Reading Time: 8 minutes

Click here to read highlights from the story

• A big shift in Wisconsin’s power grid fight: The regional grid operator pulled a key project from a Blackstone-backed developer and gave it to ATC — the latest twist in who gets to build (and profit from) the data center boom.

• Surging power demand is fueling billions in grid upgrades and intensifying competition between utilities and investors. The data center boom has amped up demand and competition even further. Ratepayers will ultimately cover the costs through their utility bills.

• The decision isn’t final. Wisconsin’s Public Service Commission still has to weigh in.

The Midwest’s data center boom requires a vast electrical transmission buildout to keep servers online, and transmission developers are clamoring for a share of the action.

An example of that tug-of-war played out last week, when the regional grid operator for much of the Upper Midwest reversed its earlier decision to allow a developer backed by the investment firm Blackstone to build a series of substations in eastern Wisconsin.

Instead, the operator handed the substations to the American Transmission Company (ATC), which owns and operates most transmission lines in eastern and central Wisconsin. The company argues it’s better-positioned to complete the project before a new Port Washington data center comes online by early 2028, five years ahead of the transmission project’s original deadline.

The about-face is a win for Wisconsin’s largest transmission developer after a series of losses in Wisconsin’s Assembly, where lawmakers have repeatedly rejected a proposal to give regionally established developers like ATC a monopoly over portions of multistate transmission projects within Wisconsin, leaving the door open for competition. 

The new arrangement itself likely won’t drive up costs for Wisconsin ratepayers. But ATC will now fold the substations into a larger $1.3 billion buildout to serve the Port Washington campus — another phase in the ongoing fight over who will pay to supply power for new data centers.

How the Midwest’s grid is planned and paid for

The North American grid is an ever-evolving network of transmission lines and substations that carry electricity from generators to customers.

In much of the country, nonprofit “independent system operators” coordinate regional power grids, managing a wholesale electricity market and interstate transmission projects. Wisconsin is within the territory of the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), which spans from the Upper Midwest to Louisiana. 

MISO has approved roughly $32 billion in transmission upgrades for the Upper Midwest since 2022, including new “backbone” power lines capable of carrying a higher voltage than existing lines in the region.

Among the latest round of projects: a series of transmission lines and substations in eastern Wisconsin. 

Just months after MISO’s board approved the eastern Wisconsin buildout in 2024, Port Washington’s city council approved a $15 billion data center on the city’s northern edge. Three new substations outlined in MISO’s plans are within easy reach of the campus.

Blackstone-backed developer takes the lead

Four transmission developers bid on the eastern Wisconsin upgrades, including ATC, which submitted a joint bid with Dairyland Power Cooperative and the nonprofit WPPI Energy, owned by municipal utilities in Wisconsin, Iowa and Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.

MISO initially awarded the project to Viridon, owned by Blackstone Energy Transition Partners — a private equity fund under the umbrella of Blackstone, the world’s largest alternative asset management firm.

Viridon’s roughly $350 million bid was by far the lowest — just over half of MISO’s estimate and more than $100 million below the next-cheapest bid. In its January announcement, MISO acknowledged the budget “may not be achievable” but cited Viridon’s promises to limit cost overruns and profits as reasons to pick the company over its competitors. 

Who pays for transmission depends on who builds it

When MISO awards a long-range transmission project, the developer spreads costs across customers in multiple states, meaning each customer pays less.

When a developer plans a transmission project within its own territory, that developer’s customers bear the costs alone.

Transmission developers pass costs along to customers through electrical utility bills. We Energies, for instance, estimates that transmission-related costs account for about 10% of customers’ bills. 

Those fees include a “return on equity” for shareholders: profits generated for each dollar invested. As of 2025, ATC collects a 10.48% return.

Competitive bidding for multistate projects is relatively new. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which oversees regional grid operators like MISO, began requiring competitive bidding for regional projects in 2011, following criticism that monopoly developers were driving up ratepayer costs. 

Competition for Midwestern projects escalated after MISO’s board approved billions of dollars in grid upgrades in 2022. MISO was “ahead of the game in terms of how much regional transmission it was planning” compared to other regional grid operators, said Ari Peskoe, director of the Electricity Law Initiative at Harvard Law School.

Grid expansion draws new competitors and investors

MISO’s transmission buildout plans offered utilities a golden opportunity to pick up new, dependable revenue streams. “I would have said generational,” Peskoe said, “but then we have the data center rush starting shortly thereafter.” 

Dozens of utilities, including some of the nation’s largest, have since lined up to bid for MISO transmission projects.

Also competing for a share of the buildout: newly formed developers financed by powerful investment firms.

Blackstone sponsored Viridon’s launch in 2023, and the new developer soon threw its hat into the ring for Midwestern transmission projects. Stonepeak, a smaller private equity firm, entered in 2025, backing startup developer Longview Infrastructure.

Well-established utilities have their own ties to multinational investment firms. 

As of December 2025, investment giants BlackRock and the Vanguard Group both owned more than 10% of shares in Wisconsin’s four largest investor-owned utility companies: Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Xcel Energy, Alliant Energy and Madison Gas and Electric Company. 

State Street, another powerful investment firm, owns more than 5% of shares in each utility. 

The four major utilities collectively own a majority of ATC.

Duluth-based utility ALLETE, also an ATC investor, belongs to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. The board’s purchase of ALLETE last year gave more than 22 million Canadians a chance to shore up their retirement savings through the Midwest’s grid buildout. 

A fight over competition

ATC and its peers have criticized competitive bidding from the outset. As MISO set up the new bidding process, Peskoe said, utilities fought the change in federal court and urged state legislatures to pass right-of-first-refusal (ROFR) laws.

ROFR laws give local utilities first dibs on transmission projects within their territory, including those planned by regional grid operators. 

In the view of Wisconsin’s utilities, ROFR laws ensure that utilities with local experience lead transmission projects, avoiding delays and missteps newcomers might face. “Out-of-state single-project developers lack local connection,” an ATC spokesperson wrote in an email to Wisconsin Watch. “We maintain relationships with our regulators that go beyond a single project.” 

