As the air quality reached unhealthy levels in Wisconsin recently, some summer camp leaders opted to move children inside.
The post Days of wildfire smoke forced Wisconsin summer camps to pivot appeared first on WPR.
Completed in 1940, the three-story, six-wing Sheboygan Asylum hasn't treated patients for more than two decades. Originally the Sheboygan County hospital, the facility cared for people living with mental illness, developmental disabilities and substance abuse disorders. Now, the Fox Valley Ghost Hunters offers tours of its abandoned halls.
The post Ghost hunters tour halls of Sheboygan Asylum for signs from beyond appeared first on WPR.
As smaller newspapers struggle to stay open, some local Wisconsin publishers are finding success through the trust they build in their communities.
The post Wisconsin’s small newspapers endure by fostering community connections appeared first on WPR.
A federal agency has granted approval for two northern Wisconsin energy projects under a fast-tracked permitting process in line with President Donald Trump’s declaration of a national energy emergency earlier this year.
The post Federal approval granted to northern Wisconsin projects under Trump administration’s fast-tracked process appeared first on WPR.
The Pacific campaign of the Battle of Okinawa involves an amphibious invasion of great scale.
The post American Experience:Victory in the Pacific appeared first on WPR.
The state of Wisconsin is offering up to $100 million in performance-based tax incentives to support pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly’s $4 billion investment in Kenosha County, Gov. Tony Evers announced Tuesday.
The post Wisconsin offering up to $100M in development incentives to Eli Lilly’s Kenosha County project appeared first on WPR.
Exploring the ancestry of actress Sharon Stone and model Chrissy Teigen includes traveling across Europe and Thailand.
The post Finding Your Roots With Henry Louis Gates, Jr.:Dreamers One and All appeared first on WPR.
Disabled people and their caregivers could face several simultaneous obstacles from different federal actions, according to the Wisconsin Board for People with Developmental Disabilities.
The post Wisconsin advocate says federal actions could compound harm to people with disabilities appeared first on WPR.
Photo by Architect of the Capitol | U.S. government work via Flickr
The July jobs report released last Friday wasn’t pretty. It showed weaker than anticipated U.S. job growth in July, and there were substantial downward revisions of jobs numbers for May and June as well. Economists predicted a slowdown. The chaos of tariff threats has created substantial uncertainty, which is bad for the economy, and the tariffs that have gone into effect have raised prices. It’s no surprise, then, that we’re seeing a slowdown in jobs.
Moody’s chief economist Mark Zandi noted on social media, “It’s no mystery why the economy is struggling; blame increasing U.S. tariffs and highly restrictive immigration policy. The tariffs are cutting increasingly deeply into the profits of American companies and the purchasing power of American households. Fewer immigrant workers means a smaller economy.”
But instead of reflecting on mistakes in economic policy or offering some austerity suggestion, like limiting U.S. children to two dolls each , President Donald Trump blamed the messenger, firing the government official in charge of the data release, commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Erika McEntarfer. He baselessly asserted that the bad news was “concocted” and suggested that he knows better than the data. The economy is great, according to him, and he will find a commissioner to tell him so.
Trump’s approach is a disaster for economic decision making and for public trust. The BLS is an independent agency with a strong legacy of providing the data that businesses, analysts and policymakers need. Good economic decisions require reliable data. As the American Economics Association wrote: “The BLS has long had a well-deserved reputation for professional excellence and nonpartisan integrity. Safeguarding this tradition is vital for the continued health of the U.S. economy and public trust in our institutions.”
The BLS monthly jobs report provides a timely snapshot of labor market dynamics which inform investing and hiring decisions as well as policy choices. BLS data also measures the rate of inflation through the consumer price index. The rising price of goods is not only a key economic indicator but also the scale by which Social Security payments are adjusted and a point of reference in private and union wage negotiations.
BLS data are essential to understanding what is going on in the economy, when a slowdown is emerging, and the cost of daily life. The independence and integrity of the agency, long assumed and supported by both parties, is now under attack.
Wisconsinites lived through something like this more than a decade ago. Former Republican Gov. Scott Walker promised to create 250,000 jobs in his first term. He focused on the goal relentlessly, at least until it became clear that he would not meet it. (In fact, the Wisconsin economy didn’t even meet Walker’s first term goal across his two terms – adding just 233,000 jobs by the time he left office after serving for eight years.)
In the first years of Walker’s “relentless focus on jobs” under his administration’s tagline “Wisconsin is Open for Business,” the monthly numbers showed that Wisconsin’s economy was growing more slowly than the national labor market and neighboring states.
