The Trump administration announced a series of changes in federal childcare funding Monday that Wisconsin advocates say will amount to less regulation and undermine attempts to support childcare providers and workers.

The policies announced include a rollback of Biden administration programs that supported higher wages for childcare workers and put a ceiling on childcare costs for low-income families.

The Administration for Children and Families in the federal Department of Health and Human Services said in a press release the revisions in administrative rules would “lower costs, expand access, and better serve families who rely on federally-funded child care programs.”

Two Wisconsin childcare advocates said the proposals seem unlikely to live up to those expectations.

“There’s nothing saying there’s going to be more money,” said Corrine Hendrickson, a former New Glarus home childcare provider. “They’re just allowing [states] to move the money around in different ways.”

Hendrickson, who is the cofounder of a childcare advocacy coalition that includes providers and parents, closed her childcare business in August because she said she would have been forced to increase rates more than her families were willing to pay. She is campaigning for the Democratic nomination for a state Senate seat.

Ruth Schmidt, executive director for the Wisconsin Early Childhood Association, said the proposals are reversing support for policies aimed at addressing longstanding childcare challenges.

“Instead of investing in making a robust system of care that can pay a living wage to people doing this work, the same as our public education system does,”  Schmidt said, the administration is “saying,  ‘let’s roll back the ways we’ve been funding this. Let’s make it harder to work, have your child in care and get subsidized for doing that.’”

The actions announced Monday affect the federal Child Care and Development Fund, which states use to cover the cost of subsidized childcare for low-income families, as well as the federal government’s funding for Head Start childcare and preschool programs. They include direct guidance to states as well as federal rulemaking. 

• A guidance memo encourages states to direct more funds from the federal government’s Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) to Child Care and Development Fund uses. It also states that states can use TANF money to “support needy married two-parent families in which one parent works and the other cares for a child at home.”
• A “Dear Colleague” letter highlights that under existing federal law, states are permitted to allow church childcare programs, other faith-based providers and family, friend and neighborhood caregivers to receive federal subsidies for children in their care.
• A final federal rule rescinds Biden administration policies that required states to pay providers in subsidized programs in advance for the month, limited low-income families’ copayments for subsidized care to 7% of their income, and allowed direct grants to providers
• A proposed federal rule rescinds Biden administration rules that tied wage and benefit requirements to Head Start grants.

The agency also sent governors a letter promoting the changes and calling the rescinded requirements “one-size fits all federal mandates that raise costs, limit supply, and crowd out providers.”

According to the First Five Years Fund, a nonprofit that advocates for strong federal support for quality childcare and early learning programs, 11% of children 5 or younger who are eligible receive subsidized childcare, and 35% of those eligible for the federal Head Start preschool program for low-income children are enrolled.

Hendrickson said with subsidized parents having to pay more out of pocket, some are more likely to forgo childcare and possibly leave the workforce.

“Just because you’re eligible doesn’t mean you can still afford to use the subsidy,” she said. “Unless the dollars go up significantly, this isn’t going to help any of these parents that are on a waitlist or aren’t able to access [care].”

Schmidt said the Biden administration changes guaranteed  providers would receive subsidy payments based on enrollment at the beginning of the month, which offers childcare operators greater stability. The final rule change would allow states to shift payments to the end of the month based on attendance.

She said she thought Wisconsin might not make that change, however, because the state has seen that paying ahead rather than after the fact “helps stabilize the workforce.”

With the advice to states to spend more of their TANF funds on childcare, however, “then what else is getting cut?” Schmidt asked.

Schmidt said that the changes won’t improve childcare quality and won’t help support a system that would encourage professional childcare educators to stay in the field.

The state, or the nation as a whole, could invest revenue “and have a really robust system of care, which is what states are all already working towards,” Schmidt said. “I think it’s just really unfortunate that we have a federal government that is wanting to go down a path of deregulation and loosening of standards.”

Editor’s note: This is the second article in The 50 vs. The One, an occasional series examining the current fraught moment and what evolving — and often deteriorating — state-federal ties mean for the country. Read the first article here.

President Donald Trump is wielding power in unprecedented ways to bring states to heel, marking a dark new chapter in the relationship between the federal government and the states.

Since taking office last year, Trump has punished Democratic-led states that anger him by withholding federal funding and slow-walking assistance. His administration has denied disaster aid to states whose governors are most critical of him, cut childcare and social services funding, launched investigations into blue states and poured immigration officers and military members into liberal cities.

Presidents and Congress have long leveraged federal power to influence the states, funding everything from welfare to highways. And presidents have long faced legal challenges from political adversaries.

But the Trump administration has begun wielding federal resources as a weapon against states, using dollars to cajole and threaten them into complying with its political agenda. Instead of working with Congress to nudge states, Trump is moving unilaterally, bypassing lawmakers and speaking plainly about punishing political rivals — defining an era in American history that scholars call “punitive federalism.”

“These guys are acting like autocrats and trying to destroy our democracy,” said Illinois House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch, a Democrat. “And you have to understand the role that states play in this. There was a reason why our structure was set up the way it’s set up.”

Ahead of the 250th anniversary of the country’s founding on July 4, Stateline is exploring how the Trump era is transforming the relationship between the states and the federal government. This article is the second in an occasional series examining the fraught moment and what evolving — and often deteriorating — state-federal ties mean for the country, now and in the future.

“States have rights, and thank God we have those rights and the ability to push back, because this Trump agenda is just destructive for our country,” Welch told Stateline. “And I believe we’re going to survive because of our federalism system.”

The tense political moment has underscored the role of states as Democratic leaders across the country file scores of lawsuits and introduce state legislation in attempts to check the president’s actions. State lawmakers have proposed hundreds of new measures that would limit law enforcement and immigration activities to push back against the White House. But Democratic states have had the most success in the courts, where dozens of federal policies have been challenged.

Since Trump took office last year, Illinois alone has led or joined more than 60 lawsuits against the administration. Those suits run the gamut, challenging deployment of the National Guard, immigration enforcement and the withholding of disaster funding. Democratic attorneys general say they are winning in most of the cases that have reached court decisions.

While some GOP members of Congress have balked at Trump’s targeting of blue states, many Republicans have stayed silent or defended Trump’s actions.

The White House did not respond to detailed questions for this story. In a statement, spokesperson Davis Ingle told Stateline that the administration “faithfully upholds our Constitution and the immortalized American principles of federalism, the rule of law, and the separation of powers.”

But Trump’s punitive federalism strategy has left real people and communities scrambling to respond to White House moves.

Wendy Bobadilla worries she and other California childcare providers will be forced to close their doors if the Trump administration succeeds in blocking childcare funds to a handful of Democratic-led states.

“I don’t think he understands what he’s doing and how he’s affecting our children,” she told Stateline.

A more powerful executive branch

Federalism is a uniquely American system created by the framers of the Constitution that provides for power sharing between Washington, D.C., and the states.