But a coalition of critics, including many Midwestern ratepayer advocacy groups, argue that ROFR laws drive up consumer costs by stifling competition and preserving local monopolies. “We firmly believe that competitive bidding makes sense,” said Tom Content, executive director of Wisconsin’s Citizens Utility Board.

MISO has favored lower-cost bids thus far, but ATC argues that celebrating the cost savings from competitive bidding is premature. “Evidence of a low bid is not evidence of cost savings,” the company spokesperson wrote, because bid prices often do not match final project cost. Substantial overruns are common, even in projects without competitive bidding.

The two sides have battled in state legislatures and courts across the Midwest for more than a decade. Utilities prevailed in Minnesota and Michigan; Iowa’s Supreme Court struck down a ROFR law in 2023 after a national developer challenged its constitutionality.

Despite extensive lobbying, ROFR bills have repeatedly failed in Wisconsin’s Assembly, including one introduced in 2025 by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester.

That leaves ATC to compete for the MISO-planned transmission upgrades, including the plans for eastern Wisconsin.

Data center complicates planning

Shortly after MISO began soliciting bids for the project in February 2025, ATC alerted the grid operator to a complication. The Port Washington data center would need to connect to the grid by the end of 2027, and ATC would be responsible for making the plug-in possible with new substations designed to support the campus’ vast energy needs.

ATC jointly bid on MISO’s eastern Wisconsin grid upgrades in July 2025.

Two months later, the company filed an application with Wisconsin’s Public Service Commission (PSC) to build substations and transmission lines to serve the new data center campus. ATC projected a price tag of at least $1.3 billion for its broader project, which includes infrastructure not in MISO’s reliability-focused plan for eastern Wisconsin. Both proposals called for three substations — albeit at different scales, on different timelines and for different purposes — in roughly the same locations. 

From ATC’s perspective, at least one set of substations would need to be built in time for the Port Washington data center’s opening day. If MISO awarded its project to ATC, the company could address regional grid reliability concerns and serve the data center in one fell swoop, spreading some costs across the Upper Midwest to ease ratepayer burdens. Even if MISO didn’t award the project to ATC, the utility said it would still seek state approval to build the necessary substations. 

But others saw the overlap as an attempt to sidestep competition.

“We have concerns that attempts are being made to circumvent competitive bidding,” Content said.

MISO soon raised concerns of its own with the Wisconsin PSC. In early January, the grid operator argued that ATC was effectively applying to build the “same substations” as those outlined in its own eastern Wisconsin project. Because MISO had not yet selected a winning bidder for its transmission upgrades, it urged regulators to “consider this uncertainty” before allowing ATC to move forward.

After MISO selected its bid, Viridon also raised objections.

“Put simply, if ATC constructs the substations, Viridon cannot, and ATC will have circumvented MISO’s planning processes,” the developer’s attorneys wrote in a motion filed with the PSC. Allowing ATC to build the substations, they added, would prevent costs from being distributed across multiple states, “potentially requir(ing) Wisconsin customers to pay more.”

ATC pushed back, arguing the projects serve different purposes. The project MISO envisioned aims to improve regional grid reliability and did not require a rapid turnaround, ATC attorney Amy Miller wrote in filings with the PSC. The project under consideration by the PSC, on the other hand, was tied to a specific customer with a firm deadline.

ATC emphasized that Viridon is not yet certified as a public utility in Wisconsin — a process that could take a year or more. That timeline, ATC argued, makes it impossible for Viridon to complete the substations in time. “MISO cannot cause Wisconsin customers to go without timely access to power,” Miller wrote.

Vantage Data Centers echoed the urgency, telling regulators it had “a considerable amount to lose” if the substations aren’t ready by the time the Port Washington campus opens.

MISO changes course — benefiting ATC

Behind the scenes, the timeline began to shift.

Shortly before filing its PSC application last fall, ATC asked MISO to expedite a review of its eastern Wisconsin upgrades in light of the data center’s plans.

MISO adjusted its schedule in February, setting a new in-service date of Dec. 1, 2027. Viridon submitted a plan to meet that deadline, Jeff Dodd, president of Viridon’s Midwestern subsidiary, told Wisconsin Watch.

The grid operator wasn’t persuaded. 

In a revision released quietly on Thursday, MISO reassigned the substations to ATC, noting its “uncertainty” that Viridon could clear administrative hurdles in time. 

The reassignment is a first for MISO. The grid operator has previously worked with developers to update plans when problems arose, with the exception of a 2023 case in which MISO canceled a project because of Texas’ right of first refusal law. 

Viridon retains a fraction of MISO’s original project: a set of transmission lines and one substation scheduled for completion by 2033. 

Under the new arrangement, Midwestern customers will collectively cover the costs of Viridon’s project and about $40 million of ATC’s substation upgrades. 

The regional cost sharing of the substations is a small relief for ratepayer advocates. ATC now plans to fold the substations into the larger grid buildout it brought to the PSC last September, which includes transmission lines needed to serve the Port Washington data center. Wisconsin ratepayers alone are set to cover the remainder of the project’s more than $1 billion budget. 

“Now that the dispute over ownership of the substations is resolved,” Content wrote in an email to Wisconsin Watch, “our overriding concern is over the costs of the transmission line itself that ATC has proposed. Critical changes are needed to prevent utility customers across Wisconsin as well as customers in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula from footing the bill for this project and other data center-feeding power lines that should be paid for by the tech companies.”

The final outcome for the Wisconsin transmission projects still hinges on state regulators. Neither Viridon nor ATC can begin construction on their respective substations or transmission lines without approval from the PSC. The commission is reviewing ATC’s application and weighing where the infrastructure will be built.

For now, construction crews are racing to bring the Port Washington data center online by the end of next year. The PSC will soon decide who pays for the power to run it.

Competition intensifies over who builds Wisconsin’s grid as data centers drive power demand is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

After a "rollercoaster" of twists and turns in local politics, supporters of restoring fluoride to DeForest's water are turning their focus to an April 7 election.

