Reading Time: 3 minutes

Microsoft announced last week it would stop signing nondisclosure agreements that keep its data center proposals secret, a move that received praise from open government advocates.

Less attention was paid to the other party to those NDAs: local governments.

“Hopefully, the industry follows,” said Wisconsin state Rep. Clint Moses, R-Menomonie, where the city signed an NDA, then put a proposed data center on hold. Microsoft “just realized that it’s not a successful formula when you come into a community under darkness.”

Moses said a bill he introduced to ban data center NDAs, which stalled in the Legislature, is still needed to prevent local governments from signing the agreements. If local officials sign them, “hopefully voters will remember it and hold them accountable,” he said.

Microsoft did not sign NDAs in the Racine County communities of Mount Pleasant, where a multibillion-dollar data center complex is under construction, or in Caledonia, where it withdrew a data center proposal amid community opposition. But its announcement comes at a time of public backlash against data centers proposed in Wisconsin.

The company said its new position on NDAs is an effort toward transparency “as we continue to build trust with the communities around the world in which we operate” and that it would work with local governments to terminate current NDAs. Microsoft has one in Kenosha, where a data center is proposed.

Microsoft did not respond to a request for further comment.

Its move won qualified praise from data center NDA critics, such as Midwest Environmental Advocates. “Companies typically don’t make announcements about building community trust unless those communities are already pushing back pretty hard,” the group said in a statement.

Sheboygan Falls Mayor Randy Meyer, board president of the League of Wisconsin Municipalities, said municipalities feel pressure to sign NDAs because they need new development to increase tax revenue. It can be difficult to know when in the planning process a development proposal should be disclosed to the public, he added.

But “if the companies that are building data centers say there’s nothing wrong with them, they don’t hurt the environment, all that stuff, well, then there’s no real reason to be secretive about it,” Meyer said.

Bill Lueders, president of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, also praised Microsoft’s move, which happened during Sunshine Week, which promotes public access to government meetings and records. 

But Lueders encouraged local government officials to be more transparent.

“There’s nothing the public hates more than the idea that their public officials are doing things behind their back,” he said. “That’s like the most offensive thing that you could do as a public official is hide information that affects the people you represent.”

Wisconsin Watch has reported that at least five Wisconsin communities signed data center NDAs. In one of them, Beaver Dam — where an NDA was signed more than a year before the proposal was announced — a $1 billion Meta data center is under construction.

Meta declined to comment on Microsoft’s announcement.

Vantage Data Centers, which is building a $15 billion data center in Port Washington with Oracle and OpenAI, did not reply to a request for comment.

The push to build data centers nationwide has meant more than $1 billion in business for Wisconsin suppliers, even before any of the hyperscale data centers in Wisconsin begin operation.

The data centers proposed or under construction in Wisconsin typically cost billions of dollars and cover hundreds of acres. 

Some communities that have not signed NDAs have taken other steps to keep data center proposals quiet.

The Madison suburb of DeForest dropped a proposed $12 billion data center in January, the day after Wisconsin Watch reported that village staff worked for at least seven months with Virginia-based QTS Data Centers before the proposal was publicly announced in October. 

Wisconsin Watch also found that in Port Washington, when citizens requested emails about the data center, the city turned over emails but withheld documents that were attached to the emails — something a judge found did not follow the state open records law.

Blaine Halverson, a leading opponent of the proposed data center in Menomonie, said Microsoft’s announcement is a step, but he remains skeptical.

“I think that committing to not doing NDAs does not mean they’re not committed to still being secretive,” he said. 

“What the pledge needs to be (is) that we’re going to not just not use NDAs. We’re going to be up front. We’re going to encourage and allow free communication from the beginning with communities. And we’re going to insist on being available to answer the public’s questions from the front end. That’s what needs to happen.”

Local data center critics praise Microsoft’s pledge to stop using NDAs, but remain skeptical 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: 11 minutes

Click here to read highlights from the story

• Both Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates talk about judicial independence, but their views line up on opposite sides of the conservative/liberal divide.

• Appeals Court Judge Maria Lazar emphasizes the need to prevent liberals from controlling five seats on the court.

• Appeals Court Judge Chris Taylor calls for a pro-democracy court opposed to gerrymandering and overturning election results.

• Early voting starts Tuesday, March 24. Election Day is Tuesday, April 7.

Inside a dimly lit banquet hall at an Irish pub in Germantown and at a century-old supper club along Wautoma’s Silver Lake, both 2026 Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates championed a fair and impartial judiciary.  

“We need to put someone on this bench who is not going to cater to the public whims, who is not going to put their hand up in the air and say, ‘What trend in society is important today?’” one candidate told the Germantown crowd. 

“We must have the judiciary be fiercely independent,” the other candidate said in Wautoma. “We cannot be rubber stamps for any party, any branch of government and certainly not the federal government.”

A voter might have trouble deciphering which candidate made which statement, but in the April 7 election to fill an open seat on the state’s high court, the choice couldn’t be more stark.

While both Appeals Court judges Maria Lazar (the candidate in Germantown) and Chris Taylor (the candidate in Wautoma) advocate for impartiality, their judicial philosophies and public support represent opposing political views on issues such as reproductive health care, criminal justice policy and the balance of power between government and business. Taylor is a former Democratic lawmaker. Lazar is a member of and has spoken three times before the conservative Federalist Society. Taylor is endorsed by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin and Democratic U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin. Lazar is endorsed by former Republican Gov. Scott Walker and the state’s six Republican members of Congress. 

The election marks a quiet departure from the two most recent high court elections when it comes to national attention, spending and vicious political attack ads. As of mid-March, outside spending by political groups on the 2026 election reached just over $638,000, according to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, which tracks money in state elections — far below the nearly $25 million at this time last year.

“It’s a positive in that it’s a much more low-key, low-energy, civil election,” said Howard Schweber, a professor emeritus of political science and legal studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “You can argue that it has gone too far. There has to be something in between the endless barrages of television advertisements and elections that happen without anybody knowing about them, and as a state we do seem to, with respect to judicial elections, have trouble finding that happy middle ground.” 