Walker blamed the data. He insisted that we wait instead for a federal source which was more reliable, but had a substantial time lag. As someone who watches this data, I can assure that this was the only time in my three-decade career when differences between monthly and quarterly sources of federal jobs data were a policy talking point.
But in the end, the data issue was just a distraction from the truth. Wisconsin was growing more slowly, and no amount of complaining about the data or waiting for another source on jobs could change that fact. Eventually, the Walker administration went silent on both the data and the promised 250,000 jobs.
Trump’s approach is worse than waiting for another source of data. His firing of the commissioner suggests that he’ll only accept data that confirms his narrative. And that makes it harder for any of us to trust any data the federal government is willing to release.
That’s bad for the economy and bad for democracy. As narrow and nerdy as this topic may seem, we all have an interest in facts and reliable data. We have had a government infrastructure capable of producing it. We lose it at our own peril.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
A school bus drives along a rural road outside of Kenosha, Wis. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act established a national tax credit scholarship program, but state leaders can decide whether and how to participate. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
When President Donald Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, he gave state leaders — not federal regulators — the power to decide whether and how to participate in the first-ever national tax credit scholarship program.
That decision now looms largest in blue states, where Democratic governors and lawmakers must weigh whether to reject the law outright on ideological grounds — or try to reshape it into something that reflects their own values.
“This isn’t the federal voucher program we were worried about five years ago,” said Jon Valant, a senior fellow in governance studies at the left-leaning Brookings Institution who testified before Congress on earlier versions of the bill. “It still has serious problems — but states now have tools to mold it into something they might actually support.”
The final law gives states wide discretion, he said. They can opt out entirely. They can opt in passively, leaving the program to operate as written. Or, as Valant suggests, they can try to redraw its footprint — focusing less on private school tuition and more on public school supports like tutoring, transportation and enrichment services in underserved districts.
“My hope is that blue states take a hard look and ask: Can this be used to address our own needs?”
For progressives and education advocates who are wary of school vouchers, the decision is fraught. Opting in could draw criticism for approving what many see as a vehicle for privatization of K-12 education. But opting out could mean turning down federal dollars — education money that states with budding or robust private school voucher infrastructures, such as Arizona and Florida, will gladly take.
“There’s money on the table, and it can be used for more than just private school tuition,” Valant said. “If blue states want to keep that money from reinforcing inequality, they’ll have to get creative, and act fast.”
Since 2020, private school choice programs — once limited to low-income or special needs students — have rapidly expanded.
In 2023, $6.3 billion was spent nationwide on private school choice programs — less than 1% of total public K-12 operational spending, according to EdChoice, a nonprofit that advocates for school choice measures. From 2023-24 to 2024-25, participation in universal private school choice programs surged nearly 40%, growing from roughly 584,000 to 805,000 students in just one school year.
By 2026-27, about half of all U.S. students will be eligible, according to estimates by FutureEd, an independent think tank at Georgetown University.
These trends, combined with new federal tax credit, could fundamentally reshape the education funding landscape across state governments, experts say.
“States will need to decide whether to encourage the redirection of funding to support private and religious schools — either by expanding existing voucher programs or, if they don’t have one, by introducing such a program for the first time,” said Sasha Pudelski, director of advocacy for AASA, The School Superintendents Association. The group opposes the national voucher plan.
As of this May, 21 states operated tax credit scholarship programs with varying degrees of funding and oversight. According to the EdChoice Friedman Index, the states of Florida, Arkansas, Arizona and Alabama rank highest in private school access, with 100% of students eligible for school choice programs.
Some states, like Florida and Arizona, already have extensive tax credit scholarship systems. Others, including Texas, are building new infrastructure such as statewide voucher programs and education savings accounts, known as ESAs.
States with no current programs face decisions about participation, regulation and equity, but without clear federal guardrails, education advocates told Stateline.
The federal policy builds on existing state-level tax credit scholarship programs — such as Alabama’s — but significantly expands eligibility, removes scholarship caps and broadens allowable uses to include not just tuition, but also tutoring, therapy, transportation and academic support services. Beginning in 2027, scholarships will be excluded from federal taxable income.
Valant, of Brookings, told Stateline that some of his initial concerns were addressed in the version of the bill signed into law.
“There was a very realistic scenario in the earlier version of the bill where a small number of very wealthy people could essentially make money off this,” Valant said. “That was mostly addressed.”
