Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce Fact Briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.
Wisconsin’s average age is slightly higher than the national average age.
According to data from the Wisconsin Department of Health, which shows the average of ages between 2019 and 2023, the most recent data available, the national average is 38.7.
In Wisconsin, the average age is 40.1 for the same time period.
Those numbers reflect the rapidly aging baby boomer generation, which is skewing Wisconsin’s population to individuals over 65, according to Wisconsin Public Radio.
Between 2010 and 2020, this demographic grew from 777,000 people to more than 1 million and is projected to expand to 1.3 million by 2030. Meanwhile, the working-age demographic in the state is holding steady, meaning that the population of those over 65 is growing as a percentage of the total.
This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.
Is Wisconsin’s population older than the national average? 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.
A conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court justice first elected in 2007 announced Monday that she will not seek a third 10-year term next year, giving liberals another chance to expand their majority as cases affecting redistricting, union rights, school funding and other hot button issues await.
Justice Annette Ziegler, 62, becomes the second conservative justice in as many years to decide against seeking reelection after liberals took majority control of Wisconsin’s highest court in 2023. Liberals held onto their majority last year in a race that broke national spending records and saw billionaire Elon Musk traveling to the state to hand out $1 million checks to conservative voters.
There’s another election on April 7 for the open seat caused by conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley’s decision not to run for reelection. The liberal candidate, Appeals Court Judge Chris Taylor, has outraised her conservative opponent, fellow Appeals Court Judge Maria Lazar, allowing her to spend more on television ads in what so far has been a low-profile race given that the court’s majority is not on the line.
Liberals are seeking to win their fourth Supreme Court race in a row dating back to 2020 and solidify their hold on the court.
Ziegler’s decision to step down means there will be another open race next year. If liberals win this year, their majority would increase to 5-2, and in 2027 they could grow it to 6-1. If the conservative candidate wins this year, the liberal majority would remain 4-3, and next year the best conservatives could do would be to keep it at 4-3.
Ziegler consistently sided with fellow conservatives justices, including in 2020 when the court fell one vote short of overturning President Donald Trump’s election loss that year. Ziegler was in the minority after a conservative swing justice sided with liberals.
Cases expected to come before the court in coming years include challenges to congressional district maps, the future of a state law that effectively ended collective bargaining for most public workers and an effort to increase spending on public schools.
Liberals have struck down a state abortion ban law and ordered new legislative maps since taking control of the court, fueling Democrats’ hopes of capturing a majority this November.
Ziegler, who was chief justice between 2021 and 2025, previously served as a circuit court judge in Washington County for 10 years.
“Now is the right time for me to step away to spend more time with my husband, kids and grandkids,” she said in a statement.
“I am incredibly proud that in all my elections I had support from a broad spectrum of legal, civic, law enforcement and political leaders — both Democrats and Republicans — who believed in my commitment to fairness, ethics and the rule of law,” Ziegler said.
The election to replace Ziegler is April 6, 2027.
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup. This story is published in partnership with The Associated Press.
Conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Annette Ziegler won’t seek reelection 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.
Two attempts to peel back the veil of secrecy over the proliferation of data centers, including one by Wisconsin Watch reporter Tom Kertscher, are being honored in this year’s Openness in Government Awards, or Opees, bestowed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council.
In advance of national Sunshine Week (sunshineweek.org), March 15-21, the council has named the winners of its 20th annual Opees. These recognize outstanding efforts to protect the state’s tradition of open government, as well as highlight some threats to it. Winners have been invited to appear at a free public event in Madison on March 19. (See WFOIC website for details.)
The winners are:
Public Openness Advocate (Popee): Vilas County District Attorney Karl Hayes. District attorneys in Wisconsin are statutorily empowered to enforce the state’s open records and open meetings laws, but in practice rarely do so. Early this year, Hayes showed how it can be done, warning officials in the town of Presque Isle that they needed to comply with a nearly year-old request from the Lakeland Times newspaper for records regarding the town’s computers. His intervention succeeded, and the records were released. Other DAs might look for occasions where they can turn the lever in favor of openness.