With fewer fireworks in 2026, the race has instead highlighted the stark contrast between Lazar and Taylor’s political backgrounds and how their campaigns have used those differences to attack each other. 

Lazar, a conservative member of the Waukesha-based 2nd District Court of Appeals, started her legal career in private practice before joining the Department of Justice as an assistant attorney general under Republican Attorney General JB Van Hollen. During  that time, she defended Gov. Scott Walker-era laws, such as voter ID and Act 10. She was elected to the Waukesha County Circuit Court in 2015 and 2021 and then to the Court of Appeals in 2022 when she unseated an Evers-appointed judge. That race also broke along party lines, with Republicans supporting Lazar. 

Taylor, a liberal member of the Madison-based 4th District Court of Appeals, also began in private practice. Taylor worked as a policy and political director for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin for eight years until winning an Assembly special election in 2011 as a Democrat. Gov. Tony Evers appointed Taylor to the Dane County Circuit Court in 2020, and she ran unopposed in the 2023 election for the Court of Appeals. 

Taylor’s campaign and liberal-leaning groups have seized on Lazar’s resume, often describing her as an extremist. Lazar’s campaign has swiped at Taylor’s legislative experience, casting her as a radical politician. 

In interviews with Wisconsin Watch, both candidates dismissed the partisan labels. 

“I’m not a Republican,” Lazar said. “No, I didn’t work for Scott Walker. I represented Scott Walker. I represented legislators. I represented the Government Accountability Board. I represented Tony Evers and Doug La Follette. So anyone who thinks that I’m extreme because I actually tried to do a good job and represent my state is the extreme party.”

Taylor, who told Isthmus earlier this year that she is a Democrat, said she does not approach her judicial work from a liberal viewpoint. 

“I don’t ever think of myself as the liberal,” Taylor said. “I hear it all the time. I know everyone says that, but I don’t approach being a judge that way at all.” 

The stakes in 2026 are different

The election’s subdued tone stems largely from the fact that no court majority is on the line. 

Lazar and Taylor are running for the seat being vacated by conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley, meaning a Lazar win on April 7 would not shift the court’s ideological balance. The liberal majority could grow to five out of seven seats with a Taylor victory, guaranteeing liberal control of the court through at least 2030. 

“That would make the road back to a conservative majority very difficult, indeed,” Schweber said. 

In addition, conservative Justice Annette Ziegler earlier this month announced she would not seek reelection in 2027. That could open the door further for liberal candidates, who in 2023 and 2025 won by more than 10 percentage points.  

When Lazar discusses what’s on the line in this race, she tells supporters that the liberal majority on the court cannot “ever” grow to five justices. Three justices must agree to hear an appeal. The court needs balance — and to reflect the people of Wisconsin, Lazar explained to supporters in Germantown. 

“We need to make sure that we have someone up there who can vote to take appeals,” Lazar said. “We need to make sure we have someone up there who will not legislate from that bench.”

Waukesha County Judge K. Scott Wagner said Lazar possesses the temperament, intellect and respect for the law the Wisconsin Supreme Court needs at this time. The two first met as private practice attorneys on a commercial litigation case in 1989. She encouraged Wagner to run for judge last year, he said. 

“She really is very common sense. She understands the role of the court,” Wagner said in an interview. “I don’t think people understand how the courts are supposed to work. They really are the nonpartisan referee, and even in my brief career on the bench, I’ve had to say, ‘Look, this is not a law I would have written, but it’s a law that exists, so I’m going to apply it.’ You’re like the ref. I think she gets that.” 

At recent campaign stops in central Wisconsin, Taylor describes the race as a chance to expand a “pro-democracy” majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. A strong court can protect the state from future attacks on the elections, she told the room in Wautoma, highlighting the court’s 4-3 split decision in 2020 that upheld Joe Biden’s victory in Wisconsin over challenges from Donald Trump’s campaign. 

“It was a valid election, and our state Supreme Court rejected those efforts to overturn our election, but only by one vote. That’s it,” Taylor said. “We have to have a court that protects our democracy and stands up for our elections. The attacks on our elections are not going to stop.” 

Lazar recently faced criticism about her response to that case in an interview with PBS Wisconsin in which she declined to comment on how she would have ruled in the case because the Trump campaign could come before the state Supreme Court in the future.

Chief Justice Jill Karofsky, who has endorsed Taylor’s campaign, said in an interview Taylor has a unique understanding of creating laws and how they impact real people. Plus, she said, Taylor’s legislative experience would bring an expertise that does not exist among justices on the court at this time. 

“I believe that the people of Wisconsin deserve a justice on their Supreme Court who is prepared, that they have a justice who has the depth and breadth of legal and life experience that Chris Taylor has,” Karofsky said. “And they deserve to have someone who remembers every single day that the cases that come before us involve real people with real issues. Chris, quite frankly, checks every single one of those boxes.” 

Taylor has held a significant advantage over Lazar in fundraising, but with less attention on this race than past elections, both judges still have to turn out voters across the state. In February, registered voters surveyed by the Marquette University Law School Poll indicated they know little about the race and were largely undecided. 

The Marquette poll found only 6% of registered voters said they had heard a lot about the state Supreme Court race, 55% said they had heard a little and 38% said they had heard nothing. At the same time in 2025, the poll found 39% of registered voters had heard a lot about the race, 42% heard a little about the election and 19% had heard nothing at all. 

Another poll is scheduled for release on Tuesday, just two weeks before Election Day, and could provide a clearer picture of voter moods. Both candidates are also scheduled to appear at a debate Wednesday night hosted by WISN 12 at the Marquette University Law School. 

Lazar wants to change Wisconsin’s Supreme Court elections

Lazar did not immediately jump into remarks on the Supreme Court race as she stood before guests at the meet-and-greet event in Germantown. Instead, she grabbed the campaign yard signs of Appeals Court candidate Anthony LoCoco and Washington County Circuit Court candidate Grant Scaife and placed them alongside her own at the front of the banquet hall. 

She highlighted LoCoco, an attorney for the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty who is running unopposed for an open seat on the 2nd District Court of Appeals, where Lazar serves, due to the retirement of the lone liberal judge Lisa Neubauer. She complimented Scaife for challenging Washington County judge Gordon Leech, who Evers appointed in 2025. 

