The post Emerald Bluffs Solar Project Approved by PSC appeared first on RENEW Wisconsin.

(The Center Square) – A bill that would incentivize nuclear energy by providing credits and allowing companies to charge customers for developing the nuclear energy in Wisconsin passed the Assembly with an 86-11 vote despite opposition from multiple groups.

(The Center Square) – Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers does not plan to sign a bill currently in the Senate that would prevent individuals who were identified as male at birth from competing on women’s athletic teams in the University of…

(The Center Square) – People in Wisconsin didn’t let higher prices or higher interest rates stop them from buying a home last year.

(The Center Square) - Wisconsin state Sen. Rob Hutton, R-Brookfield, will not be running for another term in the Senate.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Do solar panels release more emissions than burning fossil fuels? 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: 5 minutes

In Walworth County, Wisconsin, a grassroots effort is reimagining what care can look like across generations. A local community group has launched the “Nursery to Nursing Home” campaign, a proposal to transform a vacant wing of the county’s nursing home into a combined child care center and living space for older adults, addressing caregiving shortages.

“Some of the issues we’ve seen as top concerns in Walworth County include a lack of child care, a lack of senior care and the loneliness that comes with living in a rural community with an aging population and harsh winters. Together, it all creates a perfect storm for feeling isolated,” said Maddie Sweetman, who lives in Walworth County. “(The intergenerational care center) would be a beautiful way to not only address the need for seats and beds, but also to bring these two vulnerable communities together.”

The Lakeland Health Care Center, a county-owned skilled nursing facility in Elkhorn, has had a vacant wing since 2019 when staff shortages forced the facility to downsize. Now, Groundswell Collective, a local community group with a track record of advocating for older residents, is leading an effort to turn that space into 12 apartments for older people and a child care center that serves 60 to 70 children. After nearly a year of community organizing around the proposal, the Walworth County Board approved funding for a feasibility study in November for the intergenerational care center, a major step in advancing the project.

“In Walworth County, all 2,240 licensed child care slots, spread across the 35 active centers listed on the DCF (Department of Children and Families) website, are already full. That leaves nearly 2,680 children without stable care,” said Abriana Krause, who lives and works in East Troy as a child care provider, at a board committee meeting. “At the same time, Wisconsin is projected to need 30,000 additional senior beds by 2030 .… We are facing two parallel crises, child care and senior care, and the vacant wing at Lakeland Health Care Center offers us a rare opportunity to address both at once.”

As part of the proposal, county employees would get priority for child care slots.

Sweetman, a mother of two who is a full-time student and employee at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, knows firsthand how valuable this benefit could be for parents. When Sweetman’s children were younger, her husband worked at Lakeland Health Care Center as a certified nursing assistant while he completed nursing school. Unable to afford child care, Sweetman stayed home with her young children.

“I wonder whether having a child care facility under the same roof would have given me more access to child care, allowing me to return to school work sooner, graduate sooner, and be working full time now,” Sweetman said. “I also think about how that might have changed our overall trajectory, and what it would have meant for me personally as I managed two kids under two on my own and all the mental health challenges that came with that.”

Now, Sweetman is part of Groundswell Collective and advocating for other families to have the opportunity she did not.

“That (child care opportunity) didn’t happen for us, but I think about how it could happen for people going forward and for our community, not just for those who have children but also for seniors and for people who may soon need assisted living,” Sweetman said.

Groundswell Collective has leaned heavily on research to make its case.

“We have looked into the evidence-based benefits of intergenerational care,” said Deb Gill-Dorgan, a retired speech language pathologist and member of Groundswell Collective. “We know that adults report less loneliness, better health, a renewed sense of purpose in life, and it improves children’s social skills and educational outcomes.”

Research shows that intergenerational care sites boost well-being for both children and older people, reducing isolation, improving cognitive and physical health for older people, and cultivating empathy and connection in young children. Studies also find that these programs create cost efficiencies, especially when facility expenses and other operational costs can be shared.

Jill Juris, Ph.D., professor and chair of the Department of Recreation Management and Physical Education at Appalachian State University, is seeing these benefits through her research with BRIDGE2Health, an intergenerational mentoring program. The program is a collaboration between the Cooperative Extensions in Ohio and Virginia that connects high school students with older adults and is generating qualitative and quantitative data demonstrating increases in social connections and life skills.

“These findings align with other research indicating intergenerational interaction improves empathy, peer relationships and academic performance in younger populations, while increasing the quality of life and sense of purpose for older adults,” Juris said. “By bridging the gap between ages, these programs truly make a difference, improving the all-around well-being of everyone involved.”

Sheri Steinig, director of strategic initiatives and communications at Generations United, said that intergenerational care fosters relationships that transcend age that can serve the community as a whole.

“There’s a breakdown of age stereotypes that we see at a very young age when babies and toddlers are around older people,” Steinig said. “There are these characteristics of care, compassion and empathy that ripple out into both the families and the communities.”

In intentionally creating spaces that bring older and younger people together, these benefits organically emerge in daily interactions.

“By eliminating or reducing barriers that we’ve unintentionally put up between connecting younger and older people, there’s just a wealth of benefits that we can see in terms of educational outcomes, well-being, physical and mental health,” Steinig said.