Since World War II, the federal government under Democratic and Republican presidents has grown in size and scope. But the White House itself has also accumulated more power, said Nicholas Jacobs, a professor of American government at Colby College in Maine.

“It’s not just that power has shifted from states to the federal government,” he said. “Power has shifted to the executive branch specifically and has become more raw in its overt partisan nature.”

Trump has embraced partisanship in new ways, moving beyond policy differences and into raw retaliation, Jacobs said.

“(President Barack) Obama had blue states and red states, and you can see that clearly, but he didn’t seem to openly celebrate the idea that he was penalizing red states and advancing the causes of blue states,” Jacobs said. “Donald Trump actually uses those terms.”

This increasing partisanship and Trump’s deep cuts to federal agencies has strained relationships between the federal government and states, which administer many federal policies and programs.

State and local governments need certainty to create, pay for and staff programs, said Marcia Howard, executive director of Federal Funds Information for States, which analyzes how federal policymaking affects states. But the Trump administration has injected uncertainty and tested the power of the executive by targeting funds that were explicitly appropriated by Congress, she said.

“They are unprecedented,” she said of the administration’s moves. “In general, an administration takes an appropriations bill at its word, and adheres to it.”

Court challenges

In California, Bobadilla worries about how the president’s actions may harm the hardworking families who rely on her for childcare.

In January, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced it was withholding $10 billion in childcare and other social services from California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York. The agency suggested fraud played a role in the decision, though the administration hasn’t offered evidence.

With part-time help, Bobadilla cares for about 14 children out of her home in Palmdale, north of Los Angeles. About a dozen of those kids’ families pay with the help of subsidy programs. The local poverty rate there exceeds regional, state and national averages.

With families commuting up to 90 minutes per day, Bobadilla sometimes opens as early as 4 a.m. and closes as late as 9:30 p.m. to accommodate working-class parents with fluctuating schedules.

Asked what she would tell the president, Bobadilla said, “I would tell him that I’m working very hard, that I’m not committing any fraud, that I wake up earlier than anybody that I know.”

A federal judge in late March ordered the Trump administration not to withhold the funds. A lawsuit over funding is ongoing.

It’s among more than 700 court cases challenging the administration.

“He has decided to break the law. He has decided to be blatant and brazen about it. He has decided to be consistent and frequent in his violations,” California’s Democratic Attorney General Rob Bonta told Stateline. “He did some of this in Trump 1.0, but the speed and volume of unlawful actions, particularly vis-à-vis the states, is unprecedented.”

Bonta acknowledged the decisions of past presidents have been challenged in courts.

“But it wasn’t every week, time after time,” he said. “This is a different thing entirely, like this is the plan. The plan is to break the law.”

Trump has maintained his strategy of holding hostage congressionally approved funding despite court losses, according to a New York Times analysis of nearly 200 legal cases. Bonta said more than half of the 60-plus cases his office has filed against the administration aim to retrieve funding that was already appropriated by Congress.

“It’s like he’s a repeat offender,” Bonta said. “He’s incorrigible.”

Democratic and Republican state attorneys general do work across party lines on some bipartisan issues, including consumer protection and artificial intelligence. But the resistance to Trump’s expansion of federal power has almost entirely come from the left.

“Honestly, what I think they think is that they’re secretly cheering for us,” Bonta said of his Republican colleagues.

He said Republican states still benefit when Democratic attorneys general win constitutional challenges or get courts to reverse the administration’s funding cuts to states.

“And they get the benefit without having to dare to challenge their dear leader,” Bonta said.

The Republican Attorneys General Association says its members have remained focused on reducing crime in their states during Trump’s second term.

“Tax paying, law abiding citizens in blue states across America are flooding into red states because people care about their safety and their children’s future,” Adam Piper, executive director of the association, said in a written statement. “Republican Attorneys General have always been both freedom’s front line and America’s last line of defense against radicals seeking to upend the rule of law and the American way.”

Disaster assistance

Last May, floods damaged hundreds of homes in Western Maryland, leaving behind more than $30 million in damages to roads, homes, businesses and utility systems in a swath of Republican-leaning counties that voted overwhelmingly for Trump.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency denied assistance for the floods, which hit a conservative region of a solidly liberal state.

Democratic Gov. Wes Moore — a Trump antagonist and potential presidential contender — noted that an aid request from neighboring West Virginia was approved, despite that conservative state submitting a lower amount of flood damages to the feds. He called Maryland’s denial “petty,” “partisan” and “deeply unfair” to the affected communities.

FEMA has said the law requires the agency to closely examine each disaster and the ability of local governments to respond. The agency told The Hill that Maryland’s flood “was not of such severity and magnitude as to be beyond the capabilities of the state and affected local governments to recover.”

Chas Eby, deputy secretary at the Maryland Department of Emergency Management, said the state’s application to FEMA substantiated more than three times the amount of damages needed to qualify for the federal agency’s assistance.

“We were surprised,” he said, noting that a federal disaster declaration could have made funds available to directly aid in the repair of private property.

Trump has rejected disaster aid for Democratic-led states at the highest rate in FEMA’s history, according to Politico, whose March analysis determined that it was three times harder for blue states to receive disaster aid than Republican-led states.

The Maryland denial not only affected those who suffered property damage, but it also has left the state uncertain about the future of disaster aid at large.

“Where we’ve relied on federal support in the past, this is a clear indicator that it may not be available in the future,” Eby said. “And therefore, how do we as state and local emergency managers meet the need? Because the expectations that I have to support disaster survivors and that Marylanders have in their government haven’t really changed.”

In the absence of federal support, Maryland awarded state disaster relief funding for the first time ever. But the initial funds — less than $500,000 — covered just a fraction of the tens of millions in documented needs, Eby said.

Allegany County, Maryland, which has an annual budget of about $150 million, has spent about $8 million so far to repair public infrastructure damaged in the floods, said county spokesperson Kati Kenney. None of that money has gone to individual households or businesses.

“That money was spent just to make it usable, not to make it back to par,” she said. “It was just like a Band-Aid.”

‘It’s not worse, it’s not better’

Many conservatives see the opposition from blue states as the latest pendulum swing of American politics rather than a more significant evolution in federal-state relationships.

“It’s not worse, it’s not better, it’s largely the same,” said Washington state Rep. Jim Walsh, a Republican.

Walsh said he viewed as more egregious the actions from the administration of President Joe Biden, who he said weaponized the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in efforts to push coronavirus vaccinations.

The chair of the Washington State Republican Party, Walsh said many of the elected officials in his liberal state were “deep in the throes of Trump Derangement Syndrome,” a frequent pejorative description of the president’s opponents. He said Democratic politicians were wasting millions in the courts to challenge Trump, who he said has not encroached on state authorities.

“The problem in Washington state is not that the Trump administration punishes blue cities or blue states,” he said. “The problem in Washington state is we’ve got people just burning taxpayer dollars so they can get a press release out and a headline.”