Lazar endorsed both men and praised their campaigns before diving into the details of her own race. It takes “a lot of courage” to run for office, she told the audience. 

Lazar considered the Supreme Court as a future endeavor, but Bradley’s retirement announcement in August changed her timeline. Former Waukesha County judge Kathryn Foster, whose judicial chambers were next to Lazar’s, said she could see Lazar was meant for the Supreme Court early in her time on the bench.

“As good as she is with people, I think she really loves to research and write,” Foster said. “And that’s what that job is.”

In September, Lazar spent time discussing a potential campaign with her family and friends. She looked at the current court and the “overboard” nature of the 2025 election and said: “I can do better than this.”

Conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination that month was a key part in the decision-making process, Lazar said. 

“There was a lot of discussion in my family about should that be a reason why I don’t run,” she said in an interview. “And actually that was the impetus for me to say I’d made up my mind that I was running because we cannot let people scare us away from doing the right thing.” 

Lazar entered the race in October, four months after Taylor launched her campaign. It’s been an uphill climb. Lazar has struggled to compete with Taylor’s fundraising numbers, even with $20,000 contributions each from Republican donors Diane Hendricks and Liz Uihlein. In the first month of this year, Taylor raised $750,000 from more than 10,600 individual donors to Lazar’s $183,000 from 353 donors. The final campaign finance reports before the election are due next week.

Still, Lazar said she remains optimistic. The February Marquette Poll showed Taylor seven points ahead of Lazar among likely voters. But 62% said they were undecided. 

Lazar said she has tried to run a more traditional campaign focused on judicial background and experience. 

“We are supposed to talk about who is the better candidate judicially, who has more experience in the judiciary and who has the better judicial philosophy,” Lazar told supporters. “And I’ll give you the answers: me.” 

Taylor driven by helping others

Inside the Portage County Democratic Party office in Stevens Point, where the walls are papered with old campaign signs, Taylor stopped to talk with nearly every person in the room. 

A man stuffing envelopes mentioned gerrymandering to Taylor. The state Supreme Court can “protect democracy” and hold lawmakers accountable for unfair maps that “don’t lift some people’s votes up and make them more important than other people’s votes,” she said.

A campaign staffer hoping to keep the day on schedule tapped Taylor’s elbow to move her along, but Taylor likes to talk. 

“One more,” she responded, turning to shake another woman’s hand. 

Taylor told the crowds she met on a Saturday across central Wisconsin communities that she’s driven by a love of people and standing up for injustice. It started as a child when she was bothered by bullies and continued through her work for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin and her years in the Legislature, she said.

“Being in the Legislature was a lot like being an attorney in private practice and working for Planned Parenthood, because I was really an advocate for my constituents,” Taylor said. 

Taylor’s legislative record includes support of bipartisan efforts such as the Safe at Home Act, which gives victims of domestic violence an assigned address for mail that is not their actual address. Taylor was the top Assembly Democrat on the bill, which was introduced in 2015 and led by then-Sen. Scott Fitzgerald and Rep. Joel Kleefisch, both Republicans.

The Republican Party of Wisconsin has hit Taylor for voting against crime victims during her time in the Legislature. A press release points to bills Taylor voted against on intimidating victims of domestic violence, which the Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence opposed because it focused on harsher penalties rather than other reforms to the criminal justice system. Republicans also noted Taylor’s opposition to a bill on residency requirements for “sexually violent offenders,” which included an amendment that preempted local ordinances. 

The party also criticized Taylor’s votes in 2017 and 2019 against Marsy’s Law, a constitutional amendment on strengthening the rights of crime victims during the judicial process. A campaign spokesperson told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel last year that Taylor voted against the amendment because the state already had protections for crime victims. 

Shannon Barry, who has worked in the field of domestic violence support for 27 years, first crossed paths with Taylor in meetings about the Safe at Home Act. Barry recalled Taylor asking thoughtful questions and listening to what would make victims of domestic violence safer. 

“I think she really tries to ensure that whatever she is doing is aligning with the needs of people and their rights, and wanting to make sure that people have the ability to achieve their highest potential,” Barry said. 

Taylor said she left advocacy behind to transition to the bench, but she believes her time in the Legislature has made her a better judge. She understands the role of each branch of government and how the Legislature functions, she said, which helps when the Court of Appeals has to determine the intent of state lawmakers. 

Her work remains driven by how the law and the court can help others, she said. 

“The main motivator in my life is that I care deeply about people,” she said. “That has motivated me for as long as I can remember, and I think people deserve a court that is going to protect them and stand up for them, not the most powerful.” 

Two judges, two paths: Here’s what sets the Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates apart 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.

We learn about a new collection of 15 short horror stories by Wisconsin writers set across the state — from the Mississippi River to Door County and exurbs surrounding Milwaukee.

The post ‘Where the horror grows’: New anthology of scary story writers and places across Wisconsin appeared first on WPR.

AI technology is developing so fast, experts say advances are becoming hard to measure. Recognizing this, the Universities of Wisconsin has launched a free series of videos for people who need a starting point.

The post AI is growing. Universities of Wisconsin wants to help you understand it. appeared first on WPR.

New federal fundraising data shows Wisconsin's Democratic party brought in nine times as much as the state's Republican party last month.

The post State Democratic Party trounces GOP counterpart in February fundraising appeared first on WPR.

"Drivetime Classics" host Jason Heilman writes about his favorite trumpeters, including classic and contemporary recordings.

The post Jason’s classical picks: Trumpeters appeared first on WPR.

A Republican lawmaker and the state public defender's office are among those expressing dismay about the apparent death of a bill that would have added more court personnel.

The post ‘Our attorneys are drowning’: Public defender’s office disappointed after court personnel bill dies appeared first on WPR.

On Sunday, the UW Badgers women's hockey team won 3-2 against number-one seeded Ohio State in the NCAA Frozen Four tournament.

The post Wisconsin Badgers win back-to-back national championships appeared first on WPR.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate voted Monday evening to confirm Markwayne Mullin to lead the Department of Homeland Security, which is responsible for carrying out President Donald Trump’s mass deportation agenda. 