The enacted version eliminates stock donations and caps individual tax credits at $1,700. And with states that opt in having the power to shape their own program, Valant said that gives them the chance to establish their own guardrails, such as income eligibility caps or nondiscrimination policies for participating schools.
If blue states want to keep that money from reinforcing inequality, they’ll have to get creative, and act fast.
– Jon Valant, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution
The scholarship-granting organizations, known as SGOs, would then be subject to new state regulations about where the money can go.
“States could say SGOs can’t give money to schools that discriminate based on sexual orientation. … There’s quite a lot of room here for state regulation,” he said.
Looking ahead, Valant said he’ll be watching how states interpret their regulatory powers — and how effective scholarship-granting organizations are at fundraising under the new rules, which prohibit large stock gifts and rely instead on millions of smaller donations.
“Now it’s a strange pitch: ‘Can you front me $300 to give to the SGO? I swear the IRS will give it back,’” he said. “It’s going to take time to figure out how to sell this to families.”
Concerns over transparency and equity remain. The program allows donors, scholarship-granting organizations and families to direct funds with little public accountability, critics say. And in states without robust oversight, Valant warns that funds could be misused — or channeled to institutions that exclude students based, for example, on identity or beliefs about sexual orientation.
He also emphasized that early participation is likely to skew toward families already in private schools, particularly in wealthier ZIP codes — mirroring patterns seen in programs in Arizona, Florida and Georgia.
“One big risk is that the funds will disproportionately flow to wealthier families — just like we’ve seen in many ESA programs,” Valant said.
FutureEd studied eight states — Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Oklahoma and West Virginia — where 569,000 students participated in school choice programs at a cost to taxpayers of $4 billion in 2023-24.
The FutureEd analysis found significant differences among the states in design, funding and oversight.
Arizona’s ESA program was the first of its kind in 2011, and also the first to shift toward universal eligibility in 2022.
Florida operated the largest and most expensive program, with broad eligibility, no caps or accreditation requirements, and a major influx of higher-income families, though it mandated some university-led performance reviews. Iowa fully funded ESAs and, like other states, saw mostly existing private school families benefit.
Arkansas had a cautious rollout due to legal delays and geographic clustering of participants, while West Virginia allowed spending across state lines with no performance reporting.
Newcomer North Carolina began with income-based prioritization but quickly expanded under political pressure or demand, while Alabama and Louisiana will launch ESA programs in 2025-26 using general state revenues.
Utah enacted a universal voucher program in 2023, providing up to $8,000 per student for private school or homeschool expenses. A state teachers union sued, arguing that participating schools were not “free and open to all children” and that the program diverted public school funds. A state court this April ruled the program was unconstitutional.
As the new federal law opens the door for tax-credit-funded tuition support, Texas is building its first universal school voucher program, aided through ESAs to begin in the 2026-27 school year. The program is funded with $1 billion over two years, with $10,000-$11,000 per student — up to $30,000 for students with disabilities and $2,000 for homeschoolers.
The Texas comptroller will oversee the program, and private schools must be open for at least two years to be eligible for funds.
Voucher programs can drain state budgets, and budget wonks predict the cost for Texas could rise to around $4.8 billion by 2030, The Texas Tribune reported.
A spokesperson for the Texas comptroller’s office said that details are still being finalized; the state has issued a request for proposals due Aug. 4 to select eligible educational assistance organizations that would help funnel scholarship dollars to schools.
Other states may be more cautious. The Missouri National Education Association filed a lawsuit this summer to block $51 million in state appropriations to private school scholarships through the MOScholars program. The suit argues that using general revenue rather than private donations violates the state constitution and undermines public education funding.
Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org.
Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
The James H. Shannon Building (Building One) on the NIH campus in Bethesda, Maryland. (Photo by Lydia Polimeni,/National Institutes of Health)
President Donald Trump’s freeze on $8 billion of congressionally appropriated funding to the National Institutes of Health was illegal, the Government Accountability Office reported Tuesday.
Orders Trump signed in the early days of his return to office and related administration directives violated the Impoundment Control Act by failing to spend money that Congress, which holds the power of the purse under the Constitution, had approved, the GAO report said.
Roughly 1,800 grants for health research were held up by the administration, the report said.
Trump’s Inauguration Day order ceased funding for a variety of health research grants that related to diversity, equity and inclusion, transgender issues or environmental harms. The Department of Health and Human Services issued a memo directing its agencies, including NIH, to cease publishing notices in the Federal Register of meetings of grant review boards.
GAO, an independent investigatory agency that reports to Congress, called those meetings “a key step in NIH’s grant review process.” HHS has since restarted notices of the meetings.