The post After board votes down re-fluoridation, what’s next for DeForest water? appeared first on WPR.

University of Illinois researchers analyzed traces of DNA in rivers and streams to learn how strips of trees near water — called riparian buffers — impact land species.

The post This conservation practice boosts wildlife species on farmland, new research finds appeared first on WPR.

The bill that Gov. Tony Evers signed into law Monday to increase state funding for food assistance came after months of public debate over how to implement a key component of President Donald Trump’s signature One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

The post Wisconsin has a new food assistance law, with a MAHA-inspired provision appeared first on WPR.

Liberals currently hold a 4-3 majority on the court. If Lazar wins, that margin will remain the same. If Taylor wins, it will grow to 5-2.

The post Poll: Chris Taylor leads Maria Lazar in Wisconsin Supreme Court race appeared first on WPR.

Harley-Davidson is announcing a "reduction in force" for employees who work for the company across the globe.

The post Harley-Davidson announces ‘reduction in force’ for global workforce appeared first on WPR.

Jack Steward is the content creator behind “Tiny Cabin Life” — a YouTube channel with nearly 350,000 subscribers that chronicles his trips to remote areas of Minnesota, Wisconsin and the Upper Midwest.

The post Meet the outdoor enthusiast traveling to some of Wisconsin’s most remote places appeared first on WPR.

Cleanup is ongoing after a Jefferson County egg farm spilled thousands of gallons of wastewater amid an outbreak of bird flu.

The post Cleanup of spill ongoing at Jefferson County egg farm amid bird flu outbreak appeared first on WPR.

Roundy’s Supermarkets is being sued by the federal government for allegedly firing a nursing mother who asked to keep drinking water at her work station so she could stay hydrated to maintain her breast milk supply. 

The post Roundy’s Supermarkets sued by federal government for employment discrimination against nursing mother appeared first on WPR.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Republicans on Tuesday were waiting to hear back from Democrats after they sent them a new offer to fund the Department of Homeland Security, which has been shut down since mid-February. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said the proposal would fund many of the agencies within DHS, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Coast Guard, but wouldn’t provide new spending for some immigration enforcement and deportation activities. 

Those programs, mostly run by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, received tens of billions of dollars in Republicans’ 2025 “big, beautiful” law, largely exempting those federal workers from the shutdowns.

Thune said the offer currently on the table would leave the door open to the House and Senate moving another budget reconciliation bill through that complicated process to provide additional funding for immigration and deportation programs.

The special legislative pathway would allow GOP leaders to move a bill through the Senate with a simple majority vote as long as they adhere to its rules. That would skirt the need for Democratic votes to get beyond the 60-vote legislative filibuster that applies to other bills. 

Pressure for a bipartisan deal to fund DHS mounted in recent days after security lines at airports throughout the country ballooned into multi-hour waits, leading passengers to miss their flights and face expensive rebooking fees. Union leaders on Tuesday demanded lawmakers reach a deal to fund the Transportation Security Administration, which is part of DHS.

SAVE Act as well

A possible reconciliation package, Thune said, could include elements of the SAVE America Act, an elections bill backed by President Donald Trump that remains stalled in the Senate amid Democratic opposition.

“This is a really good outcome, where we’ve moved the Democrats a long way in our direction,” Thune said. “And I think also an understanding that reconciliation could be a possibility in terms of additional funding and for perhaps addressing the SAVE America Act.”

Thune said the DHS spending bill wouldn’t include any of the overhauls to immigration enforcement that Democrats have advocated for since federal officers shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis in January.  

“What was pretty clear is that they didn’t want funding,” he said. “So if you’re not going to have funding, I don’t know how all of a sudden now you can demand reforms, because I think for them, that was the issue.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said during an afternoon press conference Democrats would prepare a counteroffer that would include changes to how ICE functions. 

“This does not have any reforms in ICE. But negotiations are ongoing and they’ve sent us an offer and we’ll be sending them an offer back,” the New York Democrat said. “And I can assure you it will contain significant reform in it.”

Schumer outlined what he described as “common sense” changes to immigration enforcement activities in late January after two U.S. citizens were killed by federal immigration officers in Minneapolis.

Dems stick to immigration reforms

Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash., said she will continue to press for “modest reforms” to immigration activities during negotiations over the DHS spending bill.  

“If we are talking about funding any part of ICE or CBP, we absolutely must take some key steps to rein them in. The current Republican offer in front of us does not do that,” she said. 

Murray later added that negotiators “have made some progress and the White House has already agreed to some steps” but that the entire point is that “reforms must make it into law.”

Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, the top Democrat on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, said the Trump administration has “created this problem in which it’s really hard to address an immigration enforcement operation that’s out of control because it is funded out of almost every part of the DHS budget.”

Murphy said his sense is that Democrats are “still firm on our insistence that we’re not going to fund an immigration enforcement operation without reform.”

Republicans argue for deal

Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford said the latest DHS funding offer represents what Democrats have “asked for multiple times” and that Trump has signed off on it. 

Lankford said GOP senators “could” move additional spending on immigration enforcement through the reconciliation process, pointing to the funding they approved just last year in the “big, beautiful” law.

“We’ve had things like that, even in the last year, and then Democrats had things like that in the (Inflation Reduction Act) as well,” he said. 

North Dakota Republican Sen. John Hoeven said he believes Democrats “need to take” the deal on DHS funding. 

“They keep telling us they’ll go with us and now they need to do it,” he said. “They can’t keep trying to back up or change the deal. It’s time to get it done.”

Adding SAVE Act could be difficult

Republicans’ plan to use the complex budget reconciliation process to pass additional funding for immigration and deportation programs as well as elements of their voter identification bill, dubbed the SAVE America Act, could face headwinds. 

Any reconciliation bill would need the support of nearly every Republican in Congress, a complicated obstacle given the party’s especially narrow majority in both chambers. 