The 54-45 vote means that Mullin, a Republican senator from Oklahoma, will take over the department in the midst of a five-week shutdown. He will replace outgoing Secretary Kristi Noem, whom the president reassigned to another role in the administration.

Mullin voted for himself. Democratic Sens. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico were the only Democrats to back Mullin’s confirmation.

Just before the Senate adjourned, Mullin submitted his resignation letter.

The department has been shut down since mid-February while Democrats have called for restraints on federal immigration agents after officers killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis. On Jan. 7, Renee Good was shot and killed by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent and on Jan. 24, Alex Pretti was pinned down and killed by Customs and Border Protection officers.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, said on the Senate floor before the vote Monday that Mullin will be entering DHS at a difficult time. 

“It’s a tough assignment, made all the more challenging right now by Democrats having shut DHS down for five weeks,” Thune said. “We all know that Markwayne isn’t afraid of a challenge.”

Speaking to reporters early Monday, Trump said that Mullin is “gonna be fantastic” as DHS secretary. 

As an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation, Mullin will be the first Indigenous DHS secretary. 

Shutdown effects

Though DHS is shuttered, ICE and CBP are still fully funded because the Republican-led Congress last year passed a separate funding stream of $175 billion for immigration enforcement. 

Trump over the weekend directed his administration to place ICE agents in several airports in an attempt to aid Transportation Security Administration agents, who are working without pay. ICE and TSA are both agencies within DHS.

Mullin does not have any experience on a committee that handles policy for Homeland Security and will be tasked with leading a department of 260,000 employees.

Some senators have raised concerns about Mullin’s temperament, citing a 2023 incident in which he physically challenged a witness before Congress. Mullin also expressed sympathy toward a man who attacked Sen. Rand Paul, breaking six of the Kentucky Republican’s ribs and damaging a lung. 

Paul, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, voted against advancing Mullin’s nomination to the Senate floor. Paul also voted against Mullin’s confirmation Monday night. 

The Senate advanced Mullin’s nomination in a 54-37 procedural vote Sunday. Two Democrats, Pennsylvania’s John Fetterman and New Mexico’s Martin Heinrich, joined all Republicans who voted Sunday. Paul did not vote on Sunday. 

Wisconsin and 20 other states filed a lawsuit Monday that seeks to prevent the U.S. Department of Agriculture from imposing “anti-discrimination” conditions on all the money the department disburses to the states. 

USDA provides billions of dollars in funding to the states every year to administer programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — which in Wisconsin helps nearly 700,000 residents afford groceries. 

Under a new policy issued late last year, USDA states it will not provide any financial disbursements unless the states agree to conditions involving “gender ideology,” “fair athletic opportunities” for women and girls and immigration. 

The lawsuit argues the conditions are overly broad and vague, that sub-agencies within USDA are interpreting the rules differently, potentially conflict with existing state laws and amount to unconstitutional roadblocks between the states and the money that Congress has already appropriated to be sent to the states. 

“With billions at stake for life sustaining food and critical funding for their residents, the States may be forced to accept funding conditions that they fundamentally do not understand, that are designed to coerce the States and their instrumentalities to adopt USDA’s policies, and which are ultimately unlawful,” the lawsuit states. 

Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, along with the attorneys general of California, Illinois and Massachusetts led the development of the suit which is being joined by Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. 

Aside from the nutrition assistance programs, USDA also funds programs that aid and support Wisconsin farmers, prevent forest fires and protect local ecosystems. UW-Madison received $68 million from USDA during the 2024-25 fiscal year for agricultural research and other programs. On Monday, USDA announced more than $2 million in spending to support timber operations in Monroe and Shawano counties.  

“USDA funding helps keep kids and families fed and healthy,” Kaul said in a statement. “Attempting to use this critical funding to further unrelated policy goals of the Trump administration is wrong and unlawful.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Airport security workers missed work Monday at the highest rate since a partial government shutdown began in mid-February, the Department of Homeland Security said, and the Trump administration sent immigration officials to some airports in an attempt to keep lines moving.

Travelers reported hourslong security lines at major airports in Atlanta and Houston, while waits of 30 minutes or more were reported at several other hubs Monday.

Nearly 3,500 Transportation Security Administration agents, roughly 11.8% of the scheduled nationwide workforce, called out from work Monday. TSA officers have been working without pay since the department that oversees TSA began a funding lapse Feb. 14 due to a dispute in Congress over immigration enforcement.

Call out rates were over 20% at a handful of major airports, according to DHS. They were:

• 42.3% in New Orleans
• 41.5% in Atlanta
• 39.1% in Houston
• 38.1% in Baltimore
• 37.4% at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport
• 24.7% in Pittsburgh
• 24.2% in Philadelphia
• 21.7% at New York’s Laguardia Airport
• 20.3% in Phoenix

ICE to airports

More than 400 TSA workers have quit since the “pointless, reckless shutdown” began, DHS spokeswoman Lauren Bis said in an emailed statement. 

Bis blamed the shutdown and related problems with air security staffing on Democrats in Congress, and confirmed DHS would send officers from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, another DHS agency, to assist TSA at airports.

TSA officers “are not able to afford gas, childcare, food, or rent,” she said. 

“While the Democrats continue to put the safety, dependability, and ease of our air travel at risk, President Trump is taking action to deploy hundreds of ICE officers, that are currently funded by Congress, to airports being adversely impacted. This will help bolster TSA efforts to keep our skies safe and minimize air travel disruptions.”

President Donald Trump praised ICE in comments to reporters Monday morning and suggested he could also call upon National Guard troops to help at airports.

“They stepped in so, so strongly,” he said of ICE officers. “They’ll do great. And if that’s not enough, I’ll bring in the National Guard.”

Tom Homan, the White House border czar who coordinates much of Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda, said in a Sunday interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” that ICE officers would primarily handle duties that did not require extensive training, such as making sure no one entered secure areas through exits.

“We’re simply there to help TSA do their job in areas that don’t need their specialized expertise,” he said, rather than screening through the X-ray machines, he told CNN’s Dana Bash. “But there are roles we can play to release TSA officers from the non-significant role, such as guarding an exit, so they can get back to the scanning machines and move people quicker.”