From February to June, the NIH released $8 billion less than it obligated in the past two years, representing a drop-off of more than one-third, according to the GAO. The gap between 2025 spending and that of previous years continued to grow, GAO said, with NIH obligating a lower amount of grant funding each month.
The failure to fund grant awards violated the Impoundment Control Act and the Constitution, which certified Congress as the branch of government responsible for funding decisions, said GAO.
If a law is passed by Congress and signed by a president, it must be carried out by the executive branch, the watchdog said.
“The President must ‘faithfully execute’ the law as Congress enacts it,” the report said. “Once enacted, an appropriation is a law like any other, and the President must implement it by ensuring that appropriated funds are obligated and expended prudently during their period of availability unless and until Congress enacts another law providing otherwise. … The Constitution grants the President no unilateral authority to withhold funds from obligation.”
There are specific circumstances that allow for a funding freeze — a rescissions law, such as the one Congress passed last month to defund public broadcasters and foreign aid, is one example — but they did not apply to this case, the GAO said.
Delays may be permissible to allow a new presidential administration to ensure grants are awarded based on its priorities. But a complete block on funding is illegal, the GAO said. There is no evidence that other grant awards — or any other type of funding at HHS — took the place of the $8 billion in unspent grant money, the report said.
“While it can be argued that NIH reviewed grants to ensure that funds were spent in alignment with the priorities of the new administration, NIH did not simply delay the planned obligations of the funds,” the GAO said. “Rather, NIH eliminated obligations entirely by terminating grants it had already awarded.”
GAO can sue the executive branch based on its findings. The report noted there is already litigation from other parties over the frozen grants.
Congressional Democrats responded to the report by harshly criticizing Trump and White House Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought and calling for the funds’ release.
“This is simple – Congress passed and the President signed into law investments in NIH research to help find cures and treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, ALS, diabetes, mental health issues, and maternal mortality,” U.S. House Appropriations Committee ranking Democrat Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut said in a statement. “But now, GAO has determined that President Trump and OMB Director Vought illegally withheld billions in funding for research on diseases affecting millions of American families—research that brings hope to countless people suffering.”
Senate Appropriations Vice Chair Patty Murray, a Washington state Democrat, said in a statement the funding freeze “dangerously set back” efforts to cure cancer, Alzheimer’s and other diseases.
“Today’s decision affirms what we’ve known for months: President Trump is illegally blocking funding for medical research and shredding the hopes of patients across the country who are counting on NIH-backed research to propel new treatments and cures that could save their lives,” Murray said. “It is critical President Trump reverse course, stop decimating the NIH, and get every last bit of this funding out.”
An HHS spokesperson deferred a request for comment Tuesday to OMB.
An agency investigated by the GAO is generally given a draft of the watchdog’s findings and asked to respond.
The HHS response, obtained by States Newsroom, said grant reviews were back on schedule, though it did not address grant obligations.
“Despite the short delay in scheduling and holding peer review and advisory council meetings to allow for the administration transition, NIH has been on pace with its reviewing grant applications and holding meetings and has caught up from the pause when compared to prior years,” the response said.
GAO’s summary of the HHS response said the department had restarted meetings of grant review boards and provided some “factual information” but did not justify the lack of grant spending or provide current status of payments for previously approved grants.
Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrive at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 20, 2025 in Washington, D.C. , for the inauguration of Donald Trump as president. (Photo by Shawn Thew-Pool/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — The House Committee on Oversight issued subpoenas Tuesday for testimony from former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, among other ex-government officials from both Democratic and Republican administrations, regarding knowledge of Florida sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Committee Chair James Comer of Kentucky also subpoenaed the U.S. Department of Justice for records of Epstein’s federal sex trafficking investigation. Comer gave the department until Aug. 19 to turn over the files.
Comer issued the subpoenas following bipartisan committee support in late July to compel the release of records after President Donald Trump backtracked on his promise to open the files.
Epstein, who pleaded guilty to sex crimes in Florida in 2008, died in a New York City jail cell in August 2019 while awaiting federal trial on sex trafficking charges. Epstein’s co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of a wealthy media mogul, is serving a 20-year sentence in federal prison for her role in the sex trafficking scheme.
The former financier had surrounded himself with wealthy and powerful figures, including Trump and the Clintons, among many other influential people.
In letters to several former government officials, Comer wrote that congressional oversight of the government’s investigation of Epstein is “imperative.”