The reconciliation process is also arduous and filled with rules at nearly every turn, including that all of its elements must address federal revenue, spending, or debt. And those changes cannot be deemed “merely incidental” by the Senate parliamentarian. 

Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, cast some doubt on using the reconciliation process to move elements of the SAVE America Act, saying, “I don’t think that’s a good approach.”

West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito said Republicans “are at the beginning” of figuring out what, if any, elements of the SAVE America Act can move through the reconciliation process. 

“It’s going to be difficult because it’s not a budgetary impact, it’s a policy impact. But that doesn’t mean some good things can’t move forward that would help with the integrity of the vote,” she said. “So we’ll just have to wait and see. I think reconciliation is probably something we’re going to be strongly considering when we get back.”

Citizenship proof

The legislation has several elements but generally would require Americans to prove their citizenship by showing a birth certificate or a passport when they register to vote. When voters try to cast a ballot they would need to show photo identification. And all states would be required to submit their voter rolls to a DHS database. 

The bill will not be able to make it through the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster given strong opposition from Democrats.

South Dakota Republican Sen. Mike Rounds said one option for moving “items” in the SAVE America Act through reconciliation would be to provide funding for states to implement some of its provisions. 

“I haven’t seen the specific language on it. I just know that in most cases, what you’re talking about is making money available,” he said. “The policy would not be included, but the resources would be made available because you can’t do policy in reconciliation, you do resources.”

Ohio Sen. Bernie Moreno said GOP senators will “do whatever we can in reconciliation to get pieces and parts of” the SAVE America Act into law. 

And while he wasn’t entirely sure how Republicans would prove that those changes aren’t “merely incidental” to the multi-trillion-dollar federal budget, he said there is “a whole team of really, really smart people that will answer that question.”

Moreno said Republicans “don’t have to get every single thing in every single way” on the SAVE America Act. 

“You just keep the conversation going,” he said. “Eventually, the American public is going to punish Democrats who aren’t following up on 80-20 issues.”

WASHINGTON — Alan Armstrong, a Tulsa businessman, was sworn in Tuesday as Oklahoma’s newest U.S. senator.

Armstrong temporarily fills the seat of Markwayne Mullin, who was sworn in as U.S. Department of Homeland Security secretary earlier Tuesday. 

The Senate on Monday confirmed Mullin’s nomination to lead the agency responsible for carrying out President Donald Trump’s mass deportation agenda. 

Armstrong was sworn in at the U.S. Capitol just hours after Oklahoma GOP Gov. Kevin Stitt appointed him to the post Tuesday morning at the Oklahoma state Capitol in Oklahoma City. 

Iowa GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley, who serves as president pro tempore of the Senate, swore in Armstrong. Grassley joined Armstrong and his family in the Old Senate Chamber for a reenactment of the swearing-in shortly after. 

Armstrong has served as executive chairman of the board of directors for Williams. The major energy company is headquartered in Tulsa. 

Armstrong joins Oklahoma GOP Sen. James Lankford in the Senate and will serve alongside him until January 2027 — the remainder of Mullin’s term. 

Under Oklahoma law, Armstrong signed an affidavit earlier Tuesday vowing to not run for a full Senate term in 2026, the Oklahoma Voice reported. 

Earlier in March, Trump gave Oklahoma GOP U.S. Rep. Kevin Hern — who is running in November for the Senate seat — his “complete and total endorsement.” 

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump hailed his new Homeland Security head, former U.S. Sen. Markwayne Mullin, as “strong, professional and fair” during an Oval Office swearing-in ceremony Tuesday.

Mullin, who until Monday was one of Oklahoma’s Republican senators, takes the reins at the Department of Homeland Security amid a weekslong partial shutdown in the aftermath of two high-profile fatal shootings of U.S. citizens by two departmental agencies.

Mullin, accompanied by family at the Oval Office ceremony, described his swearing-in as “surreal” and “humbling” during brief remarks after Attorney General Pam Bondi administered his oath of office.

“I made this very clear that I don’t care what color your state is. I don’t care if you’re red or you’re blue. At the end of the day, my job is to be secretary of Homeland and to protect everybody the same. And we will do that. I’ll fight every single day,” Mullin said. 

The partial shutdown has snarled major airports nationwide as thousands of Transportation Security Administration personnel, part of DHS, have quit or skipped work in the absence of paychecks.

Mullin said he met with many DHS employees Tuesday, noting they had been working without pay for more than a month because of “politics.”

Former fighter

Trump praised Mullin at Tuesday’s ceremony.

“I have no doubt that as he takes the helm of DHS, Markwayne will fight for Homeland Security, the United States and securing the country and making it really strong and the way it should be,” Trump said. “Our country’s come a long way in the last year.”

In rising to the role, Mullin became the first member of the Cherokee Nation to serve in the president’s Cabinet, a fact Trump said he “didn’t know.”

Mullin, an award-winning wrestler and former professional mixed martial arts fighter, began his Senate term in 2023. Until being elected as senator, he represented Oklahoma’s 2nd Congressional District starting in 2013.

Mullin resigned from the U.S. Senate Monday evening following the body’s confirmation of his appointment in a 54-45 vote.

The former senator, who will be tasked with leading a department of 260,000 employees, has not sat on a committee that handles policy for Homeland Security.

Alan Armstrong, a Tulsa businessman, was sworn in Tuesday to replace Mullin in the Senate.

Department in turmoil

Mullin replaces former Secretary Kristi Noem who, since Trump’s second term began, oversaw the president’s mass deportation crackdown and publicly flaunted her role in ad campaigns and public appearances — including being photographed while touring a notorious mega-prison in El Salvador where the U.S. deported hundreds of migrants against a judge’s order. 

Noem notably immediately defended two fatal shootings by department personnel in Minneapolis when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents killed 37-year-old Renee Good on Jan. 7, and Customs and Border Patrol agents killed Alex Pretti, also 37, on Jan. 24.

Democrats have refused to fully fund DHS unless Republicans agreed to new policies for immigration enforcement — including banning face coverings on agents, mandating body camera usage and requiring judicial warrants. 

