The Justice Department sued Colorado the following day.
The Wisconsin Elections Commission also rejected the draft agreement that week. In a Dec. 11 letter to Neff, the Justice Department official, the commissioners wrote that state law prohibits them from releasing certain personally identifiable information, such as date of birth, Social Security numbers and driver’s license numbers.
“I don’t look at the action that we’re taking today to be commentary on the motive of the appropriateness of the Department of Justice’s request,” Commissioner Don Millis, a Republican appointee, said at a virtual commission meeting the same day. “The U.S. DOJ is simply asking the commission to do something that the commission is explicitly forbidden by Wisconsin law to do.”
The Justice Department on Thursday sued Wisconsin for its voter data.
Justin Levitt, who served as senior policy adviser for democracy and voting rights in the Biden White House and is now a law professor at Loyola Marymount University, told Stateline in an email that he expects no states to sign the agreement.
“It’s no surprise that both Colorado and Wisconsin said no — and I don’t think that’s a question of political leadership,” Levitt wrote. “It’s hard for me to imagine any Republican state with faith in its own list maintenance capacity agreeing to outsource that decision to the DOJ.”
VRLData Sharing Agreement DOJ-WI (2)Colorado Newsline’s Lindsey Toomer contributed reporting. Stateline reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@stateline.org.
This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Wisconsin Examiner, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.
A PFAS advisory sign along Starkweather Creek. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)
A Wisconsin Senate committee held a public hearing Thursday on a bipartisan bill that would require the state Department of Natural Resources to notify county and tribal governments when local groundwater contamination is found to exceed state standards.
Throughout the hearing, the bill’s authors and residents of communities with water quality problems complained of incidents in which significant amounts of time passed before people learned their water was contaminated with harmful chemicals such as nitrates or PFAS.
“Time really counts, hours, days, weeks, and in our case, even years,” said Lee Donahue, a resident of the town of Campbell on French Island near La Crosse, which has been dealing with PFAS contamination for years. “It’s been heart wrenching to know that my family and my friends and my neighbors have all been impacted by these toxic chemicals. I don’t wish anyone to have contamination in their water. And the sad part is we had no clue that PFAS was pouring from our faucets and that we were drinking that water for years and years and years before any notification was made.”
Initially authored by Rep. Jill Billings (D-La Crosse) and Sen. Jesse James (R-Thorp), more than 60 legislators of both parties have signed onto the bill as co-sponsors, signaling the legislation has enough support to be signed into law during a legislative session in which efforts to find compromise on environmental issues — including efforts to extend the Knowles-Nelson stewardship grant program and to create a method to spend $125 million that has been set aside for more than two years to remediate PFAS contamination — have been stuck in the partisan muck.
Under the bill, if the DNR finds an exceedance of the state’s groundwater standards the department will have seven days to notify the local county or tribal health department as well as the county land and conservation department.
For several years, Wisconsin policymakers have been unable to establish a state standard for the acceptable amount of PFAS in the state’s groundwater, hitting roadblocks at the state Natural Resources Board and in the Republican-controlled Legislature. The state does have established standards for the amount of PFAS in the state’s surface water and the drinking water provided by municipal water utilities.
As the Legislature has tried and failed to pass a bill that would spend the $125 million in the PFAS trust fund, residents of communities affected by PFAS contamination have frequently said the policy change they’d most like to see is the establishment of a groundwater standard.
The contaminant notification bill does not establish a groundwater standard for PFAS, however it requires the DNR to notify the county government if the groundwater is found to have PFAS levels higher than the existing state standards for PFAS in surface or drinking water.
About one-third of Wisconsin residents get their water from private drinking wells. While the bill does not establish a groundwater standard and does not provide any assistance if the groundwater they use to shower, brush their teeth, make coffee or mix baby formula is contaminated, proponents said it does make sure residents have the information they need to make decisions about the source of their water.