Citizen Openness Advocate (Copee): Midwest Environmental Advocates. This nonprofit public interest law firm last year filed two pivotal lawsuits challenging the secrecy surrounding data center projects. The first, against the city of Racine, forced the prompt release of water usage projections for Microsoft’s Mount Pleasant campus. The second lawsuit, against the state Public Service Commission (PSC), contested the “trade secret” status of energy demand data for Meta’s proposed data center in Beaver Dam; that case is pending. Kudos to MEA for insisting on the public’s right to know.
Media Openness Advocate (Mopee): The Badger Project. In recent years, this nonprofit news outlet has been requesting records from police departments around the state about internal investigations of police officers and suing when they are not provided. In 2025, it filed three such lawsuits — against a police department in Racine County, the state Department of Transportation and St. Croix County. All led to the release of records. The Badger Project is now appealing St. Croix County’s refusal to pay attorney fees, which could lead to the overturning of a deeply problematic state Supreme Court decision. Fingers crossed.
Open Records Scoop of the Year (Scoopee): Tie: Tom Kertscher of Wisconsin Watch; Danielle DuClos of The Cap Times. Among much other good reporting on openness issues, the work of these two journalists stands out. Kertscher pulled back the curtain on the secrecy surrounding data centers, including at least four projects in which local officials signed nondisclosure agreements with the companies. And DuClos reported on how the state Department of Public Instruction secretly investigated more than 200 Wisconsin K-12 educators accused of sexual misconduct or grooming behaviors toward students, prompting a statewide audit and legislative action.
No Friend of Openness (Nopee): Deborah Kerr, superintendent of the St. Francis School District. While there were other contenders for this award, there was also little question that Kerr would be the winner and new champion. Last June, she threatened to have a TMJ4 News reporter and camera operator arrested for wanting to film a school board meeting “because you did not give us any notice or tell us why you were here,” neither of which is required. The jaw-dropping video (see for yourself at https://tinyurl.com/zvam889a) went viral, and Kerr issued a weak apology, but her eruption is one for the ages. Credit reporter Megan Lee for her deft handling of the situation.
Whistleblower of the Year (Whoopee): John Sigwart. This former Port Washington city council member refused to keep the public in the dark about a clandestinely proposed microchip production facility, revealing that local officials had signed nondisclosure agreements. The city’s mayor retaliated by stripping Sigwart of his committee appointments, precipitating an end to his many years of public service, said an editorial in the Ozaukee Press. Sigwart died in August at age 80, but his example of courage will live on.
Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a nonprofit, nonpartisan group dedicated to open government. Bill Lueders is the group’s president.
Your Right to Know: Opees highlight good works, and bad 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 Wisconsin Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments Wednesday in a case that highlights how judges can apply different interpretations of the law and constitution to suit their ideological viewpoints.
The case resulted from disagreements between the Republican-led Legislature and Attorney General Josh Kaul following the 2018 lame-duck session that limited the powers of the incoming Democratic administration.
The lawsuit, which the Legislature filed in 2021 when there was a conservative majority on the state Supreme Court, focuses on who has oversight of the dollars the state receives from legal settlements. The Legislature argues the 2018 law requires the attorney general to put money from a financial settlement in the general fund, which state lawmakers control. Kaul argues that he can put settlement funds in accounts that the Department of Justice oversees and still comply with the law.
In December 2024, the 2nd District Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling reversed part of a circuit court decision that said Kaul could continue to direct settlement dollars into DOJ-controlled accounts.
The Appeals Court opinion was written by Judge Maria Lazar, a conservative who is running for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court in April against liberal Appeals Court Judge Chris Taylor. Lazar ruled the language in the 2018 law aligns with the Legislature’s arguments that settlement dollars belong in the general fund.
“Despite the legislation expressly designed to bring all settlement funds under legislative control and despite the simple and plain language of that legislation, the Attorney General has continued to act precisely in the manner which the Legislature sought to end,” Lazar wrote.
But in a dissent, retiring Appeals Court Judge Lisa Neubauer, the only liberal on the Waukesha-based District 2 Court of Appeals, criticized Lazar for basing her decision on what the Legislature intended, rather than a strict reading of various clauses in the law that may give the attorney general wiggle room.