“Intergenerational spaces offer opportunities for meaningful interactions through repeated connections that foster lasting relationships,” Juris said. “Children and older adults seeing each other within a daily routine allows for magical moments of interaction to occur.”

Those benefits extend to the caregiving staff. Steinig said that daily interaction with both children and older adults can enhance the work environment and make intergenerational centers more rewarding for staff.

Gill-Dorgan said she hopes that prioritizing county employees for child care placements at the proposed intergenerational center will help retain nursing staff, who can experience high turnover while managing their own family caregiving responsibilities.

For many involved in Groundswell Collective, the intergenerational center proposal offers a path forward on common ground at a time of uncertainty.

“As gaps widen at the federal level, I feel like there’s this turn to local solutions and our local government, and how can we fill the gaps? I see this intergenerational facility as part of that effort,” Sweetman said.

Pastor Lily Brellenthin, a mother of three who leads a Lutheran church in Walworth that serves an older congregation, has found hope through her community work with Groundswell Collective.

“In a world that’s so divided, to have some people now linking arm and arm to come together in our little place of the world is so uplifting,” said Brellenthin. “I feel like it’s proving that we are stronger in community.”

“We hope this is just the beginning,” Gill-Dorgan said. “We hope something like this will be seen as being beneficial and a wonderful idea, and hopefully other people will get involved and build more such centers.”

This article was written with the support of a journalism fellowship from The Gerontological Society of America, The Journalists Network on Generations, and The Commonwealth Fund.

This article first appeared on The Daily Yonder and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

‘Nursery to nursing home’: Walworth County group envisions shared care across generations is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

The ordinance states that law enforcement agencies must have prior authorization to use parks or parkways as staging areas.

The post Milwaukee County officials consider ordinance to limit ICE from operating in county parks appeared first on WPR.

A paper company that’s been named responsible for PFAS contamination is launching a bottled water program for residents in the northern Wisconsin town of Stella.

The post Paper company named responsible for PFAS pollution offers bottled water to Stella appeared first on WPR.

Republicans insist much of the surplus is one-time money and the state can’t afford the relief. 

The post Gov. Evers: State budget surplus allows for both school funding, property tax relief appeared first on WPR.

John W. Miller takes over the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation at a time of economic uncertainty.

The post New WEDC head shares vision for Wisconsin economic development, data centers appeared first on WPR.

Kory Adams is not even a year out from high school. But he’s now the owner of his own cattle ranch and pursuing his dream of a life on the farm in northern Wisconsin.

The post Pursuing a farming dream after high school appeared first on WPR.

President Trump has taken several controversial actions in his first year back in office. But the country — and Wisconsin — remain deeply polarized over whether he is doing a good job or not.

The post Wisconsinites’ approval of President Trump falling after first year back in office appeared first on WPR.

Tens of thousands of people march in downtown Minneapolis in subzero temperatures to protest the massive presence of ICE agents over the past several weeks Friday, Jan. 23, 2026. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

Tens of thousands of Minnesotans marched in downtown Minneapolis Friday in a negative 30 degree windchill to protest the federal government’s continuing surge of immigration enforcement — demanding civil rights and a withdrawal of the 3,000 officers sent here by the administration of President Donald Trump.

The demonstration took place on “ICE Out of Minnesota: Day of Truth & Freedom,” a general strike supported by Minnesota unions, progressive faith leaders and community activists. Proponents encouraged all Minnesotans to stay home from work, school and refrain from shopping — disruptions of normal orders of business to protest the presence of federal immigration agents in Minnesota.

The massive protest began at The Commons Park at 2 p.m. in Minneapolis. The march ended with a rally at Target Center. 

Natasha Dockter, the first vice president of the Minneapolis Federation of Educators’ teachers chapter, handed out hand warmers to demonstrators at The Commons alongside other teachers.

“I’m out here today because what’s going on in our city is completely and totally unacceptable. It’s impacting the lives of our students and their families that we serve,” Dockter said.

Sergey Goro and Ben Daniel were visiting the Twin Cities from San Francisco and Seattle for the U.S. Pond Hockey Championships, which was delayed due to the extreme cold. 

Goro said that he’d been to No Kings protests — demonstrations against the Trump administration’s authoritarian policies — in San Francisco, but that they weren’t as large as the Minneapolis protest. 

Daniel agreed: “We can really feel that everyone’s on board here — that this is ridiculous and it’s gotta stop.” 

Daniela Morales, 16, carrying a Mexican flag, said her parents are both Mexican immigrants and that she attended the protest on behalf of people who can’t speak out. 

“I’m really glad to see everybody come out and support each other and our neighbors and fight against the administration,” Morales said. 

Other protests led to arrests

A morning protest at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport led to the arrests of roughly 100 clergy by MSP and Bloomington law enforcement Friday, according to a statement from protest organizers.

Demonstrators at the airport were standing or kneeling on the roadway outside Terminal 1’s departures area and led away by law enforcement.

Jeff Lea, a spokesperson for the Metropolitan Airports Commission, said in an email that the airport “worked in advance with event organizers to best accommodate their right to freedom of expression while also ensuring uninterrupted operations.”