“If people have a right to clean water, then they have a right to know when their water is not clean,” said Michael Tiboris, the agriculture and water policy director at the River Alliance of Wisconsin. “And this bill is exactly the kind of action that we appreciate having legislators take a strong position on, giving families knowledge of the threats to their drinking water makes it possible for them to protect themselves.”
None of the people or groups that testified at the hearing Thursday were in opposition to the bill, but a few industry groups expressed a handful of complaints and said they’d like to see amendments to the bill’s final version.
The concerns of business groups centered around making sure that any notifications were made after test results have been verified and making sure that the notifications don’t instigate regulatory action from the government that it doesn’t have the authority to undertake.
“It’s just not appropriate for the government to take any kind of action,” said Adam Jordahl, director of environmental and energy policy at Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce. “I know it’s not a direct regulatory action where we’re expecting an individual or business to do something or comply with something, but nevertheless, the issue of sort of holding people accountable to a regulatory PFAS standard that has not yet actually been promulgated into the administrative code. We find that to be very problematic and kind of a slippery slope going down in terms of holding people accountable or responsible to something that hasn’t gone through the full rulemaking process.”
Scott Suder, the president of the Wisconsin Paper Council, said he’s concerned that prematurely telling people their water is contaminated could create “reputational risks” for nearby businesses.
“It creates unnecessary legal and reputational risk for industry, potentially because the notice is subject to public inspection and copying under [Wisconsin open records law],” Suder said. “All exceedance notifications would become public records, creating significant disclosure and some reputational risks, so even minor errors or omissions could trigger liabilities, and the visibility of exceedances may lead to public misunderstanding about actual risks. So it is a bit concerning for industry as well.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
A cannabis pre-roll is held at a legalization anniversary party in Cranston, Rhode Island, Dec. 1, 2023. (Photo by Christopher Shea/Rhode Island Current)
President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday to loosen federal restrictions on marijuana, which Trump said reflected the drug’s potential medical benefits while discouraging recreational use.
The order moves cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III on the Federal Drug Administration’s list of controlled substances. Schedule I, the most restrictive category under federal law, indicates a high likelihood of abuse and no accepted medical value.
Trump said the move reflected that cannabis could have medicinal value, even if abuse was still possible.
The order “doesn’t legalize marijuana in any way, shape or form and in no way sanctions its use as a recreational drug,” Trump said. “Just as the prescription painkillers may have legitimate uses, but can also do irreversible damage … it’s never safe to use powerful controlled substances in recreational matters.”
Still, the order marks a major step in the decades-long liberalization of cannabis policy.
Since 2012, when Washington and Colorado voters legalized personal marijuana use, 22 other states have legalized at least some form of recreational use. Only 10 states still restrict both medicinal and recreational use.
In a statement, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, praised Trump while calling for further reforms to bring federal law into harmony with states where the drug is legal.
“I thank the President and am pleased that they are finally taking this step to begin the process to reschedule,” Polis wrote. “Colorado’s cannabis industry is the gold standard ensuring that products are safe and regulated. It’s good to see the federal government finally following suit, but it’s frustrating it’s taken this long and there is much more to do for a full descheduling,”
President Joe Biden started the process for rescheduling the drug last year.
A group of administration officials and medical doctors flanked Trump during the Oval Office signing, with some speaking to the potential medical benefits of marijuana, including as an alternative to highly addictive opioid painkillers.
“The facts compel the federal government to recognize that marijuana can be legitimate in terms of medical applications when carefully administered,” Trump said.
Researching the potential benefits of marijuana is nearly impossible because of the tight restrictions on Schedule I substances, advocates have argued.
Removing cannabis from Schedule I would help ease those restrictions, Trump said.
“This reclassification order will make it far easier to conduct marijuana-related medical research, allowing us to study benefits, potential dangers and future treatments,” he said. “It’s going to have a tremendously positive impact.”
In addition to researchers, the split between federal law and the legal landscape in many states has created challenges for the industry, users and law enforcement, among others.