Still, Democratic-led states continue to push back on the administration.

State legislators have proposed more than 250 bills in response to federal policies, according to State Futures, a nonprofit coordinating hundreds of Democratic lawmakers across the states. Some of those bills seek to limit federal immigration enforcement in sensitive places such as schools and hospitals, and to allow individuals to sue federal law enforcement for possible constitutional violations.

Democratic state leaders are also emulating some of Trump’s own tactics.

“We have to play their game. And I think the people in my state are beginning to understand this,” said Maryland state Del. David Moon, the Democratic majority leader.

Moon pushed for legislation allowing the state to retaliate against the federal government for withholding funds. The new law, signed by Moore last month, allows the state to place liens on federal property in Maryland or withhold revenue payments to Washington if officials determine the feds are withholding congressionally approved funds in defiance of court decisions.

“It’s going to be weeks of discussion and monitoring with our lawyers and whatever before we do something drastic like that,” he said, noting the ultimate decisions will be left up to the governor. “But we have to be ready.”

Moon acknowledged that the law is “constitutionally dubious” as it’s unclear whether it will be upheld in the courts.

“And I think folks have to admit that,” he said. “But the way this bill works, really, is you take the Trump approach: that you do whatever the F you want within your layer of government.”

Moon said his concerns about the Trump era reach far beyond the usual state-federal spats.

“I think we’re in big trouble, and it’s part of why I am resorting to more unusual thinking and tactics,” he said. “We’re at the 250 mark in the republic. This is when empires fail, and we are having a vast empire decline moment.”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org. States Newsroom reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@statesnewsroom.com.

A growing number of states are reexamining how the criminal legal system treats pregnant and postpartum women behind bars.

This year, legislators in at least five states, including Kentucky, Ohio, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia, have considered legislation that would reshape how pregnant people are treated in jails and prisons. The measures vary, but some seek to expand eligibility for alternatives to incarceration during pregnancy, restrict or prohibit restraints during labor and delivery, and strengthen data and reporting requirements.

The Utah and Virginia bills were signed into law in March and April, respectively. In Utah, the new law restricts the shackling of pregnant and postpartum women, and requires state prisons and jails to track the number of pregnant people in their custody, as well as incarcerated mothers of children under 18.

In Virginia, one of the new laws requires correctional facilities to adopt lactation policies for pregnant and postpartum incarcerated people by December 2028. A separate new law allows courts to consider home or electronic incarceration programs for pregnant or postpartum women, with certain exceptions.

The Kentucky legislature adjourned for the year without passing a similar measure there, but the bills in Ohio and South Carolina are still under consideration. Ohio’s legislative session runs through the end of the year, while South Carolina’s continues until mid-May.

The latest legislative activity comes amid growing scrutiny of conditions faced by pregnant people in prisons and jails, as well as increased interest in nursery and community-based programs for mothers.

At least nine states have prison nursery programs, and about a handful of others are considering or developing similar programs.

In Wisconsin, the state Department of Corrections said in early April that the agency is still working to develop a program for incarcerated mothers and their newborns, but has faced challenges due to funding and facility capacity limits. 

The Justice-Involved Women and Children Collaborative at the University of Minnesota this spring launched what the group describes as the first comprehensive national database tracking state policies affecting pregnant people in custody.

The interactive tool documents more than 460 active policies across the country, including statutes on the use of restraints, access to abortion and access to menstrual products. 

The database fills a longstanding gap in information about how state systems regulate pregnancy in correctional settings. Policies vary widely not only from state to state, but sometimes among facilities within the same state. Federal data also is limited. The most recent national statistics on pregnant incarcerated people, which were released last year, reflect prison populations from 2023.

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at awatford@stateline.org.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Monday nominated Cameron Hamilton to run the Federal Emergency Management Agency, a former acting chief who was fired in 2025 shortly after he told a congressional panel FEMA should continue to exist.

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will likely schedule a hearing in the coming weeks for Hamilton to testify about his goals for the agency as part of the confirmation process. 

The panel will then schedule a vote on whether to send his nomination to the floor, where Hamilton will need to secure approval from a majority of senators before he would become FEMA administrator. 

Taking on that role will be no easy task, especially since Trump has spoken repeatedly during his second administration about reducing the size and scope of the agency. 

“We want to wean off of FEMA and we want to bring it down to the state level,” Trump said in June. “We’re moving it back to the states so the governors can handle it. That’s why they’re governors. Now, if they can’t handle it, they shouldn’t be governor.”

The FEMA review council that Trump created to review the agency submitted its report last week recommending states shoulder more of the cost and responsibility of disaster relief.

Not ‘in the best interest’ to kill FEMA

The previous disconnect between Trump and Hamilton about whether FEMA should continue led to Hamilton being removed from his role leading the agency last year. 

Hamilton testified before a House panel in May 2025 that he personally did “not believe it is in the best interest of the American people to eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency.”

“Having said that, I’m not in a position to make decisions and impact outcomes on whether or not a determination, such as consequential as that, should be made,” he said at the time. “That is a conversation that should be had between the president of the United States and this governing body on identifying the exact ways and methodologies, in which, what is prudent for federal investment, and what is not.”

One day later he was ousted as the senior official performing the duties of the administrator at FEMA.

David Richardson has been the senior official performing the duties of FEMA administrator ever since. He was previously the assistant secretary of Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office at the Department of Homeland Security.

Podcast tell-all

Hamilton detailed his time leading FEMA on an episode of the “Disaster Tough” podcast that aired in September, saying he had developed a plan to address that the agency had “become too bureaucratic.”

“I was very clear and poignant that the cause of most of the problems in FEMA is because we keep putting too much crap in FEMA’s rucksack that never should have been there,” he said. 

Hamilton then spoke about the Shelter and Services Program, which provides grant funding to organizations that help to house, feed and assist migrants released by the Department of Homeland Security. 

He argued that isn’t an “emergency management requirement” and that “FEMA has become a functional multi-tool.”

Housing was a “prime example” of where another federal department, like Housing and Urban Development, could take over some of the tasks that FEMA currently handles, he said. 

“I said, we need to aggressively talk to HUD about them having a larger stakehold in that particular missions field because they are more uniquely suited,” he said. 

But Hamilton insisted he was not supportive of plans to completely eliminate the agency. 

“I was not hired to abolish FEMA. That was never a part of the conversation and that’s never something that I would have agreed with,” he said on the podcast. “And I was very clear, I wanted some reform. I wanted to cut wasteful spending. I wanted to downsize the agency. There’s no denying that. And I think most of those things could be done wisely and properly.”

Any offloading of responsibilities from the federal government to states, he said, would include “a gradual phasing out.”

“We needed to give the states some time to see what that entails and to respond accordingly,” he said. “Not just, ‘Hey, the water is now shut off. You’re on your own.’ That’s not wise. That’s not being a good partner.”