DHS declined to provide a list of airports to which ICE would deploy, citing “operational security” concerns.

ICE officers were spotted at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, the nation’s busiest, where waits of four hours in security lines were reported on Monday.

Shutdown persists

Federal law requires TSA officers to work, even during a shutdown, though they will not be paid until funding is restored.

Despite being at the center of the shutdown debate, ICE has not been affected by the DHS funding lapse because Republicans provided the agency massive funding in the tax cuts and spending bill they passed along party lines last year.

Democrats have refused to fund a fiscal 2026 appropriations bill for the department without major changes to the administration’s immigration enforcement, which reached a tipping point following the deaths of two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis in January.

“Because of the Democrat shutdown, President Trump is using every tool available to help American travelers who are facing hours long lines at airports across the country—especially during this spring break and holiday season that is very important for many American families,” Bis said.

In a rare weekend session, the U.S. Senate again failed to advance a funding measure for DHS on Saturday.

Deadly LaGuardia crash

The pilot and co-pilot of an Air Canada plane died, and more than 40 people were injured, after the jet collided with a fire truck at LaGuardia airport late Sunday.

The incident was unrelated to problems with TSA, which is not responsible for safety on runways or elsewhere outside of airport terminals, but it further delayed and complicated travel in the New York City area.

Ashley Murray contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Monday said his administration is in talks with Iran about resolving the war, a claim that significantly tamped down oil prices and spurred market increases in Europe and the United States — though Iran denied any progress in negotiations.

Writing on his social media platform, Truth Social, the president said the United States and Iran “HAVE HAD, OVER THE LAST TWO DAYS, VERY GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS REGARDING A COMPLETE AND TOTAL RESOLUTION OF OUR HOSTILITIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST.” 

Trump’s 109-word, all-caps post brought the cost of Brent crude oil briefly below $100 a barrel, after his threat Saturday to bomb Iran’s major energy infrastructure spiked prices.

The historic shock to the global energy market has caused gasoline prices to soar across the U.S. to an average of $3.95 per gallon on Monday, up from $2.93 a month ago, according to AAA.

Trump said he had called off his 48-hour ultimatum for Iran, set to expire Monday evening, to conduct negotiations over “a five-day period,” he told reporters.

“We’ll see how that goes, and if it goes well, we’re going to end up with settling this, otherwise we just keep bombing our little hearts out,” he said during roughly 20 minutes of comments to the press at the steps of Air Force One prior to boarding a flight to Memphis, Tennessee, for an appearance.

Fourth week of hostilities

Trump claimed Iranian negotiators have agreed on a 15-point plan, as the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran enters its fourth week.

“Well, they’re not going to have a nuclear weapon. That’s number one. That’s number one, two and three, they will never have a nuclear weapon. They’ve agreed to that,” he said.

Trump also said the Strait of Hormuz, a major oil shipping passage that Iran has effectively closed to ships flagged under Western and Persian Gulf nations, “will be opened very soon if this works.” 

He suggested “​​maybe me and the ayatollah, whoever the ayatollah is” will share joint control of the strait, which handles a fifth of the world’s petroleum products.

As for Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium, Trump said capturing and removing it will be “very easy.”

“If we have a deal with them, we’re going down, and we’ll take it ourselves,” he said.

Iran denial

Iran’s Foreign Ministry has denied such talks were underway, according to a statement cited in media reports.

The speaker of Iran’s parliament Mohammed-Bagher Ghalibaf also denied any negotiations in a post on X just before noon Eastern, saying “Our people demand the complete and humiliating punishment of the aggressors.”

“All officials stand firmly behind their Leader and people until this goal is achieved. No negotiations with America have taken place. Fake news is intended to manipulate financial and oil markets and to escape the quagmire in which America and Israel are trapped,” Ghalibaf wrote.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu released a video statement Monday afternoon, Eastern time, confirming that he spoke with Trump, who he said “believes there is an opportunity to leverage the tremendous achievements we have reached alongside the U.S. military to realize the goals of the war through an agreement, an agreement that will safeguard our vital interests.”

“At the same time, we are continuing to strike in both Iran and Lebanon. We are smashing the missile program and the nuclear program, and we continue to deal severe blows to Hezbollah. … We will safeguard our vital interests under all circumstances,” Netanyahu said, according to his office’s English translation.

Trump’s schedule Monday included the trip to Memphis to participate in a roundtable regarding public safety.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is again trying to send the wrongly deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the west African nation of Liberia and urging a federal judge to dismiss a bar on his removal, according to legal documents filed over the weekend. 

Abrego Garcia, of Maryland, has agreed to be deported to Costa Rica, which will accept him as a refugee, and is fighting his removal to another third country. The Trump administration cannot remove him to his home country of El Salvador, after he was mistakenly deported there in 2025 and kept in a brutal Salvadoran prison. 

His erroneous deportation cast a national spotlight on the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement.

Acting U.S. immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Todd Lyons, in a Friday court declaration, said he was disregarding Abrego Garcia’s proposal to accept removal to Costa Rica for two reasons. 

Lyons said Abrego Garcia did not designate Costa Rica as a third country of removal in 2019, when he was granted a withholding from removal to El Salvador. Lyons argues that Abrego Garcia therefore “forfeited his right to designate an additional country of removal when he failed to designate any other country prior to the completion of his removal proceedings.”

Lyons said the second reason is the Trump administration has already invested in “high-stakes political negotiations” with Liberia’s government to accept Abrego Garcia and if the administration were to abandon “agreements negotiated at the highest levels of government (it) could cast doubt on the diplomatic reliability of the United States in relation not only to the Republic of Liberia but also other nations with whom it negotiates on these and other matters.” 

Lyons said for those reasons, federal Judge Paula Xinis of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland should dissolve her injunction that prevents the Trump administration from removing Abrego Garcia. 

Third-country removals were somewhat rare until the second Trump administration, which is relying more on them as the president aims to carry out mass deportations. 

Abrego Garcia’s situation dates back years. In 2019, when Abrego Garcia was granted the withholding of removal because a judge found he would face violence from gangs if removed to El Salvador, he had an agreement with ICE to check in yearly. 