“When the permitted activity went beyond the agreed-upon terms, MSP Airport Police began taking necessary action, including arrests, to protect public safety, airport security and access to Terminal 1,” Lea wrote. Lea confirmed there were around 100 arrests.

At least one demonstrator was also arrested at the nearby Whipple Federal Building, where federal agents deployed chemical irritants into a crowd of protestors, the Star Tribune reported. Around noon, the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office announced that it had given three dispersal orders for protestors to unblock an access road at the building. The Whipple Building, now a base for federal immigration operations, has been an ongoing site of protests.

Life stood still Friday for many Minnesotans. Over 700 businesses closed Friday to support the “ICE Out” day, according to Bring Me The News, which is keeping a running list.

“It is time to suspend the normal order of business to demand immediate cessation of ICE actions in MN, accountability for federal agents who have caused loss of life and abuse to Minnesota residents and call for Congress to immediately intervene,” the demonstration’s website states.

Over a dozen churches across Minnesota announced prayer vigils to “mourn, pray and plant seeds of hope with one another,” according to ISAIAH, the nonprofit coalition of Minnesota faith and community groups.

Dozens of school districts across the state closed Friday because of the dangerously cold temperatures. Minneapolis Public Schools were already planned to be closed Friday for a teacher record-keeping day.

Vice President JD Vance delivers remarks during the annual March for Life rally on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 23, 2026. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration plans to expand a policy that blocks foreign aid dollars from going to organizations that discuss, refer or perform abortions to also include groups that address transgender health care or have policies on diversity, equity and inclusion, Vice President JD Vance said Friday.

“We’re expanding this policy to protect life, to combat DEI and the radical gender ideologies that prey on our children. And with these additions, the rule will now cover every non-military foreign assistance that America sends,” Vance announced at the March for Life anti-abortion rally on the National Mall.  

“All in all, we have expanded the Mexico City Policy about three times as big as it was before,” he added. “And we’re proud of it, because we believe in fighting for life.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request from States Newsroom for more details on the policy expansion or when it would be implemented. 

Defending administration’s record

Vance said during the rally he needed to “address an elephant in the room” that President Donald Trump and others in the administration have not made enough progress on anti-abortion initiatives during the first year of unified Republican control of the federal government.  

“I want you to know that I hear you and that I understand,” he said. “There will inevitably be debates within this movement. We love each other. But we’re going to have open conversations about how best to use our political system to advance life, how prudential we must be in the cause of advancing human life. I think these are good, natural and honest debates.”

Vance mentioned that Trump nominated some of the Supreme Court justices that overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that had guaranteed a constitutional right to an abortion for nearly 50 years. 

He also noted that Republicans in Congress included a provision in the “big, beautiful” law that blocks Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood for one year for any type of health care. Federal law had already barred funding from going to abortions, with limited exceptions.

Vance argued that in addition to judicial rulings and federal laws, members of the anti-abortion movement must strive to change hearts and minds as well. 

“We’re not trying to argue to the Supreme Court anymore,” he said. “We’re trying to argue to our fellow citizens that we must build up that culture of life. And as you know, that effort is going to take a lot of time, it’s going to take a lot of energy and it’s going to take a little bit of money.”

Later in his speech, Vance sought to discourage people from concentrating on professional lives and instead called on them to focus more on getting married and having children. 

“You’re never going to find great meaning in a cubicle or in front of a computer screen,” he said. “But you will find great meaning if you dedicate yourself to the creation and sustenance of human life.”

Trump didn’t attend the rally in person but recorded a video message that was played just before Vance spoke, telling attendees he “was proud to be the first president in history to attend this march in person” six years ago. 

“In my first term I was honored to appoint judges and justices who believed in interpreting the Constitution as written. That was a big deal. And because of that, the pro-life movement won the greatest victory in its history,” Trump said. “Now the work to rebuild a culture that supports life continues in every state, every community and every part of our beautiful land.”

Calls for action on medication abortion

Trump and some in his administration have come under scrutiny lately for not moving faster to complete a safety review of mifepristone, one of two pharmaceuticals used in medication abortion, which is approved for up to 10 weeks gestation. 

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, and Lila Rose, founder of the anti-abortion group Live Action, both released statements in December calling on Trump to fire Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary over the pace of that review.

Anti-abortion organizations want the administration to end the ability of doctors or other qualified health care providers to prescribe mifepristone and the second pharmaceutical used in medication abortion, misoprostol, via telehealth and have it shipped to patients. 

Several Republicans in Congress have joined their call, with Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy, R-La., holding a hearing on mifepristone earlier this month. 

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected efforts from anti-abortion organizations to limit access to mifepristone in a June 2024 ruling, writing they never had standing to bring the lawsuit in the first place. 

Trump told House Republicans during a policy retreat at the Kennedy Center earlier this month they must be “flexible” about the Hyde Amendment, which blocks federal funding for abortion with limited exceptions, in order to broker a health care deal that can reach his desk. 

Dannenfelser rebuked Trump for the comment, writing in a statement that to “suggest Republicans should be ‘flexible’ is an abandonment of this decades-long commitment. If Republicans abandon Hyde, they are sure to lose this November.”