“The department that Markwayne takes over today is currently shut down by radical left Democrat thugs in Congress who have blocked all funding for DHS because they’re trying to shield illegal aliens, criminals and gang members,” Trump said, incorrectly stating that all DHS funding has been blocked. 

While a significant number of DHS employees, like TSA officers, have been working for weeks without pay, both ICE and Customs and Border Protection are fully funded under a new influx of cash Republicans approved in July as part of the massive tax and spending package.

Speaking to reporters following Mullin’s swearing-in, Trump declined to talk in detail about negotiations with the Senate to end the partial shutdown.  

“They’re working on all of that,” he said.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Supreme Court justices seemed split Tuesday on whether the Trump administration should be allowed to turn away asylum-seekers who present themselves at ports of entry at the U.S.-Mexico border.

The question presented to the justices was whether migrants have to fully cross into the United States in order to have the right to apply for asylum and be processed, or if they can apply for asylum when they appear at a port of entry while on Mexico’s side of the border. 

The policy requiring a full crossing, known as metering, is defunct, but the Trump administration is asking the high court to make a determination in order to potentially revive the practice for future use at the southern border.

“This is an important tool in the government’s toolbox for dealing with border surges when they occur,” Vivek Suri, assistant to the U.S. solicitor general, told the court during oral arguments on the asylum case. “I can’t predict when the next border surge occurs, but I can say that when it does occur, this is a tool that (the Department of Homeland Security) would want in its toolbox. It’s not something the court should leave to future uncertainty.”

The six conservative justices seemed to agree with the Trump administration’s position, and questioned the definition of when a migrant “arrives” in the United States and can therefore seek asylum — legal protection granted to those fleeing danger or persecution in their home country.

The three liberals of the Supreme Court — Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson —  asked whether the policy violated federal law protecting refugees. 

Lower and appeals courts have repeatedly blocked the metering policy, finding it violated U.S. asylum and refugee law for those escaping persecution after the first Trump administration expanded its use in 2017. The Biden administration rescinded the policy in 2021. 

A 2020 investigation by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General found that up to 680 migrants per day were turned around as a result of the metering policy. 

The ‘magic thing’

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked Kelsi Corkran, an attorney who argued on behalf of the immigrant legal aid and humanitarian group Al Otro Lado, how close an asylum seeker has to be to qualify as “arriving” in the U.S.

The immigration advocacy group originally brought the challenge in 2017 after asylum seekers were turned away by border officials at U.S. ports of entry. 

“What is the magic thing, or the dispositive thing, that we’re looking for, where we say, ‘Ah, now that person we can say arrives in the United States?’” Barrett asked. 

Corkran said someone arrives in the U.S. at a port of entry “when they are at the threshold of the port’s entrance, about to step over.” 

“I think that’s consistent with ordinary meaning,” she said. “I arrive at my house, or I arrive in my yard, when I’m going through the gate. Now that process of arriving is interrupted by the border officer physically blocking them from completing the arrival.”

Barrett also asked Suri if the Trump administration plans to reinstate the metering policy. 

Suri said the Trump administration would like to, “when border conditions justify.”

Jackson noted the policy, in practice, would require an asylum seeker to violate U.S. immigration law by entering into the country without authorization, based on the Trump administration’s argument that a migrant has to be on U.S. soil before making an asylum claim. 

That would be considered entering the U.S. unlawfully.

“So imagine a polite asylum seeker who wants to do everything by the book, he approaches the border but does not cross precisely because the law says you are not supposed to enter the United States without authority,” Jackson said. “If we’re trying to think about what ‘arriving in’ means, surely Congress was contemplating that a person would be coming to the United States, would be doing so with an intent to comply with the law that says you’re not supposed to enter, and thereby asking for entry.” 

Justice Brett Kavanaugh also questioned Suri about how the policy seems to give preference to migrants to enter the U.S. without authorization, rather than those who are seeking to make an asylum claim. 

Suri said the metering policy doesn’t prevent a migrant from seeking asylum. 

“It’s saying ‘our port (of entry) is at capacity today, try again some other day,’ and that time when that person comes in, that person could come in legally,” he said. 

Refugee laws

Sotomayor questioned Suri how the metering policy didn’t violate the United Nations Refugee Convention of 1951. That act, which the U.S. signed in 1967, was created after the M.S. St. Louis ship, carrying more than 900 Jewish refugees during World War II, was prevented entry to the U.S. and turned back to Europe. 

Some passengers were able to find refuge in other countries, but 254 died in the Holocaust.

Suri said the metering policy doesn’t send people back to their home country. 

“No, you’re just telling them to walk back,” Sotomayor said, adding that if the turn-back policy were applied to the Jewish refugees on the St. Louis, it would be the same as telling them to swim back. 

“They happened to be on a boat, but that’s what we did,” she said. “We didn’t let them dock. We didn’t consider whether they were being persecuted. And the majority of those people were shipped back or had to go back from where they came and were killed. That’s what we’re doing here, isn’t it?”

Suri said that he does “not deny the moral weight of claims made by refugees, but that is not the question before the court.”

He said the issue is whether Congress imposed the obligation “in the asylum and inspection statutes, and those refer only to aliens who arrive in the United States.”

Sotomayor pushed back and noted that if someone were to fly into LaGuardia Airport in New York, they “may not have put their foot on U.S. land, but they’ve arrived in the United States. They’re knocking on the door.” 

The justices are likely to make a decision on the case by late June. 

The U.S. government will pay a French energy firm nearly $1 billion to cancel its plans to build a pair of wind farms off the East Coast, the Trump administration announced Monday in its latest move to stymie offshore wind. 

The French firm TotalEnergies will forfeit its leases for projects off the coasts of New York and North Carolina, with the United States paying $928 million to reimburse what the company initially spent on the leases.

Under the deal, TotalEnergies will reinvest that money into oil and gas projects, including a liquefied natural gas export facility in Texas. 