‘I wanted to choke some people’

Hamilton also discussed what happened before and after he testified in front of a House subcommittee a year ago, including that he was polygraphed in March.

“One of the more difficult things for me to deal with was when my character was being attacked, and when I was being accused of being a liar and a leaker, and I was polygraphed for it,” he said. “DHS requested that I be polygraphed. And they said in their statement, you know, my character, judgment, my stability, my ethics were all in question.” 

Asked by the podcast host if he wanted to put on his “Navy SEAL hat” when that was happening, Hamilton responded, “I wanted to choke some people, that’s for sure.”

Hamilton said he knew that he was about to be fired and that on the day he testified before Congress, officials “notified my security that my access was eliminated. So before the testimony, I knew it was coming, and I knew it was coming weeks in advance.” 

Later in the episode, Hamilton said he knew he would be asked during the hearing about Trump’s comments regarding FEMA and spoke with former FEMA Administrator Pete Gaynor to work through how best to answer the question. 

The two then “came to the agreement” that Hamilton would say, “it’s not in the best interest of the American people.” 

“I cannot get behind this position that abolishing FEMA is the answer,” he said. “There are so many things that we can do before we go that extreme and put the American people at what I believe to be extreme risk unnecessarily.”

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday extended a highly anticipated stay blocking an appellate court’s pause on telehealth abortion access until May 14.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approved medication-abortion regimen remains available via telehealth until then, following a week of uncertainty among abortion patients and providers.

“With this critical temporary administrative stay extended, we hope that some of the chaos and confusion inflicted on patients and providers last weekend will be abated,” said Evan Masingill, CEO of abortion-pill manufacturer GenBioPro, one of the defendants in the case, in a statement.

On May 4, the Supreme Court temporarily stayed the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling to reinstate the FDA’s in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone that the Biden administration officially lifted in 2023. Over the past week, several doctors groups submitted friend-of-the-court briefs arguing that cutting off access to mifepristone could harm many women seeking abortions and miscarriage management. Republican attorneys general from 23 states, meanwhile, urged the Supreme Court not to allow providers to send mifepristone through the mail. 

People in states with abortion bans or diminished abortion access continue to depend on abortion providers prescribing FDA’s approved mifepristone-misoprostol regimen through telemedicine and sending it to patients by mail.

According to new preliminary findings from the Society of Family Planning, telehealth abortion comprised 28% of all abortions at the end of 2025, an increase from 25% at the end of 2024.

Attorneys representing Louisiana have argued that in addition to undermining a state abortion ban, the federal rulemaking process allowing telehealth prescriptions of medication abortion was flawed.  

University of Michigan law professor Samuel Bagenstos, who served as general counsel of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services at the time the Biden-era rule was implemented, said the policy was well considered and based on evidence. 

“The 2023 update was the result of an incredibly careful, deliberate, time-consuming, painstaking process to make sure that they were following what the evidence was,” Bagenstos said. If, the plaintiffs were to prevail, he added, ending telehealth access to mifepristone nationwide would have “really harmful effects on women across the country, as well as really destabilizing effects on the drug approval system.” 

Louisiana’s lawsuit against mifepristone has nationwide implications and could threaten residents in states with abortion access and so-called abortion shield laws, such as Maryland. 

Regardless of what happens in this case, abortion providers told Stateline they are determined to continue providing telehealth abortions, though potentially without mifepristone. Dr. Angel Foster, a telehealth provider in Massachusetts, a shield law state, said in the past week, about 100 patients have requested pills for future use, compared with 34 in the entire month of April. She said constantly changing rules around abortion access followed by sensational news headlines continue to create confusion for people seeking termination or miscarriage management.

“I live and breathe abortion at this point, and I find it can be hard to keep up with the ever-changing legal environment and the way that things are getting framed and phrased,” Foster said. “When you’re a patient and what you see are just the headlines, and you’ve got to figure out what it means for you, it’s really complicated.”

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correct the number of Republican attorneys general who asked the Supreme Court to keep mifepristone from being prescribed via telehealth visits. It should be 23. 

Stateline reporter Sofia Resnick can be reached at sresnick@stateline.org.

Gov. Tony Evers, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) and Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) — Wisconsin’s three leaders all of whom are set to retire this year — announced a $1.8 billion deal Monday to provide additional funding to Wisconsin schools for general aid and special education and tax relief in the form of rebate checks, property tax cuts and the elimination of taxes on tips and overtime. 

The deal is the culmination of months of negotiations on how to use the state’s projected surplus to provide additional funding to schools and tax relief to Wisconsinites.

Negotiations kicked off at the beginning of this year after the general fund surplus was projected to be $2.37 billion at the end of the biennium, June 30, 2027 — about $1.5 billion higher than expected. However, they fell apart as Evers and Senate and Assembly leaders argued over the form that a proposal should take and a deal was not reached before the end of the regular legislative session. 

According to a Department of Administration and Department of Revenue memo released Monday, the state’s general fund tax collections are tracking between $300 million and $350 million above the January estimates. 

Evers said the school funding was the biggest win in the bipartisan agreement. The deal includes $300 million for special education funding and $300 million for school general aids. 

“I think money for schools, that’s obviously the most important thing for me, but again, we’re in a position to actually compromise and have Republicans and Democrats, at least in the leadership level, getting something done,” Evers said. 

Evers spoke to reporters during a visit to Barneveld middle and high schools where he spoke to students and staff about their mental health initiatives on Monday morning. He was there to highlight investments that have been made in schools. He noted that Barneveld is a good school district and said the deal reached by him and lawmakers would “make them an even better” one. 

About $85 million will be used to guarantee schools get 42% of their special education costs reimbursed for the 2025-26 school year and the remaining funds will be used to guarantee a 50% reimbursement rate in 2026-27. 

The 2025-27 state budget promised a 42% special ed reimbursement rate in the first year of the budget and a 45% rate in the second year, but the funds set aside were not adequate to meet those rates. 

The state’s special education reimbursement is currently a “sum certain” appropriation, meaning that there is a fixed pot of money available for the costs. If schools’ costs exceed the amount set aside, then the rate of reimbursement is lower. A change to a sum sufficient appropriation would ensure that the amount available is enough to cover the promised rates. 

Evers said negotiations couldn’t get to a sum sufficient appropriation for special education funding, but that negotiators used figures that should get the state to the promised rates. 

“Next budget people have to ensure that it is sum sufficient, but we did not get across that bridge, unfortunately,” Evers said. “Look, we know what the numbers are, so it’s going to be 50[%].”

The deal will also increase funding for pupils participating in the choice, charter, special needs scholarship  and open enrollment programs by $16 million. 

The investment into general school aids comes after lawmakers declined to provide any new funding in the 2025-27 state budget and property taxpayers across the state saw increases in December. The $300 million is intended to help buy down school property tax levies, although the amount will not completely cover the $325 per pupil in additional school revenue limit authority that school districts have as a result of a previous Evers budget veto.