GOP leaders tout major law

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., also spoke at the March for Life rally, touting the “big, beautiful” law as “the most pro-life and pro-family legislation that has been signed into law in decades.”

“For the first time since Roe v. Wade was reversed, we have the White House, the Senate and the House all working together to deliver meaningful and historic pro-life victories,” he said. 

The law included several policies that Johnson said will aid Americans in having children, including an expansion of the child tax credit and the adoption tax credit as well as the investment accounts for babies. 

Johnson said the provision that blocks Medicaid patients from going to Planned Parenthood for non-abortion health care services, depriving the organization of that income, was a massive policy victory for Republicans. 

“We stand here today with one united voice to affirm the federal government should not be subsidizing any industry that profits from the elimination of human life,” Johnson said. 

New Jersey Republican Rep. Chris Smith, speaking just after Johnson while other GOP lawmakers stood on the stage, said eliminating access to mifepristone must be accomplished. 

“I’ve been here since Ronald Reagan’s first election, 1981,” Smith said. “And I can tell you, this leadership is the most pro-life, so committed. And behind me are just absolute heroes. Men and women who take up the fight every single day.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., didn’t attend the rally in person but submitted a video that touted the Planned Parenthood defunding provision. 

“Thanks to that landmark legislation, this year, some of the nation’s largest abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, are prohibited from receiving Medicaid funding,” Thune said. 

Other Republicans attending the rally included Alabama Rep. Robert Aderholt, Arkansas Rep. French Hill, Florida Rep. Kat Cammack, Georgia Rep. Andrew Clyde, Maryland Rep. Andy Harris, Michigan Reps. Bill Huizenga and Tim Walberg, Minnesota Rep. Michelle Fischbach, Missouri Rep. Bob Onder, Pennsylvania Rep. Dan Meuser, South Carolina Rep. William Timmons, Texas Reps. Michael Cloud and Dan Crenshaw, Utah Rep. Mike Kennedy, Virginia Rep. John McGuire and Wisconsin Rep. Glenn Grothman.

Federal agents spray demonstrators at close range with irritants after the killing of Renee Good by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer Jonathan Ross on Jan. 7, 2026, in Minneapolis. Since July 2025, there have been at least 17 open-fire incidents involving federal immigration agents, according to data compiled by The Trace, a nonprofit and nonpartisan news outlet investigating gun violence. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

As a growing number of encounters between civilians and Department of Homeland Security agents — including the widely scrutinized fatal shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis — are scrutinized in court records and on social media, federal officials are returning to a familiar response: self-defense.

In more than a handful of recent encounters, the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection, has said its agents acted in self-defense during violent encounters, even as eyewitness testimony and video footage raised questions about whether those accounts fully matched what happened.

And in a ruling for a recent civil lawsuit, a U.S. district judge said federal immigration officials were not forthcoming about enforcement efforts, citing discrepancies between official DHS statements and video evidence.

“We’re now in a situation in which official sources in the Trump administration are really tying themselves quite strongly to a particular narrative, regardless of what the widely disseminated videos suggest,” said César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, a law professor at Ohio State University.

The cases come amid an aggressive expansion of federal immigration enforcement and increasing scenes of violent and intimidating arrest tactics. President Donald Trump’s administration has sharply increased the hiring of immigration agents, broadened enforcement operations and accelerated deportations, as protests have spread across major cities.

The use of force, paired with conflicting official statements and evidence, has raised questions about whether federal immigration officials can be held accountable and highlighted the steep hurdles victims of excessive force might face in seeking legal recourse.

The Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not respond to multiple requests from Stateline for comment on discrepancies between official accounts and publicly available evidence.

Since last July, there have been at least 17 open-fire incidents involving federal immigration agents — including fatal shootings, shootings with injuries and cases in which shots were fired — according to data compiled by The Trace, a nonprofit and nonpartisan news outlet investigating gun violence. A recent Wall Street Journal investigation also found 13 incidents since July in which immigration agents fired at or into civilian vehicles.

One of the most prominent examples unfolded in Minneapolis this month: Good’s fatal shooting by a masked ICE agent. The Department of Homeland Security initially said the agent, Jonathan Ross, fired in self-defense after Good, 37, allegedly tried to run over officers. Videos taken by bystanders show Good’s vehicle reversed, shifted and began to turn away from officers after one yelled and pulled on her car handle. Ross positioned himself near the hood of her car, and he began firing.

Minnesota officials later stated the footage did not support DHS’ description of an imminent threat, prompting renewed scrutiny of how the Trump administration is characterizing use-of-force encounters.

Similar discrepancies have surfaced in other cases. The Department of Homeland Security recently revised its account of a December shooting in Glen Burnie, Maryland, after local police contradicted its initial version. DHS first claimed both men injured in the incident were inside a van that ICE officers fired at in self-defense, but later said that one of the injured men had already been arrested and was in custody inside an ICE vehicle when he was hurt. The other man was shot twice and is facing two federal criminal charges.