For example, the unusual position of state-legal businesses in a federally banned industry means they cannot use certain tax provisions, access some banking instruments or transport their product across state lines.
In a lengthy statement, Paul Armentano, the deputy director of leading marijuana legalization organization National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, offered qualified praise for the move, saying it “validates the experience” of patients who have used marijuana to treat chronic pain and other conditions.
“This directive certainly marks a long overdue change in direction,” Armentano said. “But while such a move potentially provides some benefits to patients, and veterans especially, it still falls well short of the changes necessary to bring federal marijuana policy into the 21st century. Specifically, rescheduling fails to harmonize federal marijuana policy with the cannabis laws of most states.”
The reclassification could provide tax relief to many marijuana businesses, he added.
Many Republicans in Congress remain opposed to legalizing marijuana.
In a letter dated Wednesday, 24 Senate Republicans urged Trump not to reclassify marijuana, which they said had a high likelihood of abuse and no medical value.
Allowing marijuana businesses to take advantage of federal tax deductions would give them a tax break of as much as $2.3 billion, allowing them to increase marketing efforts and expand into additional states, the lawmakers wrote. The benefits of economic growth would be outweighed by the costs of accidents, “not to mention the moral costs of marijuana advertising that could reach kids,” they wrote.
“In light of the documented dangers of marijuana, facilitating the growth of the marijuana industry is at odds with growing our economy and encouraging healthy lifestyles for Americans,” the GOP senators wrote. “We urge you to continue your strong leadership of our country and our economy, and to turn away from marijuana rescheduling.”
North Carolina’s Ted Budd led the letter, which was also signed by John Barrasso and Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Roger Marshall of Kansas, Pete Ricketts of Nebraska, Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, John Cornyn of Texas, Marsha Blackburn and Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, Jim Banks of Indiana, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Mike Crapo and Jim Risch of Idaho, Rick Scott of Florida, Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Dave McCormick of Pennsylvania and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, which the White House said will be renamed the Trump-Kennedy Center. (Photo courtesy of Kennedy Center)
WASHINGTON — The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, a prestigious cultural hub in the nation’s capital, will be renamed the Trump-Kennedy Center, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt announced Thursday.
The renaming comes after President Donald Trump named himself chair of the board in February in a major shake-up. He later fired the Kennedy Center president as well as board members appointed by President Joe Biden before appointing his own members.
Leavitt said the board unanimously approved the name change. However, a federal statute appears to prohibit the renaming of portions of the center, which is considered a living memorial to Kennedy.
“After December 2, 1983, no additional memorials or plaques in the nature of memorials shall be designated or installed in the public areas of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts,” according to the U.S. code.
Congress likely would need to change the law for the center to be renamed officially.
The Kennedy Center was renamed in 1964 to honor President John F. Kennedy, who was assassinated.
Leavitt said the renaming was “because of the unbelievable work President Trump has done over the last year in saving the building. Not only from the standpoint of its reconstruction, but also financially, and its reputation.”
“Congratulations to President Donald J. Trump, and likewise, congratulations to President Kennedy, because this will be a truly great team long into the future!,” she wrote.
Since the president’s takeover of the center, major artists and performers have canceled performances or boycotted performing. The artist Issa Rae, and the musical “Hamilton” will no longer perform at the center and dozens of cast members of “Les Misérables” refused to perform for Trump officials earlier this year.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem walks past reporters after doing a TV interview with Fox News outside the White House on March 10, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — A panel of appellate judges seemed skeptical during Thursday oral arguments that the Trump administration erred in relying on a decades-old statute to require millions of noncitizens to register with the federal government and carry documentation.
But they did take issue with the paperwork required of immigrants without legal status as well as the consequences for those who fail to register, and questioned if the practice violated due process and self-incrimination rights.
In February, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced the agency would enforce a rule under the Immigration and Nationality Act that requires all immigrants in the country without legal status to register with the agency or risk fines or potential jail time.
A federal court in April sided with the Trump administration, allowing the registration requirement to go through.