The agreement also includes $50 million meant to serve as property tax relief aid for the Wisconsin Technical College System beginning in 2026-27. 

The Wisconsin Association of School Boards said in a statement that it was encouraged by the deal’s investments in special education and general aids, but cautioned that it would not completely fix schools’ financial issues.

“While these resources are important for public schools struggling with a declining level of state investment, it will not solve the longer-term problem,” WASB said. “The state has shifted away from providing inflationary increases in spendable resources for schools for 17 years. One state surplus deal cannot reverse that trend by itself.”

The Joint Finance Committee is scheduled to take up the proposal on Tuesday, and it’s expected that the full Assembly and Senate will take up the proposal on Wednesday in a special session. Ever signed an executive order for the session Monday afternoon. 

Vos said in a statement that legislators would be sending the surplus  “back to help families with the pressure of increasing costs, reward hard work, and to continue investing in schools to help stabilize rising property taxes.”

LeMahieu said Repiblicans’  top priority was to send the surplus back to “hardworking taxpayers across the state.” 

“This deal will provide immediate relief with $600 in surplus refund payments and provide permanent property and income tax relief for Wisconsin families,” LeMahieu said. 

The deal will also provide $300 tax refunds for individuals and $600 refunds for married joint filers. Tax relief in this form was originally a Senate Republican proposal, though they had proposed rebates of $1,000 for married joint filers and $500 for individuals.

The deal also includes the elimination of taxes on tips and overtime — two proposals that Evers initially vetoed. The proposal will align state with federal law, though the state proposals differ as they are permanent changes rather than having a sunset date in 2028. 

Evers expressed confidence that there are enough votes to get the deal through both houses and to his desk. 

“I need a majority of each house, and whether that’s all Democrats, all Republicans or a mix, I don’t care,” Evers said. “I think it would be hard for anyone to say I’m not in favor of this…[when] as a result, my local school district gets screwed. I think that’s going to be a hard position for people to take.” 

It’s already clear that not every member is on board as Democratic and Republican Senate lawmakers express concerns and opposition to the deal in statements.

Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) said in a statement that from her perspective there is no deal. She said her caucus needs to see the full details of the “expensive proposal” before they say more. 

“Three men who will not be in elected office next year have come up with this proposal which Senate Dems will be reviewing,” Hesselbein said. “Any proposal must pass both houses of the legislature and no one knows if Republicans have the votes to pass it.”

Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine) has not responded to a request for comment. 

Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater), who is also retiring this year, said in a statement that he “can’t support another bad deal cut by leaders that will never face the voters again.” 

With an open race for governor and control of the state Legislature up in the air, some expressed concerns about leaders deciding to spend down the surplus when they won’t be around to deal with the consequences next year. 

Democratic candidates for governor, Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) and former Department of Administration Secretary Joel Brennan criticized the way lawmakers negotiated the deal and the contents of the deal. 

“Budgets are difficult to negotiate and demand tough decisions, and that’s why I believe they must be done in public with input from Wisconsinites. It’s very disappointing that this one wasn’t, and we should expect all candidates for governor to commit to an open process,” Brennan said. “I’m all for putting money back in people’s pockets, giving our schools a much-needed boost, and providing some property tax relief, but this deal misses the mark in many other ways. It does nothing to address the cost-of-living crisis that is still crushing Wisconsin families on things like child care, health care, and gas and utility prices.” 

Roys said the leaders had come to a “backroom” deal.

“This latest deal is the height of fiscal irresponsibility,” Roys said. “It spends a projected ‘surplus’ before it’s in the bank, even though that projection was estimated before Trump’s attack on Iran that disrupted our economy and caused gas prices to skyrocket. It gives a little one time money to public schools while permanently cementing unfairness in our tax structure. Worst of all, it blows nearly a billion dollars on an election year gimmick to send out rebates, squandering the ability of a new Democratic majority to make the long-overdue investments in our kids that they deserve.”

The critique on the transparency in the negotiation process comes after Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez, who is also campaigning for the nomination, was recorded saying she would craft the state’s next budget “behind a curtain.”

Evers told reporters that the negotiations with lawmakers was typical process.

“Well, sometimes you do things behind the curtain,” Evers said. “Leadership both from my staff and others on the other side met on a regular basis, and we kept others informed about that. Now, if… [Roys is] angry because we didn’t involve every legislator prior to, that doesn’t happen with a regular budget, too. So if she’s going to be governor, she needs to get used to it.” 

He continued: “If she’s not going to support it, my question would be, ‘How do you run for governor of the state of Wisconsin and say to your schools, well, you know, this money of 42% and 50% for special education, I’m against that?’ That’s a tough one to run against.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The FBI has opened an investigation into Wisconsin’s 2020 presidential election, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported. 

President Donald Trump has frequently singled out Wisconsin’s election administration since he began attacking the 2020 election results following his loss to Joe Biden. In the years since, Wisconsin has become a hotbed of election conspiracy theories as well as a source of the mechanisms that led to the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. 

Numerous reviews, investigations and lawsuits have affirmed that Wisconsin’s 2020 election was conducted without fraud, malfeasance or abuse.

Since returning to office last year, the Trump administration has often worked to relitigate Trump’s 2020 election complaints, including efforts to obtain large amounts of voter data from the state. Other swing states that saw significant election denial after 2020 have been similarly targeted. 

The Journal-Sentinel reported that the FBI has begun a preliminary investigation of the election, which so far has largely included a reassessment of previous complaints. The newspaper also reported that the agency interviewed Wisconsin Elections Commission official Robert Kehoe about how the state’s elections work.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

WASHINGTON — The man who allegedly attacked the White House Correspondents’ Dinner last month pleaded not guilty Monday in federal court to four criminal charges, including attempting to assassinate the president of the United States.

Cole Tomas Allen, 31, of California, appeared before U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden in Washington, D.C., to be arraigned on charges that he tried to take the president’s life, which carries a possible life sentence, and that he assaulted a U.S. officer, transported a firearm and ammunition across state lines with intent to commit a felony and discharged a deadly weapon during a violent crime.

U.S. Department of Justice officials obtained the indictment on May 5.

Allen’s public defenders delivered the plea to McFadden as they stood on either side of Allen, who wore an orange jumpsuit and shackles and was accompanied by two law enforcement officers.

The arraignment comes just over two weeks after Allen allegedly rushed a U.S. Secret Service security checkpoint and fired a weapon one level above the ballroom where President Donald Trump, numerous Cabinet officials and thousands of other administration officials, journalists and lawmakers were attending the annual event.

Trump, first lady Melania Trump and Cabinet officials safely evacuated from the April 25 dinner.

A Secret Service agent, referred to in court documents as V.G., was hit in his protective vest by a bullet, but court documents do not specify who fired the shot. The agent was uninjured.

According to an affidavit signed April 27 by an FBI agent, Officer V.G. fired five rounds from his service weapon in Allen’s direction, but did not hit him.