In August, federal immigration agents fired at a family’s vehicle three times in San Bernardino, California. DHS maintained the shooting was justified after at least two agents were struck by the vehicle, but available footage shows an agent breaking the driver-side window moments before gunfire erupted. Surveillance footage from the street does not show agents being struck by the vehicle.

“I can’t think of another time in my lifetime — I’m 50 years old — where we’ve seen this sort of force in the streets in the United States,” said Mark Fleming, the associate director of federal litigation at the National Immigrant Justice Center. Fleming has been an immigration and civil rights attorney for the past 20 years.

García Hernández, the law professor at Ohio State University, echoed Fleming’s point, saying that what also stands out is how often agents are deploying less‑lethal weapons in ways that would generally be prohibited — including firing rubber pellets and similar projectiles at people’s faces or heads.

In its use-of-force policy, DHS agents may use force only when no “reasonably effective, safe, and feasible” alternative exists and only at a level that is “objectively reasonable.” DHS policy emphasizes “respect for human life” and directs officers to be proficient in de-escalation tactics — using communication or other techniques to stabilize or reduce the intensity of a potentially violent situation without, or with reduced, physical force. The policy also states that deadly force should not be used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect.

ICE, as an agency under DHS, is bound by this guidance, but the policy on shooting at moving vehicles differs from what many law enforcement agencies nationwide now consider best practices. While DHS prohibits officers from firing at the operator of a moving vehicle unless it is necessary to stop a serious threat, its rules do not explicitly instruct officers to get out of the way of moving vehicles when possible.

Use of force

A growing pattern of aggressive tactics and conflicting evidence has raised serious questions about how federal immigration agents use lethal and less-lethal force, and how DHS officials describe the incidents to the public.

In September, 38-year-old Silverio Villegas González was fatally shot during a traffic stop in Franklin Park, a suburb near Chicago. DHS claimed that one agent was “seriously injured” after being dragged by González’s car as he tried to flee. But body-camera footage shows the agent telling a Franklin Park police officer that his injury was “nothing major.”

In a statement, DHS said the agent responded with lethal force because he was “fearing for his own life” — a narrative very similar to the department’s description of the fatal shooting of Good in Minneapolis.

In recent months, DHS officials have claimed that immigration agents have been repeatedly attacked with vehicles.

“We’ve seen vehicles weaponized over 100 times in the last several months against our law enforcement officers,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said during an interview with CNN this month.

In court filings related to a civil lawsuit about Operation Midway Blitz in Chicago, the department provided body-camera footage and other internal records to bolster their claims of self-defense.

But U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis found the evidence “difficult, if not impossible to believe.” In her lengthy opinion issued in late November, Ellis acknowledged that agents sometimes encountered aggressive drivers but also found that agents treated cars that were merely following them as potential threats.

In October, an ICE agent shot a community observer, Marimar Martinez, five times during a confrontation in Chicago. DHS claimed that she rammed the ICE vehicle with her car and boxed it in, but surveillance footage does not show the agents were trapped.

Martinez survived, but the Trump administration quickly labeled her a “domestic terrorist” — the same label used to describe Good. Martinez’s criminal charges were dropped in November after the federal Department of Justice abruptly moved to dismiss the case.

In Ellis’ ruling on the civil lawsuit, she wrote that federal officials “cannot simply create their own narrative of what happened, misrepresenting the evidence to justify their actions,” and that the violence used by federal agents “shocks the conscience,” a legal standard meaning a situation that seems grossly unjust to an observer.

Ellis also explicitly questioned the conduct and leadership of Greg Bovino of U.S. Border Patrol during the Chicago immigration operation. Bovino, who has led the administration’s big-city campaign, was deposed under oath, and in her November ruling, Ellis described him as “not credible,” writing that he “appeared evasive over the three days of his deposition, either providing ‘cute’ responses … or outright lying.”

In a footnote, Ellis also noted an instance in which an agent asked ChatGPT to draft a use-of-force report from a single sentence and a few images — further undermining the credibility of official DHS accounts.

A narrow path to accountability

Holding federal immigration agents accountable for misconduct is difficult, even as video evidence and police or court records increasingly contradict official government accounts.

With more evidence surfacing and legal claims already underway, some experts say it’s likely that even more lawsuits will emerge this year.

“We should expect to see more examples, more instances in which cellphone video is used to bolster legal claims against DHS, ICE, Border Patrol and specific officers as well,” said García Hernández, of Ohio State University.

Federal officers are shielded by legal doctrines such as qualified immunity and U.S. Supreme Court rulings that restrict when people can sue federal officials for constitutional violations. In recent years, the courts have narrowed the circumstances under which individuals can bring claims for excessive force or wrongful death.

Suing individual federal immigration agents is nearly impossible.

People can, however, pursue claims against the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act if a government employee causes financial or bodily harm. These cases, which can include claims for wrongful death, face significant hurdles: no punitive damages, no jury trials, state-specific caps on compensation and protections for discretionary government decisions.

Internal DHS investigations can lead to discipline or policy changes, but their findings may not be made public.

Several state lawmakers in California, Colorado, Georgia, New York and Oregon are pursuing measures that would allow residents to sue federal immigration agents for constitutional violations. Illinois has a similar law already in place, but this pathway remains largely untested, and experts say it faces significant legal and logistical hurdles.