The suit, brought by immigration rights advocates, does not challenge the statute from 1940 requiring those without legal status to register, but instead the process used by DHS in rolling out the policy without a proper notice and comment period. The suit also challenges a penalty for not filling out paperwork, as the form is only in English and can only be accessed with an internet connection.
Arguing on behalf of the Trump administration, Kartik N. Venguswamy from the U.S. Attorney’s Office said a notice and comment period is not needed because the form is just procedural and a new rule is not created.
He added that the rule does not cause irreparable harm, because any harm is from outside forces, such as immigration enforcement or deportation that could follow registration with the federal government.
Judges Patricia A. Millett, Gregory G. Katsas and J. Michelle Childs heard the case in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Former President Barack Obama nominated Millett; President Donald Trump nominated Katsas in his first term; and former President Joe Biden nominated Childs.
The judges raised concerns with the form itself, including one question that requires the noncitizen to report any crimes they have committed, regardless of whether they were charged or convicted.
That wades into violation of the 5th Amendment’s protections against self incrimination, one judge said.
“That’s asking you to confess to things that no government authority is aware of,” Millett said of the final rule. “And it’s a big step toward the 5th Amendment.”
The Migration Policy Institute, a non-partisan immigration think tank, estimated that between 2.2 million and 3.2 million immigrants will have to register. The registration requirement could be a powerful tool in the Trump administration’s efforts to carry out mass deportations.
Michelle Lapointe, arguing on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, said the federal government has not enforced the rule for nearly 80 years.
The registration requirement is authorized under a wartime act known as the Alien Registration Act of 1940 that was first used in World War II. It was rarely used after that, but briefly in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
During that time, any noncitizen males older than 16 who hailed from 25 countries with a Muslim majority had to register with the federal government. But the program led to no terrorism convictions and was eventually dissolved in 2016.
Lapointe said because the rule would apply to as many as 3 million immigrants without legal status, a notice and comment period must occur. Under the rule, immigrants 14 and older who are required to register will need to carry registration documents at all times or risk potential prison terms or fines of up to $5,000.
“It is solely for the process of deportation,” Lapointe said.
As the Trump administration continues with its immigration crackdown, federal immigration officials could carry out their plans for mass deportations by having easy access to records of immigrants unlawfully in the country.
But Childs seemed skeptical that the federal government couldn’t use the statute, because it’s on the books.
Katsas also said the rule is not new — the government has just decided not to enforce it since 1940.
“It seems like a more fair account” that the government is ending a long policy of not enforcing a rule that, on its face, “covers all aliens,” he said.
But Katsas said the “rule does expand the category of information and that’s new.”
That category of information includes the requirement to detail to the federal government any crime the individual has committed, which Lapointe argued would violate 5th Amendment rights.
Childs and Millett questioned the roll-out of the form, the fact that it’s only accessible online and in English, and the penalty for not registering with the federal government.
“These are forms regulating a community … where English is not their native language,” Millett said.
Venguswamy said the forms were in English because “English is the language of the United States government at this point.”
Earlier this year, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to adopt English as the official language, including paperwork.
Millett asked Venguswamy if it’s the government’s position that an immigrant who doesn’t understand English will not be charged or issued a penalty for failing to register.
“I’m not in a position to speak to whether or not that is the position the government will take,” Venguswamy said.
Millett then asked why a proper notice and comment period is not needed for a new process, even if it’s not creating a new statute.
She gave Venguswamy an example of the IRS not changing the tax code, but issuing a new tax form for taxpayers to fill out.
“We’re gonna issue new tax forms, for everyone to fill out their taxes, we’re not creating tax obligations, just new forms in Ancient Biblical Greek,” Millett said.
She asked Venguswamy if a proper notice and comment period would be needed for those new tax forms.
He said it would not, because it’s a change in procedure, not a change to the rule.
“Wow,” Millett said. “We can all be criminally prosecuted for not filling out our taxes unless we can find the five people in the United States who know how to speak Ancient Biblical Greek.”
Login