The oral arguments this week follow a series of decisions in recent years on lawsuits challenging the separation of powers between the Legislature and the executive branch. In June, the court unanimously struck down a portion of the 2018-era lame-duck laws that required the attorney general to receive approval from the Legislature’s budget-writing committee to settle most civil cases. For the 4-3 divided liberal-majority court, the rulings in these cases have shown agreement among the justices over the need for clear boundaries between the core powers of the branches of government, legal experts said.
Where this latest lawsuit differs is the debate seems focused more on the language of the law than the separation of powers, said Chad Oldfather, a professor at the Marquette University Law School. Typically the conservative approach to statutory interpretation has been to focus on the basic meaning of the law while the liberal approach has been to examine the law’s intent. That has been the opposite in this case, Oldfather said.
“The advocates are kind of flipping a little bit the usual ideology of the statutory interpretation approach,” Oldfather said. “And all that’s going on while it’s clear that there are some people on the court who want to fundamentally shift the way the court does statutory interpretation. So there’s a real interesting mix of issues going on in this case.”
The law in question has been wrapped up in a yearslong debate over separation of powers that has made its way to justices in recent years, said Bryna Godar, a staff attorney at the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School. In many of those cases, the Supreme Court opinions have shown the justices interested in balanced branches of government.
“There seems to be an inclination to reinstate greater separation of powers between the branches and preserve the important roles of various actors, whether that’s the attorney general or the governor or the Legislature,” Godar said.
For example, in a 6-1 decision in 2024, with Justice Annette Ziegler dissenting, the court ruled the Legislature’s Republican-led budget-writing committee could not block spending by the Department of Natural Resources for the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Fund.
“While the legislature’s motivation for overseeing the public fisc may be well-intentioned, fundamentally, the legislature may not execute the law,” Justice Rebecca Bradley, a member of the conservative bloc, wrote in the majority opinion. “The people gave the executive alone this power.”
In the 7-0 decision last June on the Legislature’s approval of the attorney general’s civil case settlements, Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote that the constitution does not give lawmakers the ability to execute the law when there are financial decisions.
“If the Legislature has a constitutional interest in the execution of the laws every time an executive action involves money, there would be virtually no area where the Legislature could not insert itself into the execution of the law,” Hagedorn wrote.
There are still areas of disagreement among the court in these types of cases. Last July, the court reached a 4-3 decision in a lawsuit between Gov. Tony Evers and the Legislature, which determined 2018 lame-duck legislation that gave a legislative committee the ability to delay rules and policy changes from executive agencies was unconstitutional.
In that case, the court’s four liberal justices were in the majority. Hagedorn wrote an opinion both concurring and dissenting with the majority’s decision, while Bradley and Ziegler dissented.
“The majority has created a grave constitutional imbalance by strictly construing, and thus confining, the constitutional powers of the legislative branch while not doing the same when it comes to the power of the executive branch,” Ziegler wrote.
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.
Latest Wisconsin Supreme Court case flips the script on which judges strictly interpret the law 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.
Last week, the Board of Regents Education Committee unanimously approved revising a policy that would allow campuses to offer 90-credit degrees.
The post Mount Mary offers a 3-year bachelor’s degree. Universities of Wisconsin could follow. appeared first on WPR.
As companies launch an array of protein-rich products and new federal dietary guidelines advise Americans to prioritize protein, nutrition experts have mixed feelings about the new emphasis on protein.
The post Protein is everywhere right now. We asked experts: Do we really need more? appeared first on WPR.
The exhibit highlights the experiences of veterans whose role in the early nuclear era often remained hidden because of strict secrecy laws.
The post Central Wisconsin exhibit highlights untold stories of WWII bomb crews appeared first on WPR.
In the lead up to the election, WPR asked what you wanted candidates to weigh in on as they vie for your votes.
We brought those issues directly to the candidates. Our guide allows you to see how they responded to survey questions about those topics and compare their answers.
The post Explore WPR’s voter guide for the 2026 Wisconsin Supreme Court election appeared first on WPR.
Survivors of sexual assault in Wisconsin now have more time to pursue criminal charges, after Gov. Tony Evers signed a bill into law on Friday.
The post New law gives Wisconsin sexual assault survivors more time to bring charges appeared first on WPR.
The state Department of Health Services found 66.9 percent of children age 24 months had completed their childhood vaccine series last year.