U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro, who attended the dinner, and government prosecutors argued Allen traveled across the country by train “armed to the teeth” and was willing to “commit a mass shooting inside a room full of the highest ranking officials in the U.S. government,” according to a memo filed prior to the superseding indictment. 

Prosecutors’ conflict of interest?

Allen’s federal public defenders argued Pirro and acting Attorney General Todd Blanche should recuse themselves from the case to avoid a conflict of interest, as both have “made statements indicating that they were witnesses to events,” according to motion filed Thursday.

“These are individuals alleging they are victims,” defense attorney Eugene Ohm said in court Monday, adding it would be “wholly inappropriate for a victim … to be the individuals who are prosecuting.”

Additionally, Ohm said Blanche “has a very close relationship” with the alleged target of the crime — Trump. Blanche was Trump’s personal defense lawyer prior to the president appointing him to the Department of Justice.

Discovery questions

McFadden said the situation would be “very surprising” if either Blanche or Pirro were called to testify at trial, but Ohm said there could be a risk if prosecutors filed additional charges after discovery, the pretrial investigative stage of a prosecution.

Ohm said the defense has not yet been provided with any discovery. 

McFadden gave government prosecutors two weeks to respond to the defense’s request that Pirro and Blanche recuse themselves.

“It would be helpful to have some definitive view” on whether they “see themselves as victims,” McFadden told DOJ prosecutor Charles Jones.

McFadden scheduled the next hearing for June 29, by which time he told prosecutors he “will be hoping we’ve made substantial progress on discovery.”

A Dane County judge ruled Friday that lawmakers could not block administrative rules that had been through the rulemaking process and received approval from Gov. Tony Evers.

Evers and the Republican-led Legislature have been fighting over administrative rulemaking abilities for years. The Wisconsin Supreme Court decided in its July 2025 Evers v. Marklein II ruling that statutes allowing a legislative committee to pause or suspend administrative rules indefinitely were unconstitutional.

Following that decision, Evers started taking steps to implement 12 administrative rules he had previously approved,  without getting sign-off from legislative committees. Republican lawmakers responded by instructing the Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB) not to  publish any rule that hadn’t gone through a review by the Legislature. 

Evers sued in Sept. 2025 to block the lawmakers’ action.

Judge Nia Trammel granted Evers’ request for a declaration that LRB publish all administrative rules that have gone through the rulemaking procedures and have been approved by the governor.

In the ruling, Trammel said a rule can go into effect because there isn’t a statute prohibiting promulgation of a rule even if a standing committee has not completed a review and if one did exist it would be “facially unconstitutional.”

Trammel cited the state Supreme Court’s Marklein II decision, which found that “the ability of a ten-person committee to halt or interrupt the passage of a rule, which would ordinarily be required to be presented to the governor as a bill, is simply incompatible with Articles IV and V of the Wisconsin Constitution.”

“For the same reason, if the Court found that the standing committee had an ability to pause promulgation for up to sixty days, if not possibly months, it would also be unconstitutional,” Trammel wrote. 

Evers said in a statement that the decision is a win for Wisconsin and “our efforts to continue restoring the balance of power in Wisconsin.” 

“For far too long, the Republican Legislature had a gerrymandered majority that enabled them to undermine our constitutional separation of powers and give themselves outsized influence and power over state government,” Evers said. “A handful of lawmakers should not be able to singlehandedly bring the state to a standstill and stop good work from happening on behalf of the people of our state.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

As President Donald Trump tries to assert power over U.S. elections, he has raged on social media, cajoled Republican lawmakers and unleashed the Department of Justice on his political enemies.

What has he accomplished with all that effort? Not a lot.

Six months before the November midterm elections, the Trump administration’s quest to exercise authority over the contests and impose sweeping restrictions on voters has proved largely unsuccessful. The aggressive campaign — separate from Trump’s more effective foray into redistricting fights — has been stymied by the courts, rebuffed by many state election officials and opposed by key Republican senators.

“I think there’s many out there who are worried about the constant drumbeat of what the administration is trying to do and what they might do in the future. I hear this from voters, I hear this from election officials,” said David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research.

“And what I see is that there is a vast chasm between wanting to do something and trying to do something and actually successfully doing it.”

Months yet to go

Much could change between now and November, of course. 

Facing likely Republican losses in the midterms, election experts warn that Trump could lash out with increasingly brazen attempts to control elections. Or that the Justice Department will conduct more raids targeting election officials, like the FBI seizure of ballots from the 2020 presidential election from Fulton County, Georgia.

Democrats remain braced for federal election interference, especially the prospect of Trump deploying immigration enforcement agents or the military at polling locations — an action prohibited under federal law that some administration aides have nevertheless refused to flatly rule out.

But Trump’s record of achievement up to this point is poor.

The SAVE America Act, which would require voters to prove their citizenship, is stalled in the U.S. Senate despite Trump’s repeated demands for its passage. Federal courts blocked an executive order Trump signed last year that sought to impose a proof-of-citizenship rule unilaterally.

The Justice Department hasn’t secured a single court victory in the 30 lawsuits it’s filed to force states and the District of Columbia to turn over sensitive personal data on voters. A bipartisan group of state secretaries of state is fighting the Trump administration in court — only 13 Republican states have provided the information.

And an executive order signed in March that would limit voting by mail faces five federal lawsuits, with an initial courtroom showdown set for Thursday in Washington, D.C. Federal agencies have yet to finalize plans to implement the directive, which election law experts call illegal and unconstitutional.

“America’s Elections are Rigged, Stolen, and a Laughingstock all over the World. We are either going to fix them, or we won’t have a Country any longer,” Trump posted on Truth Social in late April.

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told States Newsroom that Trump is committed “to ensuring that Americans have full confidence in the administration of elections, and that includes totally accurate and up-to-date voter rolls free of errors and unlawfully registered non-citizen voters.” 

Jackson named several federal laws that she said provide the Justice Department oversight over states’ election administration. She also noted Trump’s support for the SAVE America Act.

“Anyone breaking the law will be held accountable,” Jackson said in an email.

System under strain

Trump has placed the nation’s electoral system under immense stress before. 

After the 2020 election, the president and his allies worked to overturn the results, with Trump leaning on then-Vice President Mike Pence to reject Electoral College votes. The effort failed but it led to a mob storming the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and disrupting Congress’ certification of Joe Biden’s victory.

Today, the system is holding but under strain. An analysis released Thursday by Issue One, a pro-democracy group, likened American elections to a resilient patient with a strong immune system. Yet the Trump administration, rather than boosting the body’s immunity, acts like a virus, it said.

“America’s election system’s immune system is not breaking, but it is actively fighting against the virus of democratic backsliding,” the analysis reads.

The group identified three safeguards it says are in critical condition: Congress, internal checks within the executive branch and the information ecosystem. 