President Donald Trump has repeatedly vowed to block the development of offshore wind projects, which many East Coast states have been counting on to meet their energy needs in the coming years. The projects canceled under the deal announced Monday would have provided power to more than 1 million homes. 

Late last year, the Trump administration invoked classified national security threats to stop work on five wind farms that were under construction, but courts have ruled that the projects can proceed. But for dozens of other projects still in the planning and permitting stages, industry experts expect little progress while Trump remains in office. 

The administration claimed in a statement that the projects were “unreliable and costly.” But New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, condemned the agreement.

“Using a pay-not-to-play scheme to pressure a company to not build offshore wind is an outrageous abuse of taxpayer dollars,” Hochul said in a statement to The New York Times.

Environmental groups also blasted the deal, with some noting that it comes as Trump’s war with Iran has caused chaos for global oil markets.

“This deal is an outrageous misuse of taxpayer dollars to prevent Americans from having clean, affordable power exactly when they need it most,” Ted Kelly, director and lead counsel for U.S. clean energy at the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement. 

Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org.

Federal Medicaid cuts could exact a heavy toll on psychiatric units at hospitals across the country, many of which are already struggling to keep their doors open but provide essential mental health care to people who need it.

Psychiatric units are costly and, like labor and delivery services, typically lose money for hospitals and tend to be reimbursed at lower rates than other health services. In contrast, some specialty units, such as cardiovascular care, are lucrative: Cardiologists can generate up to seven times their salaries for hospitals.

Between 2023 and 2024, 126 hospitals across the U.S. shut down their inpatient psychiatric units, according to data provided to Stateline by the American Hospital Association.

“(Psychiatric units) are often in the red, and, for lack of a better word, kind of subsidized by the rest of the health system,” said Sarah Steverman of the National Association for Behavioral Healthcare. Steverman oversees regulatory affairs and is the liaison for a committee of hospital psychiatric unit administrators and clinicians.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act that President Donald Trump signed into law last year will add to the strain, Steverman and other experts say.

The law is projected to cut federal Medicaid spending by an estimated $886.8 billion over the next decade, largely because new work requirements will push people off the rolls, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office. CBO estimates that it could increase the number of people without health insurance by 7.5 million in 2034.

Those cuts will have a significant effect on mental health care because Medicaid, jointly funded by the federal government and the states, covers more people with mental illness than any other public or private insurer — roughly 29% of the estimated 52 million nonelderly adults with mental illness, or about 15 million people, according to health research group KFF.

Behavior health policy experts say the Medicaid changes will force hospital psychiatric units to provide care to many more people who don’t have insurance. Even before the law, Medicaid often didn’t fully reimburse hospitals for the cost of mental health care, unit administrators said.

Along with increasing the number of people without insurance, the One Big Beautiful Big Act places new limits on states’ ability to maximize federal funding and reimburse providers.

The federal government allows states with contracted Medicaid managed care organizations running their Medicaid programs to direct them to pay providers more. But beginning in 2028, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will cap these state-directed payments, forcing state Medicaid programs to reduce reimbursement rates by 10 percentage points each year until they reach either 100% or 110% of what Medicare pays.

The federal law also caps provider taxes, a strategy states have used to boost the Medicaid dollars they get from the federal government.

As a result, states will face the choice of replacing the lost federal money with state dollars, scaling back services or providing coverage to fewer people.

Conservatives who have backed the Medicaid cuts say such tools are accounting tricks that states have used to draw down more federal money. Some have even called the provider taxes a “money laundering” scheme. Eliminating them, they say, will force states to be more accountable for their Medicaid spending.

“States are gaming the system — creating complex tax schemes that shift their responsibility to invest in Medicaid and rob federal taxpayers,” Dr. Mehmet Oz, the administrator of the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said in a news release last year.

But Angela Kimball, chief advocacy officer at Inseparable, a mental health advocacy organization, said the tools are essential, and that the cuts will be detrimental.

“For the mental health system, and particularly for facility-based care, it (Medicaid) is the financial foundation. And when you simultaneously reduce who’s covered, what providers get paid, and limit the tools states have to make up the difference, you’re not just trimming around the edges; you’re undermining the whole structure,” Kimball said.

The mental health field is also struggling with workforce shortages across states, especially in rural areas. As of December 2024, more than 122 million Americans lived in designated mental health professional shortage areas.

Dr. Arpan Waghray, a psychiatrist and CEO of Providence’s Well Being Trust, serves as a member of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Healthcare Systems and Financing. Providence has 16 psychiatric units across Alaska, California, Oregon and Washington state, and Medicaid and Medicaid HMOs account for 42% of patients across those units. That number increased as the states expanded eligibility under Obamacare.

In contrast, Medicaid pays for roughly 13% of oncology inpatients and about 10% of cardiology inpatients across the hospital systems.

“Inpatient psychiatric units, especially when they’re part of larger hospitals and academic centers, like our community hospitals … they generally tend to operate on a loss,” Waghray said. “We are no exception to that.”

He noted that estimates show psychiatric units have a negative operating income of about 37%.

“We don’t want to make a profit on psychiatric units,” he said, adding the goal is to at least “break even.”

Waghray said if more units are forced to shutter, that will lead to more crowding in emergency rooms and jails. Often, jails and prisons — facilities with inadequate care — end up being mental health care providers for people who lacked access to care. People in crisis also may be forced to wait for a psychiatric bed to open up elsewhere.

“It has this cascading effect that touches everyone’s lives,” Waghray said. “The two places where people get care if they don’t get care in the right setting is the inpatient (psychiatric) unit, and you cut that, then essentially you have emergency departments that are overcrowded or jails that are overcrowded.”

Health economist John McConnell, director of the Center for Health Systems Effectiveness at Oregon Health and Sciences University, said “the whole mental health system is really going to get hit with a shock here.”

“Crisis care funding is all over the place, and there’s not really a consistent way of funding it, and it’s often underfunded,” he said. “You had a fragile system … made more fragile with a lot of the executive orders from the Trump administration — and then (the new federal law) has sort of further chipped away at it.”