The post Data: One-third of Wisconsin kids didn’t receive recommended shots by age 2 appeared first on WPR.
A Wausau company must pay $250,000 for nearly two dozen alleged violations of the state’s air pollution control laws under a settlement announced Monday by Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul.
The post Wausau company to pay $250K for alleged violations of Wisconsin air pollution laws appeared first on WPR.
John Zumbrunnen has been named the University of Wisconsin–Madison's provost and executive vice chancellor for academic affairs, Chancellor Jennifer Mnookin announced Monday.
The post Interim leader named as UW-Madison provost appeared first on WPR.
Outdoor enthusiasts provided a record-breaking $12 billion boost to Wisconsin’s economy, marking the state’s third record year in a row for outdoor recreation.
The post Data shows outdoor recreation boosts Wisconsin’s economy by record $12B appeared first on WPR.
Justice Annette Ziegler, a conservative who has sat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court since 2007 and served four years as chief justice, will not seek reelection to the court next year.
The post Conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Annette Ziegler to retire appeared first on WPR.
A sign welcomes visitors to Bureau of Land Management land near Cedar City, Utah. Republicans in Congress have used a tool known as the Congressional Review Act to target management plans for public lands in Utah and elsewhere. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch)
Over the past year, GOP leaders and the Trump administration have used a law known as the Congressional Review Act to push for coal mining in Montana, oil drilling in Alaska and copper mining in Minnesota, while also attempting to reverse protections for a national monument in Utah.
The rarely used act gives Congress a few months to revoke new federal regulations. Only in the past year has it ever been used to overrule land management plans.
Conservation advocates say Congress is recklessly throwing out detailed plans, which are created after years of research, public meetings and local collaboration. They fear lawmakers’ intervention could upend the long-standing management system that governs hundreds of millions of acres of public lands — with consequences that could threaten endangered species and coal miners alike.
But the fallout could be much more far-reaching than the rollback of protections for specific areas, some legal experts say. By using their review authority in a way that was never thought to apply to land management plans, lawmakers are calling into question the validity of well over 100 other such plans that were never submitted to Congress for review.
If those plans are challenged, it could create legal uncertainty for tens of thousands of leases and permits for oil and gas, mining, cattle grazing, logging, wind and solar farms and outdoor recreation.
“Using the Congressional Review Act (to revoke management plans) is really unprecedented and will have unforeseen consequences,” said Robert Anderson, who served as solicitor for the Department of the Interior during the Biden administration. “There’s a huge playing field of actions that would be forbidden if none of these management plans are lawfully in place. This could bring things to a screeching halt.”
Republicans have argued that congressional action is necessary to unleash President Donald Trump’s “energy dominance” agenda. Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum frequently refers to public lands as “America’s balance sheet,” and has pledged to increase returns by extracting more resources like oil, minerals and timber.
Montana U.S. Rep. Troy Downing, a Republican who sponsored a resolution to revoke a management plan in his home state, argued during debate on the measure that Montana’s economy and energy demands rely on coal production.
“When the federal government acts recklessly, it is the responsibility of Congress to step in and course correct. … The war on coal must end,” he said.
The Congressional Review Act, which was signed into law in 1996, requires federal agencies to submit new regulations to Congress before they can take effect. Congress then has 60 working days to review those regulations, and may vote to revoke them.
If lawmakers reject a rule, federal agencies are barred from crafting a new one in “substantially the same form,” unless Congress passes a new law.
For 20 years, the Congressional Review Act was rarely invoked. But during Trump’s first term, Republicans used it to overturn 16 regulations, such as a rule to protect streams from coal mining pollution. Democrats used the act to revoke three rules from Trump’s first presidency.
But in 2025, Congress and Trump revoked 22 Biden-era rules.
“It seems increasingly popular from Congress as a way to get a quick win to reverse something that happened under the previous administration,” said Devin O’Dea, Western policy and conservation manager with Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, which has opposed efforts to open public lands for resource extraction. “The long-term implications are what we’re concerned about.”
Until recently, management plans for public lands were not considered subject to congressional review. Federal agencies have issued well over 100 such plans without ever submitting one to Congress. Those documents guide the work of agency officials who oversee specific areas of land, often covering millions of acres.