Election officials have watched with particular concern as the Justice Department probes the 2020 election. Trump has long falsely asserted that the election was stolen and in January 2021 pressured the Georgia secretary of state to find him enough votes to overturn his loss in that state.

After the FBI obtained a warrant to seize 2020 election ballots from Fulton County, which encompasses Atlanta, in January 2026, the DOJ last month sent a subpoena for information on the county’s election workers. The subpoena demands the names, positions, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses of election workers and poll volunteers who worked the 2020 general election.

Fulton County is fighting the subpoena in court. On Wednesday, a federal judge ruled that the FBI doesn’t have to give the ballots back to the county, though he noted the seizure “was certainly not perfect.”

The Justice Department has also obtained a grand jury subpoena for election records in Arizona and demanded 2024 ballots from Wayne County, Michigan, which includes Detroit. And the FBI recently interviewed a Wisconsin election official about the 2020 election, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported.

Local leaders have promised that they won’t bend to pressure from the Trump administration.

“This whole thing is designed to harass, intimidate and chill participation in our election process,” Fulton County Board of Commissioners Chair Robb Pitts, a Democrat, said in a video statement. “It’s not going to work, it’s not going to happen.”

Blue state action

Some states are pursuing additional safeguards against federal election interference. 

For example, New Mexico lawmakers passed a bill that makes intentionally obstructing polling places a felony and prohibits the military or any armed federal personnel from polling locations.

The legislative push, concentrated in Democratic states, comes as Trump administration officials have sidestepped direct questions about whether troops or federal agents could be deployed to the polls.

“It’s yet another gotcha hypothetical,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said at a recent U.S. Senate hearing.

The Connecticut General Assembly passed legislation May 6 that imposes a 250-foot buffer zone around election sites where warrantless arrests and searches, use of force and ID checks by state or federal officers, including immigration agents, are banned. The measure also bans masked or concealed identities near polling places, among other provisions.

Connecticut state Rep. Matt Blumenthal, a Democrat who chairs the state House Government Administration & Elections Committee, said that if nothing happens during this fall’s elections, “I’ll say, ‘Good, it worked.’” 

The goal of the bill isn’t to create confrontations between Connecticut law enforcement and federal forces, but to deter intimidation in the first place, he said.

“We have a responsibility to protect all of our residents, but especially our voters, related to our elections — to prevent these sorts of tools of threat and intimidation and terror from being used to shape our political life,” Blumenthal said in an interview.

Connecticut state Sen. Rob Sampson, a Republican, said that he wouldn’t support abuse from the federal government. But Democrats, he said, were spinning a false narrative of voter intimidation for political purposes and attempting to distract from weaknesses in election security.

“In the last few years, I don’t always trust the results,” Sampson said on the Senate floor. “Now, some people will go out there and say, ‘Oh, you’re an election denier.’ I’m not saying that there’s tens of thousands of faulty or erroneous or fraudulent votes. I’m just saying that there’s definitely some.”

GOP elections bill stalled

Trump and Republicans in Congress say major action is needed to boost election confidence. 

At Trump’s urging, the U.S. House passed the SAVE America Act in February. In addition to requiring voters to show documents such as a passport or birth certificate that prove citizenship, the legislation also imposes ID requirements at the polls and would require states to bolster efforts to clean voter registration lists.

Polling suggests Americans support at least some of the bill’s provisions. A Politico poll conducted in April found 52% of Americans support requiring documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote, while 18% oppose. 

Democrats, election administration experts and some Republicans say the proposal would lead to chaos. Its provisions would take effect immediately, upending voting requirements potentially months or weeks before elections. Married women and others who have last names that don’t match their birth certificates could face additional obstacles registering to vote.

The SAVE America Act hasn’t advanced in the U.S. Senate. Sen. John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican and major proponent of the bill, attempted to add the measure onto a budget bill in April, but the Senate rejected it, 48-50.

“This doesn’t mean Trump and his allies in Congress will stop,” Héctor Sánchez Barba, president and CEO of Mi Familia Vota, a Latino voting rights group, said in a statement.

The Senate has since moved off the SAVE America Act and would need to hold a procedural vote to return to it. Whether that happens is in doubt, but Kennedy indicated to Punchbowl News that he intends to force another amendment vote later this month. His office didn’t respond to an email from States Newsroom seeking confirmation.

Postal Service 

Without the SAVE America Act, Trump’s options to legally restrict voting are limited. 

Trump signed an executive order in March attempting to limit the U.S. Postal Service’s delivery of ballots through the mail. The order also directs the Department of Homeland Security to create “state citizenship lists” that include the names of voting-age citizens in each state — effectively creating a national voter list.

But the order has come under legal attack from Democratic groups, a coalition of Democratic states and multiple voting rights organizations. Its opponents are hopeful that federal judges will soon block the directive like they did a March 2025 order that included a proof-of-citizenship requirement.

“I don’t have confidence that the Trump administration or Donald Trump will refrain from trying to interfere with our elections,” Blumenthal said. “But I have great confidence that the American people will stand up against it.”

(The Center Square) – Gov. Tony Evers and Republican legislative leaders announced a deal that will send $600 million more to Wisconsin K-12 schools, ends income tax on cash tips and overtime income and includes a $300 tax refund for…

(The Center Square) – The University of Wisconsin system is moving forward with its search for a new system president as state lawmakers remain interested in why the opening exists.

(The Center Square) – Kirk Bangstad is not backing away from the controversy that got him national headlines last month.

Reading Time: 2 minutes

After months of negotiation, Gov. Tony Evers and Republican leaders in the Legislature said Monday they’ve reached a deal that would spend down the state’s budget surplus on tax relief and education.

The roughly $1.9 billion deal, which is expected to go before lawmakers for a vote this week, includes $850 million in direct payments to taxpayers and the elimination of state income tax for overtime pay and tipped earnings. It would also boost spending on K-12 education by $600 million.

That school funding figure is split between general school aid and increasing the state’s special education reimbursement rate, which has been a point of contention from Evers’ team since the passage last summer of the two-year state budget. Since that time, higher-than-expected costs of special education lowered the total amount received by school districts from the state.

The deal would spend down much of the state’s projected surplus — which the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau had previously estimated at roughly $2.5 billion — but leave the state’s rainy day fund untouched.

Speaking to reporters on Monday, Evers touted the deal as a win for schools, with compromises for Republican tax priorities.

“Money for schools is obviously the most important thing for me,” Evers said. “We’re in a position to actually compromise and have Republicans and Democrats — at least at the leadership level — getting something done.”

That comment alludes to some fracturing within the parties themselves, with several lawmakers putting out immediate statements condemning the deal. But Evers expressed confidence that a majority of lawmakers would vote to approve the plan.

In separate statements, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, and Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu, R-Oostburg, said the deal would put the state’s surplus toward tax relief.

“We’re sending (the surplus) back to help families with the pressure of increasing costs, reward hard work, and to continue investing in schools to help stabilize rising property taxes,” said Vos.