Steverman said that people with severe mental health emergencies — such as acute psychosis, mania or suicidality — who need urgent treatment after emergency room intake often require multiple clinical staff and observation.

Gretchen Clark Bower, senior director of Behavioral Health Services at Providence Regional Medical Center Everett, in Washington state, said the hospital’s inpatient psychiatric unit, which opened about five years ago, relies heavily on Medicaid: Roughly 80% of psychiatric inpatients are covered by Medicaid, and many have severe illnesses.

“It has been a stretch financially for a long time,” Bower said. “The costs of providing care are far more than what we’re getting reimbursed. And that is extremely challenging.”

Everett’s average psychiatric hospitalization is about 16 days. But sometimes, insurers will only cover up to a certain number of hospitalization days for mental health, Bower said. That leaves the hospital to absorb the rest of the costs.

“We want to make sure that we are discharging people when they are safe to discharge — not just when their insurance stops paying,” Bower said.

Bower said she worries the cuts will destabilize people if their care gets interrupted after losing coverage, putting more pressure and costs on the health system.

“It worries me a lot,” she said. “How do we continue to take care of our community into the future, and how do we sustain ourselves financially as we do that? It’s an incredibly difficult task.”

A report from the American Psychiatric Association found that states that had expanded Medicaid eligibility saw smaller increases in suicide compared with nonexpansion states: Medicaid expansion was associated with about 0.4 fewer suicides per 100,000 people yearly.

“Combined with workforce shortages and long-standing insufficient reimbursement for psychiatric services, further reductions in Medicaid will increase pressure on already struggling facilities,” said Ben Teicher, spokesperson for the American Hospital Association. “Our members have been worried about their psych units for a long time, and any further erosion of what Medicaid pays for would make it even worse.”

Stateline reporter Nada Hassanein can be reached at nhassanein@stateline.org.

The Wisconsin State Senate passed a bill last week that will request funding for health care coverage for incarcerated people from the federal government. State Assembly lawmakers had already passed the bill last month. 

In a Facebook post last week, Sen. Jesse James (R-Thorp) celebrated the measure and said he hopes Gov. Tony Evers will sign it into law. 

James said that “as people leave our correctional system, they have a 40 TIMES higher risk of overdose death within the first TWO weeks after release.” This appeared to be a reference to a North Carolina study of opioid overdose death rates between 2000 and 2015. 

“This bill is a great step forward for Wisconsin as it ensures we become a healthier, safer community,” James said.  

The vote was nearly unanimous, with only Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) voting no. 

A federal “inmate exclusion policy” limits incarcerated people’s ability to use Medicaid, but the bill seeks to have the state apply for a waiver under an exception outlined by the federal government. 

Under the bill, the state’s Department of Health Services would submit a request to conduct a demonstration project to provide 90 days of prerelease coverage to incarcerated people for case management services, medication-assisted treatment for all types of substance use disorders and a 30-day supply of prescription medications. Incarcerated people would have to be otherwise eligible for coverage under the Medical Assistance program, which provides health services to people with limited financial resources.  

The advocacy organization WISDOM celebrated the Senate’s passage of the bill in an email newsletter signed by Mark Rice, the group’s transformational justice campaign coordinator. 

Rice said that full implementation of the bill would reduce needless suffering and the number of people being detained, benefit public safety, save resources and put more people on a path to successful reentry into society. 

In written testimony dated Oct. 31, director Dawn Buchholz of the Juneau County Department of Health Services said that passing the bill “will help us provide crucial services to inmates reentering our communities.”

“In the past, our agency literally completed hundreds of suicide and other behavioral health assessments for inmates experiencing emergency mental health and substance use crises in the Juneau County Jail,” Buchholz testified. “This was a frustrating process because while we can assess inmates, we cannot provide them with mental health or substance abuse treatment due to Medicaid rules.”

Buchholz testified that providing prerelease coverage to incarcerated people, along with a 30-day supply of prescription medications, “will help our agency work more effectively with our jails and prisons, result in a seamless reentry into community behavioral health services and decrease recidivism.”

DOC communications director Beth Hardtke referred the Examiner to the DOC fiscal estimate for information on what the agency is currently able to provide and the potential impact of the legislation. 

The department estimated it may have over $750,000 in potential cost savings if the waiver is approved and implemented, allowing the state to expand health care access for incarcerated people. 

The Examiner reported last month that in the fiscal estimate, the DOC said that in FY 2025, the agency spent $500,000 on the 30-day medication supply dispensed for incarcerated people before they were released, $300,000 on pre-release medication assisted treatment medications and $3.9 million on the Opening Avenues to Reentry Success (OARS) program. The OARS program supports the transition from prison to the community of incarcerated people living with a severe and persistent mental illness who are at medium-to-high risk of reoffending. 

Because not all incarcerated people will qualify, the estimate assumes that half of the medication and medication assisted treatment medications costs will be reimbursed, as well as 10% of the OARS program costs. There may be other costs DOC can have reimbursed. 

The Examiner previously reported that states have to reinvest federal matching funds received for carceral health care services currently funded with state or local dollars. Reinvested money must go toward activities that increase access or improve the quality of health care services for people who are incarcerated or were recently released, or for health-related social services that may help divert people released from incarceration from involvement in the criminal justice system. 

In the fiscal estimate, the DOC said that incarcerated people in local detention facilities may also be eligible for the services. This could result in local cost savings in addition to DOC cost savings. The department couldn’t estimate the potential local cost savings of the bill because not all local detention facilities provide the same type or level of services.  

Hardtke noted that the bill only allows the state to apply for the federal waiver, and it isn’t guaranteed that a waiver would be approved. 

As of Nov. 21, 19 states had approved waivers, according to the health policy research organization KFF. Nine, including the District of Columbia, had pending waivers. 

In an email to the Examiner in November, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services said the bill requires the three services that the waiver would need to include to be submitted to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The bill doesn’t require other criteria for the project, aside from current Medicaid eligibility requirements. 