In 2025, ICE agents stopped Abrego Garcia while he was picking his son up from day care and he was informed there was a change in his immigration status. He was placed on a deportation flight with hundreds of other men to the brutal Salvadoran mega-prison known as CECOT. 

Later in 2025, the courts ordered Abrego Garcia’s return to the United States.

The Trump administration is asking for Xinis to make her decision by April 17. Xinis was appointed by former President Barack Obama. 

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Tuesday in a case to determine if a migrant on Mexico’s side of a border crossing with the United States can legally apply for asylum when arriving at a U.S. port of entry.

The case, which stems from a policy during President Donald Trump’s first term that denied migrants the opportunity to present for asylum, is meant to settle if Customs and Border Protection officers are allowed to refuse to process an asylum seeker who walks up to a port of entry.

A 2019 memorandum created what was known as the metering or “turn back” policy that resulted in border officials physically turning away asylum seekers before they could enter the country. The policy was based on an argument that migrants must be in the United States to apply for asylum and that simply arriving at a border crossing did not qualify.

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

The Trump administration last year asked the high court to review a 2024 split decision from a panel of judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that affirmed a lower court’s order finding the policy violated administrative procedure law. 

The lower court found that the “turn back policy” was illegal because CBP had a duty to inspect and process asylum seekers arriving at ports of entry. 

The Supreme Court said in November it had decided to take the case, Noem v. Al Otro Lado.

Border doesn’t count, government says

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued in briefs that a person has only arrived in the country once they are on U.S. soil.

“In ordinary English, a person ‘arrives in’ a country only when he comes within its borders,” Sauer wrote. “An alien thus does not ‘arrive in’ the United States while he is still in Mexico.”

He also argued that the appeals court decision interferes with the president’s “ability to manage the southern border” and set immigration policy.

“Before this litigation, border officials had repeatedly addressed migrant surges by standing at the border and preventing aliens without valid travel documents from entering,” Sauer said. 

“The decision below declares that practice unlawful, on the theory that aliens stopped on the Mexican side of the border have a statutory right to apply for asylum in the United States and to be inspected by federal immigration officers.” 

“The decision thus deprives the Executive Branch of a critical tool for addressing border surges and for preventing overcrowding at ports of entry along the border,” he continued.

“For people fleeing persecution the stakes are literally life and death,” said Melissa Crow, one of the attorneys representing Al Otro Lado, an organization that provides legal and humanitarian assistance to refugees and migrants, and a class of asylum seekers, who spoke to reporters before oral arguments. 

No current or future implications

Crow, who has represented Al Otro Lado since the initial challenge to the metering policy in 2017, said “there is no reason to do this” because the policy the Trump administration is challenging has been defunct since the Biden administration ended it in 2021.

Because the federal government rescinded the metering policy before the lower court could enter a final judgment, the brief from Al Otro Lado argues that the challenge presented to the justices “thus has almost no present implications, and likely no future implications either.”

“The government nonetheless urges the Court to grant review just in case it decides at some point in the future to reinstate metering,” according to the brief from advocates.

The challengers of the policy also argue it could give the administration another tool in its immigration crackdown.

“While this case focuses on one defunct policy, we have no doubt the administration is seeking a decision that will give them even more leeway to restrict the rights of people fleeing persecution,” Crow said. 

Crow said she opposed the review by the justices, adding that “there are many other restrictions on the books that are preventing migrants from seeking asylum,” that should be addressed. 

The Rev. Liz Theoharis, the executive director at the Kairos Center for Religions, Rights, and Social Justice, also briefed reporters. She leads a coalition of 31 faith groups that have submitted a brief in support of the groups and asylum seekers challenging the Trump administration’s move to overturn a court decision that blocked the metering policy.  

“Every major faith tradition makes protecting the stranger a core value,” Theoharis said. “Protecting and welcoming the immigrant is one of Jesus’s first and most powerful teachings.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative justices on Monday appeared skeptical of the validity of mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day, in a case that could potentially affect hundreds of thousands of voters during the upcoming midterm elections.

The high court heard arguments on whether federal law overrides a Mississippi law that requires mail-in ballots that are postmarked on or before Election Day to be counted as long as they arrive within five business days of the election. Fourteen states have similar laws, which extend a “grace period” to ballots that arrive through the mail after polls close.

Several conservative justices raised concerns with allowing ballots to arrive after Election Day, including whether voters could recall ballots once they’ve shipped them but before they arrive at election offices. Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned whether late-arriving ballots risk undermining election confidence.

“‘The longer after Election Day any significant changes in vote totals take place, the greater the risk that the losing side will cry the election has been stolen,’” Kavanaugh said, quoting from an analysis by a New York University law professor.

The case comes before the Supreme Court at a moment of broader attacks against mail-in voting. Four Republican-led states eliminated their ballot arrival grace periods last year. And Congress is mulling proposals that would restrict voting by mail amid a sprawling debate in the U.S. Senate over legislation demanded by President Donald Trump that would impose sweeping new voter restrictions nationwide. That legislation, known as the SAVE Act, is unlikely to pass because of the filibuster.

The Republican National Committee is challenging Mississippi’s grace period law. The party contends a longstanding federal law that sets the Tuesday after the first Monday in November as Election Day for federal offices preempts state laws that allow ballots cast by Election Day, but received later, to count.

Paul Clement, an attorney for the Republican National Committee, argued the prospect that the outcome of an election could change because of ballots arriving after Election Day would be unacceptable to losing candidates. After the 2020 election, President Donald Trump demanded election officials not count ballots that came in after Election Day. States kept counting ballots.

“If you have an election and the election is going to turn on late-arriving ballots in a way that means what everybody kind of thought was the result on Election Day ends up being the opposite a week later, 21 days later, the losers are not going to accept that result. Full stop,” Clement told the justices.

Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson, a Republican who is defending the state law, argues that federal law allows ballots cast by Election Day to be received later. In legal filings, attorneys for the secretary argue both legal and historical precedent support his position. States may decide that voters have made their final choices when ballots are submitted to state officials rather than when they’re received, according to Watson.

On Monday, the justices appeared divided along ideological lines, with conservative justices skeptical of the grace periods and liberal justices more sympathetic. Conservatives hold a 6-3 majority on the court.