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

U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly, an Arizona Democrat, speaks with attendees of Kamala Harris for President campaign event in Phoenix in November 2024. (Photo by Gage Skidmore | Flickr/CC BY-SA 2.0)

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Thursday asked a federal judge to deny Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly’s request to halt efforts within the Defense Department to punish him for appearing in a video where he urged members of the military not to follow illegal orders.

Attorneys for the Department of Justice asserted in a 52-page brief that the administration doesn’t believe federal courts hold jurisdiction over the matter, writing “the Judiciary does not superintend military personnel decisions.”

Kelly, a retired U.S. Navy captain, “is not a private citizen and does not enjoy the First Amendment freedom of speech as if he were one when being assessed by the military in military proceedings to determine whether his conduct comports with his obligations as a retired servicemember,” the brief states. 

Kelly’s lawsuit asked a federal judge for an emergency ruling declaring the Defense Department’s attempts to demote him and reduce his military retirement pay are “unlawful and unconstitutional.”

The lawsuit alleges the Pentagon’s actions against Kelly “trample on protections the Constitution singles out as essential to legislative independence.” 

“It appears that never in our nation’s history has the Executive Branch imposed military sanctions on a Member of Congress for engaging in disfavored political speech,” the lawsuit states. ”Allowing that unprecedented step here would invert the constitutional structure by subordinating the Legislative Branch to executive discipline and chilling congressional oversight of the armed forces.”

Video rankled Pentagon

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced earlier this month that he had started the process to downgrade Kelly’s retirement rank and pay, writing in a social media post that his “status as a sitting United States Senator does not exempt him from accountability, and further violations could result in further action.”

The Defense Department letter of censure to Kelly alleged that his participation in the video undermined the military chain of command, counseled disobedience, created confusion about duty, brought discredit upon the Armed Forces and included conduct unbecoming of an officer. 

The video at the center of the debate featured Kelly, Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, Colorado Rep. Jason Crow, Pennsylvania Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan, and New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander, all Democrats with backgrounds in the military or intelligence community.

They said that Americans in those institutions “can” and “must refuse illegal orders.”

“No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. We know this is hard and that it’s a difficult time to be a public servant,” they said. “But whether you’re serving in the CIA, in the Army, or Navy, or the Air Force, your vigilance is critical.”

First Amendment doesn’t apply, DOJ says

Attorneys at the Justice Department, representing DOD in the case, argued in the brief they filed Thursday that no emergency relief is warranted, in part, because they believe Kelly’s First Amendment rights have not been violated. 

“Plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on his First Amendment claim because, as a retired servicemember, he has no First Amendment right to encourage other servicemembers to question the legitimacy of their military orders or to impugn their superior officers when such conduct violates his ongoing duties and obligations to the military,” the DOJ brief states. “The First Amendment is not a shield against the consequences of such violations in military personnel matters.”

Kelly’s constitutional protections as a member of the U.S. Senate under the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution also don’t apply in this instance, the DOJ legal team wrote. 

“A legislator’s public statements in interviews and on social media are not legislative acts protected by the Speech or Debate Clause,” DOJ wrote. 

The judge doesn’t need to issue emergency relief, the DOJ brief states, because there isn’t a separation-of-powers issue between the Executive Branch, where the Defense Department exists, and Kelly’s role as a senator in the Legislative Branch, which are considered separate but equal under the Constitution. 

Senior Judge Richard J. Leon, who was nominated to the bench by President George W. Bush, has scheduled a hearing on the issue for Wednesday. 

Leon could rule from the bench during those proceedings or issue a written order anytime afterward. 

During debate on the floor, Rep. Dean Kaufert (R-Neenah) said that the GOP Knowles-Nelson bill isn’t perfect but is a compromise that will allow the program to continue into the future. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner).

A pared-back proposal that will continue the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship program, but without allowing for new land acquisition, passed the Assembly on Thursday, eliciting critical reactions from Democrats who said it won’t uphold the legacy of the program.

The Warren Knowles-Gaylord Nelson Stewardship Program was initially created during the 1989-1990 legislative session and signed into law by former Gov. Tommy Thompson. With the goal of preserving wildlife habitat and expanding outdoor recreation opportunities throughout the state, the program has authorized state borrowing and spending for state land acquisition and for grants to local governments and nonprofit conservation organizations. It has traditionally received bipartisan support in Wisconsin as it has been reauthorized several times over the years.

Two GOP bills, coauthored by Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc) and Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point), passed the Assembly in a 53-44 vote along party lines. The bills would extend the program for an additional two years, but in a limited form.

Under the amended proposal, the Knowles-Nelson program would be reauthorized until 2028, but the money set aside would mostly be for maintaining land that has already been purchased under the program.

The program’s land acquisition provisions have been essentially stripped in the legislation. 

A previous version of the GOP bill would have authorized the program until fiscal year 2029–30. Gov. Tony Evers in his 2025-27 state budget proposal had called for investing over $1 billion and reauthorizing the program for another 10 years. Republicans rejected the proposal. 

Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) blamed the Wisconsin Supreme Court for the state of the proposal.

Wisconsin lawmakers for years exercised control over what Knowles-Nelson projects received funding through the state’s powerful Joint Finance Committee. Members of the committee could anonymously object to a project and have it upheld for an indeterminate amount of time.

The program and the power of the committee became the focus of a fight over the balance of power between the governor and lawmakers, with the state Supreme Court ruling in 2025 that the Joint Finance Committee did not have the authority to hold up spending through anonymous objections. 

Sortwell said that the DNR should not be able to buy land without oversight from lawmakers.

“I don’t support their ideas to turn our authority of the Legislature over to unelected people,” Sortwell said. “We can build this up and do more things with it but let’s make sure we don’t lose what we have today. We can maintain the program. We can go ahead and make sure that we can keep the lands that we already have in good condition and continue moving forward.” 

Under the amended version of AB 315, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) would only be able to obligate $1 million for land acquisition — a cut from $16 million. The $1 million could only be used for the Ice Age Trail. The bill would also allow for DNR to obligate $9.25 million for property development and local assistance — a cut from $14.25 million. The program would also limit the amount that could be obligated for recreational boating aids to $3 million. 

The amended version of AB 612 reduces the amount that can be obligated each year to $13.25 million. It also includes $7.75 million for DNR property development and grants, $4 million for local assistance grants and $3 million for grants for wildlife habitat restoration. There would also be $250,000 set aside each year to be used for DNR land acquisitions, but acquisitions would be limited to parcels land that are 5 acres or less and meant to improve access to hunting, fishing, or trapping opportunities or is contiguous to state-owned land.

The bill would also require that large projects get approval from the full Legislature and limit grant or in-kind contributions for a project to 30%.

The DNR, under the bill, would also need to conduct a survey study of all of the land that has been acquired under the stewardship program including an inventory of all land acquired with money, proposed project boundaries and land acquisition priorities for the next two to five years, and proposed changes. The survey would need to be submitted to the Legislature in two years.

Recipients of a grant would also need to submit a report to the DNR on how the money was spent, and it would need to be publicly published. 

The program is set to expire on June 30, 2026, without a reauthorization from the Legislature and Gov. Tony Evers.

Ahead of the vote on Thursday, Team Knowles-Nelson, a coalition of Wisconsin environmental conservation organizations, fishing and hunting advocates, trail builders, bicycle enthusiasts and others, said in a letter urging lawmakers to vote against the bills on the Assembly floor that they don’t propose a “workable path forward.” 

“These bills include virtually no funding for land acquisition. Land trusts and local governments would have no dedicated ability to acquire land for either purpose — a fundamental departure from the program’s core mission,” Charles Carlin, the director of strategic initiatives at the nonprofit land trust organization Gathering Waters, said on behalf of the coalition. “While the bills provide habitat management grants to nonprofit conservation organizations, they impose an impractical framework. The grants are limited to habitat work on lands already owned by the state or local governments, excluding nonprofit-owned lands. This restriction undermines the collaborative conservation model that has made Knowles-Nelson successful for over three decades.” 

During debate on the two bills, Democratic lawmakers said the bills were inadequate and would not preserve the intent of the program. 

Rep. Vinnie Miresse (D-Stevens Point) declared that “every time Republicans amend the Knowles-Nelson proposal, it seems to get worse.” 

“Without land acquisition, Republicans have neutered this program and rendered it Knowles-Nelson in name only,” Miresse said. He added that lawmakers’ attitude of treating people with different opinions as a “threat” is how legislation that “ignores history, disregards broad public support and turns a shared legacy into just another talking point” gets a vote.

“They chose the extremes, and that choice will cost the state a program that Wisconsinites overwhelmingly support,” Miresse said. 

Rep. Angelito Tenorio (D-West Allis) said the bill is not a compromise, but is instead “table scraps.”

Rep. Supreme Moore Omokunde (D-Milwaukee) talked about being a “birder” — someone who watches and observes birds as a hobby.

“We had the option to do a cost to continue… and it was rejected, and that disheartens me because when I go to places like Horicon Marsh when the birds are coming in, are migrating in, and I get to see goldfinches — there’s nothing like watching a chimney swift swoop down and try to get some food, or when you’re out and just walking around and navigating a red-winged blackbird swoops down tries to peck you in the head because it thinks that you are a crane trying to steal its eggs,” Moore Omokunde said. “We need to provide these opportunities for so many people in the state of Wisconsin to enjoy this.”

Republican lawmakers argued that the proposal was better than the Knowles-Nelson program ceasing to exist.

Rep. Dean Kaufert (R-Neenah) said that the bill isn’t perfect but is a compromise that will allow the program to continue into the future. He added that it would “help preserve some of our beautiful natural areas” for future generations to enjoy.

“Sometimes we get caught up in partisan politics, but let’s not make this about partisan politics. This bill deserves strong, bipartisan support,” Kaufert said. 

“I would rather take half a cookie today, rather than no cookie today to make sure that we can continue the program,” Sortwell said. “You gotta vote yes today because if you vote no, you’re saying, you know, what? I’m not willing to compromise. It’s not good enough for me, and I’m going to vote no, because I’m going to be like a little kid and take my ball and go home.”