Created after years of public meetings and local feedback, they determine which landscapes will be leased for oil and gas drilling, protected for endangered species or open for off-road vehicles, along with a multitude of other uses.
But last year, Republicans asked the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan advisory agency for Congress, to affirm a sweeping new view of the Congressional Review Act. The office found that certain management plans were subject to review because their land-use decisions “prescribed policy,” and determined that lawmakers’ queries had opened the 60-day review “clock” for the plans in question.
“A very long deliberative process goes into these plans,” said Justin Meuse, government relations director for climate and energy with The Wilderness Society, a conservation nonprofit. “These plans are so broad and multifaceted and deal with so many different things. This is taking a hatchet to something that should be done with a scalpel.”
Using this new tool, Republicans have revoked plans that restricted mining and oil production on federal lands in Alaska, Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming. Meanwhile, House Republicans voted in January to overturn a regulation that blocked development of a mine near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in Minnesota, a move that now awaits a vote in the Senate.
And GOP lawmakers from Utah are seeking to overturn the management plan for Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in that state.
Conservation leaders say the rollbacks are unprecedented.
“It’s very surprising,” said Autumn Gillard, coordinator with the Grand Staircase-Escalante Inter-Tribal Coalition, a group of tribal nations working to protect the monument. “The (resource management plan) is created as a set of advisement points to land managers to reflect on when making decisions. It’s not a direct set of rules.”
In Minnesota, advocates for the Boundary Waters wilderness area say it is treasured for its pristine lakes, where paddlers can fill their water bottles straight from the surface. They fear efforts to allow a copper mine near the headwaters of the area will irreversibly pollute the most popular wilderness in the country.
“We weren’t expecting the Congressional Review Act to be on the table in this way,” said Libby London, communications director with Save the Boundary Waters, a coalition seeking to protect the wilderness area. “It sets a really scary precedent that undermines decades of land management decisions.”
Officials at the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management did not grant interview requests. Staff at the House Committee on Natural Resources did not grant an interview with U.S. Rep. Bruce Westerman, an Arkansas Republican who chairs the committee and who has championed using the Congressional Review Act to allow more mining and drilling.
Environmental groups have condemned Republicans’ use of the act to push for more resource extraction. If Trump wants more mining and drilling, they say, then federal agencies should take the time to draft new management plans using the same rigorous process.
But perhaps more concerning to some public land stakeholders are the potential implications for a whole host of other lands. None of the plans issued by federal land managers over the past 30 years were ever submitted for review, because no one at the time considered them to be rules.
In other words, hundreds of plans covering millions of acres of land could be deemed invalid under the new congressional interpretation that they qualify as rules.
Having something like an entire resource management plan rolled back would be a huge curveball.
– Ryan Callaghan, president and CEO of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers
“That right there is chaos,” said Peter Van Tuyn, a longtime environmental lawyer and managing partner at Bessenyey & Van Tuyn LLC. “Those (plans) go across the full spectrum of what land managers do: conservation and preservation, mining approvals, oil and gas drilling, resource exploitation, public access and recreation. There’s a very real chance that a court could say that a resource management plan was never in effect and all the implementation actions under the umbrella of that plan are invalid.”
In a letter to the Bureau of Land Management late last year, The Wilderness Society and other organizations identified more than 5,000 oil and gas leases that could be legally invalid, as they were issued under management plans that were never reviewed by Congress.
Public lands advocates say the same logic could be applied to mining leases, grazing permits, logging, outdoor recreation and many other activities covered by agency planning documents. Many industries that rely on public lands, such as hunting and fishing guides, could be thrown into chaos.
“Let’s say you’re operating as an outfitter,” said Ryan Callaghan, president and CEO of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers. “Having something like an entire resource management plan rolled back would be a huge curveball, and something you’d have an absolute inability to plan for as a business owner. It’s very reasonable to have a lot of questions as to what the ramifications are.”
Some industry leaders are also worried about the precedent Congress is setting by wiping out plans that were created after years of local input and consultation.
“I’m fairly concerned about that,” said Kathleen Sgamma, a longtime oil and gas advocate who now serves as principal for Multiple-Use Advocacy, a consulting group focused on federal land policy. “It’s not unreasonable to think about a future day where there is a Democratic trifecta and they would be able to (revoke) old plans likewise.”