Evers’ office said that the direct payment checks, which would total $600 per married couple or $300 per individual, would be mailed out by November. Evers spokesperson Britt Cudaback called that provision a central priority for Senate Republicans during negotiations. The governor’s office says 3 million people are expected to receive those checks, for a total cost to the state of about $850 million.

“This deal will provide immediate relief with $600 in surplus refund payments and provide permanent property and income tax relief for Wisconsin families,” said LeMahieu in his statement.

While the state Legislature has adjourned for the year, both the Senate and Assembly would need to pass this deal for it to become law. That means that a special session of the Legislature will be called. According to the governor’s office, that path will be expedited, with the Legislature’s budget committee expected to move it forward on Tuesday, and the full Legislature set to debate it as early as Wednesday.

This story was originally published by WPR.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, GOP leaders announce deal on tax relief and school funding 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.

Reading Time: 4 minutes

The Republican Party of Wisconsin’s annual convention this weekend in the Wisconsin Dells has a heavyweight figure looming over the conversation, and it’s not the professional wrestling executive turned Cabinet official giving the keynote address.

President Donald Trump demonstrated last week how he still has a chokehold over state-level GOP politics, helping oust five Indiana Senate incumbents who defied his call to gerrymander that state’s congressional districts to help Republicans in the November election. 

“He still has a very strong influence on the voting population,” said Jack Hoogendyk, the chair of the Republican Party of Marathon County. “I think what Republicans like about Donald Trump is that he’s not afraid to say what he believes. He doesn’t back down. He just calls all the shots and then he follows through on what he says. I think it’s a good lesson for really any politician regardless of their party.” 

Trump’s approval rating has dropped to 42% among registered voters in Wisconsin, but among Republicans it’s 84%. That’s despite Trump’s cataclysmic drag on the party going back to the 2018 midterms, when Democrats won all statewide offices and have since claimed five of seven seats on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Ahead of the upcoming state convention, where Education Secretary Linda McMahon will be the featured speaker, Wisconsin Watch talked with four county Republican chairs about how Trump remains a significant factor in their communities ahead of November. It will be up to them to turn out Trump voters in a year when the president’s name is not on the ballot in Wisconsin, they said. 

“The conflict with Iran, the issues going on overseas, the affordability, these are huge issues. People have to remember that there’s an entire Cabinet of people and departments that are working on so many other things. So just because these big issues are taking up much of the news cycle, that doesn’t mean that the rest of the work is stopped,” said Hilario Deleon, the chair of the Milwaukee County Republican Party. “The Department of Agriculture, the Department of HHS, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, all these different groups are working in conjunction with the vision that the president ran on, and ultimately, he is getting the job done.”

Chad Kinsella, an associate professor of political science at Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana, said the lessons from Indiana primary results can differ for states where election margins are far narrower than deep red Indiana. Trump won that state in 2024 by nearly 20 percentage points, while eking out a less than 1-point win in Wisconsin. 

But there’s no question the influence Trump has over Republican voters, Kinsella said. 

“He is the 1,200-pound elephant in the room,” he said. “President is … was, and will be for the foreseeable future what … a lot of what people will think about as they vote.”

In Wisconsin, Trump’s endorsement in January of U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany in the governor’s race cleared the field of major candidates in the Republican primary. Meanwhile, a slew of Democratic candidates continue to seek the party’s nomination ahead of the primary in August. 

Fond du Lac County District Attorney Eric Toney also has no primary opponents as he seeks a rematch against Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul. 

“The good thing for us, I think, is we don’t have a contested primary right now for those two top seats. I think that’s very helpful to us,” said Stephanie Soucek, the chair of the Republican Party of Door County. “I think we’ll be able to unify a lot sooner than we typically would be and I think that benefits us. I think just focusing on Wisconsin and what those races are about for our state, I think that will help us.”  

Turning out Trump voters 

Among self-identified Republican voters in Wisconsin, 40% strongly approve of the job Trump is doing, according to the Marquette University Law School Poll. That’s down from 54% a year ago. County party chairs told Wisconsin Watch that Republicans need to motivate those die-hard fans to participate in elections in a year when Trump is not on the ballot. 

“I think we need to find a way to tap into the people who strongly support him, that vote for him,” Soucek said. “And then they need to understand just the importance of electing people that will support his agenda.”

Jerry Helmer, the chair of the Republican Party of Sauk County, agreed that it’s up to county parties to educate voters in their community about Republican candidates beyond Trump. Sauk County Republicans have worked on boosting education and party membership through holding regular Saturday coffee and conservative conversation gatherings at the county party’s office inside an old bank building in Rock Springs, Helmer said. 

“We truly feel that there are a lot more Republicans in Wisconsin than show up to vote,” Helmer said. “It was very obvious during the Trump election this last time, they did show up. Part of the problem was education. I worked the polls and I talked to many other people who worked the polls, and so many people only voted for Donald Trump and didn’t vote down ballot.” 

Wisconsin Republican leadership debate

The party also has faced a reckoning after conservative Supreme Court candidate Maria Lazar lost the April election by 20 percentage points to liberal justice-elect Chris Taylor. 

The results renewed calls for Republican Party of Wisconsin chair Brian Schimming’s ouster as executive committee members told reporters they signed nondisclosure agreements that banned them from sharing closed-door party discussions about the party’s leadership. 

WisPolitics reported Friday that the state party canceled an executive committee meeting on May 12 that members sought to discuss “potential action regarding employment issues and board management.” 

Neither Schimming nor a spokesperson for the Republican Party of Wisconsin responded to multiple requests for an interview with Schimming for this story.

Wisconsin Republicans look to Donald Trump’s die-hard fans to brighten their prospects in November 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.

Microsoft has hired around 375 people for full-time positions in Wisconsin and that number could grow to 800 by the time the company finishes its second data center in Racine County, according to a company spokesperson.

The post Microsoft says it has hired around 375 people for its Mount Pleasant data center appeared first on WPR.

The Granite Belt is a developing gravel cycling network of roughly 900 miles across Marathon, Lincoln, Langlade and Shawano counties, with Wausau positioned as the central base camp.

The post Granite Belt links small towns, rural roads in new Wisconsin cycling initiative appeared first on WPR.

A ship that’s been part of Superior’s history since 1896 is celebrating a birthday and welcoming everyone aboard — though it isn’t sailing anywhere.

The post Built to lie low in the water, Superior’s SS Meteor still stands out after 130 years appeared first on WPR.

UW-Madison Chancellor Jennifer Mnookin reflected on her accomplishments leading the state’s flagship campus while acknowledging what she calls a period of “significant challenge” during her four-year tenure.

The post UW-Madison Chancellor Jennifer Mnookin reflects on tenure appeared first on WPR.

The high price of fuel is worrying the leaders of some local governments across the state. 

The post High fuel prices impacting county, municipal governments across Wisconsin appeared first on WPR.