“It seems to me that we have a very long history of states having a variety of different ballot receipt deadlines, to include after Election Day,” said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the court’s liberal members.

Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart told the court the dispute is over whether Congress in an 1845 law blocked states from counting ballots cast by Election Day but received later. “No one challenged it until now,” Stewart said.

At least 725,000 ballots were postmarked by Election Day 2024 and arrived within a legally accepted post-election window, The New York Times has reported, citing election officials in 14 of 22 states and territories where late-arriving ballots were accepted that year.

About 30% of voters cast a mail ballot in 2024, according to data gathered by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in October 2024 that federal law requires ballots to be received by Election Day. Trump likewise issued an executive order last year that attempted to require that mail ballots be received by the end of Election Day and to impose other election changes, but much of the order has been blocked by federal courts.

Rick Hasen, a professor and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at the University of California-Los Angeles School of Law, wrote on his Election Law Blog that it was clear from Monday’s arguments that the Supreme Court will be closely divided, “and the case could come out either way.” A decision is expected later in the spring or early summer.

Caleb Hays, chief policy counsel at the Center for Election Confidence, a conservative-leaning legal advocacy group that opposes ballot grace periods, said his organization was pleased that the justices appeared to pick up on the need for a clear end to the voting period. He also welcomed the justices raising the issue of recalling ballots when they are delivered through the mail or by a third-party service like FedEx.

“That brings into question some of the arguments we saw from (Mississippi) on a ballot being final when it is cast and cast includes when it is deposited in a mailbox,” Hays said in an interview.

As the legal challenge made its way through the courts over the past two years, some Republican-led states moved to eliminate their grace periods. Kansas, North Dakota, Ohio and Utah last year moved to require all or nearly all ballots to be in the hands of election officials on Election Day to count.

The states that continue to extend grace periods for ballots arriving after Election Day are Alaska, California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, Washington and West Virginia, along with the District of Columbia.

Some local election officials have urged the Supreme Court to uphold ballot grace periods. A decision that strikes down state laws’ grace periods would increase the administrative burdens on many election officials, said a collection of election officials and local governments in California, Massachusetts and Washington in an amicus brief.

“(Grace periods) enable administrators in large and small jurisdictions to do their essential work in a timely and reasonable manner,” the brief says.

If the Supreme Court requires that ballots must arrive on or before Election Day, Clement suggested election officials would have enough time to prepare ahead of November. He said such a decision wouldn’t violate the Purcell principle, a Supreme Court doctrine holding that major changes to election policy and practice shouldn’t be made just before an election because voters could get confused. 

The federal law at issue pertains to general elections, not primary elections, he noted — meaning the court’s decision would apply only to the November election.

“There’s plenty of time,” Clement said.

Stateline reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@stateline.org.

A federal district court judge granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel and a coalition of 21 states and the District of Columbia blocking a declaration from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that would pressure health care providers to stop providing care to transgender youth. 

In a press release from her office on Monday morning, Nessel said that Judge Mustafa Kasubhai, in federal district court in the District of Oregon, ruled that the administration cannot threaten to cut off hospitals and clinics from Medicare and Medicaid, for providing this type of care.

“Politicians should never drive medical decision-making,” Nessel said in the press release. “I am relieved that the Court has affirmed that the federal government cannot unlawfully interfere with doctors providing essential healthcare, including treatments like puberty blockers and hormone therapy. My office remains committed to protecting access to necessary care for young transgender individuals.”

The lawsuit, first filed in late December 2025, challenged a “declaration” posted to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services website by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. titled “Safety, Effectiveness, and Professional Standards of Care for Sex-Rejecting Procedures on Children and Adolescents,” which says that gender-affirming health care procedures “are neither safe nor effective as a treatment modality for gender dysphoria, gender incongruence, or other related disorders in minors, and therefore, fail to meet professional recognized standards of health care.”

The declaration continues to say that “the Secretary ‘may’ exclude individuals or entities from participation in any Federal health care program if the Secretary determines the individual or entity has furnished or caused to be furnished items or services to patients of a quality which fails to meet professionally recognized standards of health care.”

The lawsuit argues that the declaration “exceeds the Secretary’s authority and violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Medicare and Medicaid statutes,” making it illegal.

In the states’ motion for summary judgment in early January, they argue that “Excluding children’s hospitals and providers (including pediatricians and endocrinologists) would devastate States’ provider networks, strain the capacity of the remaining providers, and harm the large number of residents in each State that depend on Medicare and Medicaid,” and because of its impact on states, could be blocked by a motion for summary judgment.

Wisconsin will officially join the 22 U.S. states that have sought permission from the federal government to ban Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients from purchasing candy and/or soda with their benefits.

Gov. Tony Evers signed AB 180, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 116, on Monday. In his remarks, Evers celebrated additional funds included in the bill that are meant to keep the state’s payment error rate low but ignored the candy and soda ban that the law will also implement.

Evers, who is serving out his final term in office, said in a statement that he was glad to sign the bill.

“In spite of the chaos at the federal level and the continued attacks on our FoodShare program, I am proud of the work my administration has done over the past year to ensure our kids, families, veterans and seniors across our state receive the resources they need to access basic food and groceries. As long as I am governor, I will continue to do everything in my power to protect Wisconsin families and taxpayers from the harmful decisions of the Trump Administration,” he said in the statement released by his office. 

The bill, coauthored by Rep. Clint Moses (R-Menomonie) and Sen. Chris Kapenga (R-Delafield), initially sought only to implement the ban, but additional funds were attached through an amendment after negotiations with Evers. 

Evers started seeking additional state funds for FoodShare last year after President Donald Trump signed a federal tax and spending law that made many changes to the SNAP program. Those changes included cutting the federal government’s coverage of administrative costs from 75% to 50%, eliminating funding for nutrition education programs and steepening penalties for states that have payment error rates over 6%. 

Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Republicans across the country, including in Wisconsin, have been pushing to ban soda and candy for SNAP recipients, saying it will help keep people healthy. Democrats have criticized the measure, saying it will stigmatize already disadvantaged children and families. Several Democrats, including Evers, provided support for the measure after lawmakers attached more than $70 million for the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS) to support administration of the program. 