Sgamma was nominated by Trump to lead the Bureau of Land Management, but withdrew her nomination last spring amid fierce opposition from conservation groups, and following the publication of a memo in which she had criticized Trump’s role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
She said she was less concerned with the idea that previous plans could be declared invalid. She argued that, if challenged, agency officials could submit those old plans to Congress and start the 60-day review “clock” before litigation advanced.
The greater uncertainty, Sgamma said, is the provision that agencies cannot adopt rules in “substantially the same form” as those that have been revoked by Congress. While Republicans intend to target restrictions on drilling and mining, they are using the Congressional Review Act to revoke entire plans. That could prevent agencies from issuing new plans covering less controversial topics, such as campgrounds and trails.
Van Tuyn, the environmental lawyer, shared that concern.
“If they have a plan that looks 80% like the previous plan, and a court says 80% is ‘substantially similar,’ what does the agency do? Go back to the drawing board and say 50%? You used to have all this public access and now you can’t?” he said.
The Public Lands Council, which advocates for ranchers who operate on public lands, did not respond to an interview request. Western Energy Alliance, which advocates for oil and natural gas production, did not grant an interview request. The American Petroleum Institute did not respond to an interview request. Public Lands For The People, which advocates for mining on public lands, did not respond to an interview request.
Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org.
This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Wisconsin Examiner, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.
Images depicting Dodge County deputies transporting ICE detainees to Broadview, Illinois. (Photo courtesy of Unraveled)
The Dodge County Sheriff’s Office is denying reports that a U.S. citizen from Illinois was transferred to its jail and then released over the weekend, after being detained by immigration authorities. Multiple local media outlets reported that Sundas “Sunny” Naqvi, 28, was detained upon returning to the U.S. after traveling abroad.
Naqvi’s family, protesters and local county officials gathered outside the Broadview detention facility in Illinois on Sunday saying that Naqvi had been detained alongside her coworkers. Her family tracked Naqvi’s phone to the Broadview facility and then later to Dodge County Wisconsin, where the jail has long doubled as an immigration detention facility.
During a press conference, CBS News reported, Cook County Commissioner Kevin Morrison — who’s also a family friend of Naqvi — said that “it is our belief” that six people were transported from Broadview to Wisconsin. Naqvi was reportedly released on Saturday along with her coworkers in Dodge County. Naqvi and her coworkers are all of Pakistani descent and headed to India for a work trip with a layover in Turkey, WGN9 reported. Naqvi’s sister, Sara Afzal, said that the group’s flight was canceled due to visa issues. This caused the group to separate and travel to different countries, with Naqvi going to Bulgaria and Austria. They reunited in Turkey and flew back to O’Hare International Airport in Chicago.
Describing what happened to Naqvi, Morrison said in his speech at Broadview, “All she was told was there was curious travel history, but they had no cause to detain her for those 30 hours.” During the press conference Morrison said of Naqvi that “her first shower was actually today, and she was able to eat some food.” Naqvi’s family members say that she has still not received her passport back. “The fact that this could happen to any U.S. citizen should terrify us all,” said Morrison.
Naqvi’s family said that federal authorities denied that she was at Broadview. Family members were able to track her cellphone, which was turned off and back on again and showed a location in Dodge County. Federal authorities, however, denied that Naqvi was being detained there.
In a press release issued Monday, Dodge County Sheriff Dale Schmidt refuted the reports. Schmidt’s office “has no record of the individual referenced ever being booked, detained, or released from the Dodge County Jail,” the sheriff said in the statement. “Jail logs confirm that no female inmates or detainees from the federal government were admitted or released during the timeframe in which these events were alleged to have occurred.”
Schmidt said that he takes all allegations about the jail seriously, and that a review and investigation is underway. “We encourage anyone who believes they have evidence related to this matter to provide that information — along with any available electronic metadata — to the Dodge County Sheriff’s Office so it can be properly evaluated,” said Schmidt, who also encouraged Naqvi herself to contact the office. “We are also asking that the unknown individual who reportedly picked her up in the Juneau area and drove her to the Holiday Inn contact the Sheriff’s Office to provide a statement.”