Evers told lawmakers in a letter earlier this month that he was “hopeful” they would be able to move forward on a reauthorization proposal for the Knowles-Nelson program.

“I would be glad to sign any reauthorization proposal that appropriately supports both land acquisition and property management of Wisconsin’s valuable natural resources and public lands to secure the future of this program that is so fundamental to Wisconsin’s proud and cherished tradition of conservation,” Evers said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Correction: This story has been updated to correctly state the amount of money the amended bills would dedicate to the program.

A gray wolf. (Wisconsin DNR photo)

Wisconsin Republicans on Thursday continued their yearslong effort to reverse the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resource’s decision not to quantify a specific statewide goal for the state’s gray wolf population with a public hearing on a bill that would require the agency to set one. 

The bill, authored by Sen. Rob Stafsholt (R-New Richmond) and Rep. Chanz Green (R-Grand View), is unlikely to be signed into law by Gov. Tony Evers if it’s passed, but shows how the contentious politics around wolves continue to play a major role in the state’s natural resource policy debates — especially in an election year. U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, seen as the frontrunner in the Republican primary for governor, was the author of a bill recently passed in the House that would remove the gray wolf from the federal endangered species list. 

State law in Wisconsin requires that whenever the wolf isn’t listed as endangered, the state must hold an annual wolf hunt. 

The state’s wolf management plan was updated for the first time in decades in 2023. The plan was established after a two and a half year process involving an advisory committee made up of 28 member organizations and thousands of public comments. 

Prior to the current plan’s adoption, Wisconsin was operating under a plan that was first approved in 1999 and then updated in 2007. That plan went into effect as the state was working to responsibly handle the animal’s return to the state after its extirpation in the 1960s. 

Initially, the state set a  population goal of 350 wolves. 

More than a quarter century after the 1999 plan’s adoption, the state’s wolf population is estimated to be about 1,200 wolves. The 350 number that was initially set as an aspiration for a healthy wolf population has come to be seen by some hunters and farmers as a wolf population ceiling. 

But under the current wolf management plan, the DNR opted to use an “adaptive management” system which forgoes setting a specific population number. Instead, the state gets divided into zones and in each zone the DNR annually assesses the local wolf population to decide if it needs to be kept stable, allowed to grow or reduced through a hunt. 

Adaptive management is the method used by the state for most other game species, including black bear, bobcat, coyote, white-tailed deer and wild turkey. But since the plan’s adoption, Republicans have been opposed to using the method for wolves. 

Rep. Green, the bill’s co-author, said that the growth of the wolf population in northern Wisconsin is causing a number of problems, including in the area’s deer population. 

“We’d like to see a wolf management goal in place where — most of these wolves are concentrated in northern Wisconsin and we’d like to see that reduced,” Green said. “It’s been heavily impacted on our deer populations and things like that.”

Research has shown that Wisconsin’s wolves have helped cause a noticeable decline in the number of vehicle-deer collisions that occur in the state. 

At the hearing, Chris Vaughan, Wisconsin director of the pro-hunting organization Hunter Nation, complained that the wolf management plan focuses too much on the social effects of the wolf population, putting too much weight on people’s personal views about wolves. Vaughan lamented how frequently Wisconsin’s plan uses the word “social” compared to other states

But representatives of the DNR said social carrying capacity is an important consideration for biologists when managing any species. 

“Dare I say the biological part of wolf management is the easy part,” Randy Johnson, the DNR’s large carnivore species specialist, said. ”We know how to have a pretty good system of monitoring the population. The science is pretty clear about how we can move the population up and down through harvest. It is the social side of this that continues to be the difficult part of it. Everybody knows it’s a contentious issue. Some people see it different ways, some people want more, some people want less and it’s our job to try to balance that.” 

Proponents of a hard limit on the wolf population also cast their argument in social terms.

Brad Olson, president of the Wisconsin Farm Bureau, said the state should have a specific population number to assuage the feelings of farmers who are traumatized by losing livestock to wolves. 

“For those of us who live in wolf country and deal with wolves on a day in, day out basis, at times, I think the number is very important to those of us in wolf country who have these issues,” Olson said. “You haven’t been on the farms like I have where, where the mule has been killed by a pack of wolves … and I think in all of this, what we’re really missing from the legislative side, from the DNR side, is we’re missing the impact of the mental health on rural ag and those in rural Wisconsin.” 

“When compared to other species where adaptive management works, wolves sit at a completely different intersection of biology, social politics and law, where this vague management tool is impossible to apply,” Vaughan said.

Democrats on the committee questioned the prudence of changing the DNR’s management plan before the wolf has been delisted and the plan has a chance to be put to the test when a hunt must be held. 

“So if we actually could accomplish [a healthy wolf population] utilizing the tools and the science that the DNR has provided, would that or would that not actually accomplish the goal?” Sen. Kristin Dassler-Alfheim (D-Appleton) asked.

(The Center Square) - The Institute for Reforming Government is joining a push to get Wisconsin’s Department of Public Instruction to release information related to changes in its benchmarks for the Forward Exam.