The Wisconsin DHS had estimated that federal penalties could cost the state over $200 million a year. 

DHS Secretary Kirsten Johnson said in a statement that “ensuring the FoodShare program has the resources we need to meet new federal requirements is critical to maintaining access to essential nutrition benefits for Wisconsin families and saving Wisconsin taxpayer dollars.”

Wisconsin will now submit a waiver to the federal government to implement its candy and soda prohibition. The bill also includes more than $3 million so the state health department  can create and maintain an electronic platform to help with implementation of the prohibition.

Evers told reporters last week that he didn’t agree with barring people from buying certain foods but it was “one of those things called compromise.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A Democrat who originally hoped to be the party’s 1st Congressional District candidate in 2024 is making his second run for the party’s nomination this year.

Lorenzo Santos is leaving his job as Racine County’s emergency services director in April after declaring his candidacy at the end of February. While focusing on rising costs that average Wisconsinites are bearing, he also holds himself out as having a depth of experience and knowledge that will make him more effective if he is elected in November.

Santos’ entry this cycle follows announcements from a half-dozen Democratic hopefuls for the 1st CD — more than have run at one time for the seat in the last two decades.

But the ground is shifting under the feet of candidates — and voters — in the  district. Two hopefuls dropped out earlier this year, and a third hasn’t been heard from since the end of January. That leaves three active candidates in addition to Santos.

Santos said he decided to try again as he saw the fallout from Trump administration policies, ranging from tariffs that have sent prices soaring to federal immigration officers being turned loose on immigrant communities. He focuses his campaign message on the Republican 1st CD incumbent, U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil, not on his Democratic rivals.

“I think they’re all great people,” Santos said of the rest of the Democratic field. But, he added, he believes his experience makes him best positioned to serve effectively in the House.

“We’re about to have a majority,” Santos said. “And it’s going to be important that that majority bring that knowledge to the forefront so that they can hold this president and this administration accountable and make sure that the worst instincts are not allowed to run amok like they have done.”

The 1st CD runs from Lake Michigan to Rock County. Until 1994 it had been reliably Democratic for about two decades. From 1998 to 2018, Republican Paul Ryan held the seat, rising to Speaker of the House and repeatedly winning by roughly a 2-to-1 margin.

Steil, a corporate lawyer and former Ryan aide, ran and won the seat in 2018 after Ryan retired. His opponent was ironworker Randy Bryce, who came closer to winning that year than previous Democrats had during Ryan’s 20 years in office.

In 2024, Santos was one of two Democrats in the 1st CD Democratic primary contest when Peter Barca entered the race. Santos and the other Democrat withdrew and endorsed Barca — a longtime Assembly leader and then Department of Revenue secretary. Barca also was the last Democrat to represent the 1st CD in Congress — for a single term three decades earlier.

Steil went on to win his fourth term. But Santos said he has no regrets about his decision to step aside for Barca in 2024.

Bryce is also running again this year. The other Democrats are Mitchell Berman, an emergency room nurse, and Miguel Aranda, a university administrator.

Gage Stills, a Racine activist, dropped out of the contest in January, citing family responsibilities. Enrique Casiano, a Janesville nurse, ended his campaign in March. A third declared candidate, Travis Beckius of Kenosha County, has not posted on his campaign’s Facebook page since January, and his campaign website has lapsed.

Santos served in the U.S. Navy, then worked as a manufacturing sales manager. He moved to Wisconsin after accepting a job reassignment to a 12-state region centered on the state. He went on to get a graduate degree in Homeland Security and switched careers to emergency management, working for local and county government.

Santos is focusing his congressional campaign on what has become a nearly universal theme for Democrats in 2026. He said he’s running  because “one of the biggest things we’re seeing right now is we’re having an affordability crisis.”

When the government shutdown in October and early November 2025 cut off food assistance benefits, known as SNAP, President Donald Trump “basically was fighting against people all across the country” who had relied on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Santos said. “That’s a microcosm of how this administration looks at people that are struggling and that need support.”

Trump’s tariffs on imports are further hurting the public, he said.

“He believes that it’s going to help us take in more money,” Santos said of Trump. “But the punchline there is that that’s coming from the end consumer. That’s coming from everyday consumers that are already struggling, and we’re taking more money out of their pockets.”

His message to 1st CD voters is that the Republican majority in Congress — including Steil — is failing to represent their interests, Santos said. That goes back to the tax- and spending-cut bill that Republicans passed and Trump signed in 2025 under the name of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” he said.

“We watched this big beautiful bill — which is really just a huge ugly lie. That is one of the biggest tax cuts in the nation’s history for the wealthy and corporations while we raise the cost of health care or eliminate it all together for everyday Americans,” Santos said.

“Bryan Steil voted for that. The president signed it into law,” Santos said, and congressional Republicans are “rubber-stamping” Trump.

 “They’re enabling someone who frankly does not actually understand government,” Santos said. “And we need a Congress that is going to be able to hold the line and fight for working families, especially when they’re struggling.”

He also criticized the war on Iran that the U.S. and Israel launched at the beginning of March, and criticized Republican congressional leaders for not asserting their authority over warfare.

“We need to ensure that we have a Congress that is clear-eyed about what this administration is doing,” Santos said. “They are sending us head-first into another protracted conflict with no meaningful objectives and no clear exit strategy.”

Steil, he added, “has not said anything to that effect because, frankly, he’s just there to rubber stamp anything the president wants to do.”

The Cook Political Report has rated the 1st CD as “Likely Republican” in its most recent summary, dated March 12, and Steil reported having nearly $5 million on hand as of late January.

Santos said he intends to overcome that advantage by persuading voters “that we’re here for them.”

“We will definitely be putting forward an operation that can compete with his fundraising,” Santos said. But, he added, “it’s not all about the fundraising. It’s also about having a candidate that actually stands up for their constituents.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

(The Center Square) – Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers signed a bill Monday that would send $72 million to the state’s FoodShare program along with banning candy and soda purchases in Wisconsin’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

(The Center Square) – As voters get ready to cast their votes in Wisconsin’s April election, there is a reminder about just what’s on the ballot.