Beyond those requirements, the department said it needs the authority that the bill would provide before it starts work on putting together the details of the waiver. The bill requires the department to submit the request for a waiver by Jan. 1, 2027. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Milwaukee lawmakers and residents who have lost loved ones to traffic accidents advocated Monday for a measure that recently failed to pass the Legislature allowing the city to use cameras to catch speeders and other traffic law violators. 

Wisconsin law currently prohibits the use of cameras to capture photos of vehicles that speed or run a red light. SB 375  would have carved out an exception for Milwaukee law enforcement to use a speed safety camera system to identify speeding violations and a traffic control photographic system to identify traffic signal violations.

Milwaukee has been grappling with high rates of traffic deaths and injuries for several years, and Sen. Dora Drake (D-Milwaukee) said during the press conference in the state Capitol rotunda that the bill would help prevent further injuries and deaths. 

“One life loss is too many, and it’s time that we get this bill passed. If it’s not during this session, then next session, it needs to be a top priority,” Drake said.

The state Senate adjourned its final regular floor session of the year last week. The state Assembly had already adjourned its final session, meaning that work in the building will be minimal for the remainder of the year. 

Recent data from the city of Milwaukee found that traffic deaths hit a six-year low in 2025. 

In 2022, traffic deaths peaked at 77. In 2025, 57 people died, down from 70 deaths in 2024. Mayor Cavalier Johnson credits the work of the city and its Office of Vision Zero, which aims to reduce annual traffic deaths to zero. 

According to Milwaukee’s Traffic Violence Dashboard, there have been 7 deaths and 966 people injured across 682 crashes with injuries so far in 2026.

“We know that speed is one of the most significant factors in traffic fatalities and severe injuries in Milwaukee and across Wisconsin,” Drake said. “Traffic safety cameras are a proven, evidence-based solution and in hundreds of other communities, cameras have reduced crashes, injuries and fatalities.”

According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, traffic cameras can reduce crashes in large urban areas by up to 54% and cut down on injuries from crashes by up to 47%.

Drake noted the bill never received a vote in the Senate Transportation and Local Government committee even as a majority of the lawmakers on the committee were coauthors or cosponsors. 

The bill had bipartisan support. Its lead authors were Sen. Cory Tomczyk (R-Mosinee) and Rep. Todd Novak (R-Dodgeville). Tomczyk has not replied to a request for comment from the Wisconsin Examiner about why the proposal never received a vote.

In written testimony, Tomczyk said the bill wouldn’t solve all of the traffic violation problems in the state’s largest city, but would be “a tool in the toolbox that law enforcement can use to try and make the streets a little safer.”

“As a conservative, having more cameras watching our every move is not ideal. Unfortunately, in this modern world, cameras are everywhere, and that train has ‘left the station’,” he said. “When it comes to the safety of Milwaukee residents and visitors, having a few more mechanical eyes watching is something we can live with.” 

Tomczyk also said in the testimony that he was expecting to receive criticism from his party for authoring the bill. 

“That is OK. We need debate and discussion on issues such as these, and I welcome that discussion,” Tomczyk said.

Drake said at the press conference that concerns about the bill being a “cash cow” — a way for the city to bring in money — was one of the biggest barriers to advancing the legislation. 

Lawmakers in the Republican-led Legislature have often been hesitant to increase the amount of revenue going to the city of Milwaukee.

Under the bill, speeders who go more than 15 miles per hour over the speed limit and are caught by the camera system could get a citation. Drivers who don’t stop at a red light and are caught by the system would be subject to a forfeiture of between $20 and $100.

The money collected from forfeitures would be required to be used for the costs of implementing and operating the system. After the costs have been paid, the money would only be allowed to be used for traffic enforcement, traffic safety programs and traffic safety infrastructure. 

“This is an additional tool that is necessary to ensure that all partners can assure that we are actively changing the behavior in Wisconsin, in Milwaukee, as well as giving the tools necessary to create more calm traffic patterns,” Drake said. 

The bill would have limited the number of cameras to up to five in each of Milwaukee’s 15 aldermanic districts and included a five-year sunset date to allow for an evaluation of the system’s effectiveness.

Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee) thanked the families who have advocated for the legislation at the Capitol and said she was angry that the bill did not make it across the finish line this session. 

“I know that the cost of the Legislature refusing to act will be paid in funerals and trauma to our communities. It will be paid in my neighbors’ lives. It will be paid by families burying their children,” Johnson said. 

Gloria Shaw’s son, Xavier, died in 2022 at the age of 23 while crossing the road in downtown Milwaukee near Fiserv Forum. She said she has been advocating since then for measures to curb reckless driving in the city.

“I’d have my closure by now had there been more cameras on that corner when he got hit,” Shaw said at the press conference. “I’m fighting for this bill because, not only am I his voice, I’m the voice of others who suffer in silence, who don’t know where to go and what to do. This bill is important.” 

Ruth Ehrgott said that when used correctly the traffic cameras would “create accountability in places where no one is present.” Her pregnant daughter, Erin Mogensen, died in 2023 after a man ran a red light while fleeing police in Milwaukee. He was sentenced to 40 years in prison. Her family also advocated for the state law that increased mandatory minimums for reckless drivers who flee police and cause serious injuries or deaths.

“For me, this is not theoretical. It was camera technology that helped identify and ultimately lead to the apprehension of the person who killed my daughter and my grandbaby,” Ehrgott said. “Wisconsin has an opportunity right now. Let’s not miss it. No more names. No more families changed forever.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

(The Center Square) – Wisconsin voters will be able to end the governor’s partial veto power on the November ballot and a poll released on Tuesday indicates that voters believe the power goes too far.

(The Center Square) – Tom Tiffany remains the clear favorite to be the Republican nominee for Wisconsin governor with 40% support compared to just 6% for Andy Manske, while Francesca Hong has the most support with 14% in a Democratic…

(The Center Square) - Judge Chris Taylor, a former Democratic state representative, widened her margin of lead over conservative Maria Lazar with 23% of voters compared to Lazar’s 17% with two weeks remaining before the state’s April 7 Wisconsin Supreme…