The sheriff said he will not comment further pending investigation into the matter, and that he does not speak on behalf of federal authorities. Late last year, Dodge County sheriff’s deputies were spotted transporting immigration detainees to and from the Broadview facility.
Wisconsin officials expressed outrage over initial reports of the detention. Sen. Chris Larson posted on BlueSky that federal agents “repeatedly lied, saying she was not in custody. After nearly two full days she was released, needing to hitchhike to a nearby hotel to call for a ride home. This should not happen in any nation that purports to call itself the ‘Land of the Free.’”
Naqvi’s family said that she is still recovering from her detention. The Department of Homeland Security had not responded to other media outlets who covered reports of on Naqvi’s detention. Wisconsin Examiner reached out to the department and has not heard back, but this article will be updated if a reply comes.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
President Donald Trump speaks to reporters during a news conference in Doral, Florida, on March 9, 2026. Trump spoke about his administration's strikes on Iran. (Photo by Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images)
President Donald Trump on Monday told House Republicans, who were gathered in Florida for a policy retreat, that he expects the war in Iran will wrap up “quickly,” though he didn’t give a specific date or detail exactly what he wants to do before ending the hostilities.
“We took a little excursion because we felt we had to do that to get rid of some evil,” he said. “And I think you’ll see it’s going to be a short-term excursion.”
Trump added later in his speech that the U.S. military “will not relent until the enemy is totally and decisively defeated.”
During a press conference afterward, Trump said the U.S. military had struck 5,000 locations inside Iran but that he was holding off on bombing some of the country’s larger targets to see if its leaders would allow ships to safely travel through the Strait of Hormuz.
The danger of navigating the key shipping route during the war has been a factor in rising oil prices and other market volatility globally.
“We’ve left some of the most important targets for later in case we need to do it,” he said. “If we hit them, it’s going to take many years for them to be rebuilt, having to do with electricity production and many other things. So, we’re not looking to do that if we don’t have to.”
Trump said “when the time comes,” the U.S. Navy and undisclosed partners will escort ships through that narrow channel.
“I hope it’s not going to be needed,” he said. “But if it’s needed, we’ll escort them right through.”
Trump said he was “disappointed” that Iranian leaders over the weekend selected Mojtaba Khamenei as the country’s new supreme leader. He is the son of former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed by military strikes shortly after the war began.
Trump declined to answer if the country’s new leader could soon become the target of similar military action, saying that would be “inappropriate.”
Trump also focused on legislative requests for Congress during his speech and at the press conference, calling on House Republicans to restructure a bill they already passed that would require proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote and identification to cast a ballot, among other changes.
Trump said he wants three additional elements written into a new bill.
The first would be nationwide restrictions on mail-in ballots unless the person is a member of the military based overseas, someone with a disability, someone who is ill or someone who is traveling.
Trump told GOP lawmakers to add in a provision that would lead to “no men in women’s sports” and language blocking transgender youth from surgery.
“Now, that should be the easiest thing to get passed that you’ve ever had,” he said.
Trump said if the House GOP passed the reworked bill that Republicans would “win the midterms at levels that you can’t even believe.”
He expressed confidence that Senate Republicans would be able to move such a bill through that chamber, but didn’t detail how that would happen with the 60-vote legislative filibuster still in place.
“We’re not going to sign a watered-down version like has been sent up there. Let’s go for the gold, and let’s just not accept anything else,” Trump said. “I’ll tell you what, I’m willing to just sort of say, I’m not going to sign anything until this is approved. I really am.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said during a floor speech earlier in the day that Trump’s position would not change Democrats’ minds that the legislation is “Jim Crow 2.0.”
“Donald Trump is saying, in effect, unless Congress helps him undermine democracy, he’s prepared to hold the rest of the country hostage,” Schumer said. “This is what he does. He’s a thug, He’s a bully. He can’t ever argue on the merits, so he threatens.”
Schumer said that would mean any bills Congress approves to try to lower the cost of living wouldn’t take effect.
“No bill to bring down gas prices. No bills to make groceries more affordable. No bills to increase housing. Not until the Save Act passes. That’s what Donald Trump is saying,” Schumer said. “Democrats will make sure that never happens.”
Login