“The Committee may use the results of this investigation to inform legislative solutions to improve federal efforts to combat sex trafficking and reform the use of non-prosecution agreements and/or plea agreements in sex-crime investigations. Given your past relationships with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell, the Committee believes that you have information regarding their activities that is relevant to the Committee’s investigation,” according to the letters.
In addition to the Clintons, Comer also subpoenaed testimony from:
Comer outlined a span of deadlines for the depositions into early October.
Comer previously subpoenaed Maxwell for an Aug. 11 deposition. The Kentucky lawmaker denied Maxwell’s request for immunity but agreed to delay her testimony to the committee, according to multiple media reports.
Attention on the federal case against Epstein swelled after the Justice Department, under current Attorney General Pam Bondi, declined to publicly release case files, as Trump had promised on the campaign trail.
According to an unsigned July 7 Justice Department memo, “a systemic review revealed no incriminating ‘client list,’” and department and FBI officials concluded that “no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.”
The declaration sparked an uproar among lawmakers and Trump’s voter base, including some in his own administration. The president’s supporters, and Trump himself, have long been fixated on what they describe as the “Epstein files,” with some perpetuating conspiracy theories.
House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana sent lawmakers home early for August break to avoid votes compelling the release of material.
Details of the president’s past relationship with Epstein also surfaced, including a report from the Wall Street Journal that Trump gave the financier a 50th birthday note featuring a cryptic message and the outline of a naked woman with Trump’s signature mimicking pubic hair. The president denied making the note and swiftly sued the Journal.
The outlet also reported that Bondi briefed Trump in May that his name appeared in the Epstein materials. The context in which Trump appeared in the files is unknown.
Trump has since called for the release of grand jury testimony in the case, which a Florida judge denied.
Trump also dispatched Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, his former criminal defense lawyer, to interview Maxwell in Florida where she was being held.
The administration has since moved Maxwell to a Texas facility.
Former Gov. Tommy Thompson hasn't ruled out a run in 2026, while former Gov. Scott Walker has. Thompson pictured talking to reporters at the Republican National Convention in 2024. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner) Walker on the floor during the first day of the 2024 Republican National Convention. (Photo by Joeff Davis)
While Wisconsin’s incumbent governor is opting out of seeking a third term, the open and growing field has led a couple of former governors to stir conversation about whether they will run again in 2026 or beyond.
Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ decision not to run makes 2026 the first open race for governor since 2010, when Scott Walker, then the Milwaukee County executive, defeated Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett. Former Gov. Jim Doyle, who served from 2003 to 2011, had declined to run for a third term.
Evers said he chose not to run again next year because he wants to spend more time with his family.
Former Gov. Tommy Thompson did not rule out a run for governor in 2026 while speaking with 620 WTMJ on Monday afternoon.
“Why not?” Thompson said in response to the question about whether he would run for governor. “I haven’t said no. There’s a lot of good candidates and I have no desire to get in the race, but the truth of the matter is, I’ll wait and see what’s out there.”
There are two declared Republican candidates in the race so far: Washington County Josh Schoemann and Whitefish Bay manufacturer Bill Berrien. U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany has also been teasing a run for the last several weeks.
Only one Democratic candidate, Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez, has officially launched her campaign since Evers’ announcement on July 24. Other potential candidates include Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, Attorney General Josh Kaul, state Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) and former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes.
Thompson is the only governor in Wisconsin to have been elected to four terms, serving from 1987 to 2001. Wisconsin is one of 13 states in the U.S. without term limits on governors, according to Ballotpedia.
Thompson left the office to serve as President George W. Bush’s Health and Human Services secretary. He also previously served as University of Wisconsin system president. This is not the first time that he has floated seeking a potential fifth term, having mentioned it in 2022.
Thompson said Monday that his wife and children would be opposed to him running for another term, but he signaled that he feels he would be up to the task. By the time the next term starts, Thompson would be 85.
“I’m in great physical health. My mind is sharp as hell. I’ve got things that I’d like to accomplish, but it’s way too early for me to make that decision, way too early,” Thompson said.
Walker, who served two terms as governor, recently said he wouldn’t be running for governor in 2026 after making cryptic posts on social media that pointed to potential nonconsecutive terms. He lost the office to Evers in a close election in 2018.
“I’m not going to be a candidate, at least not next year. It doesn’t mean I’ll never run again,” he said in a video posted to social media. Walker, who is 57, added that he is a “quarter century” younger than former President Joe Biden.
“Looking ahead, though, Tonette [Walker] and I will do everything we can at our home here in Wisconsin to ensure that we elect a common sense conservative as governor in next year’s election,” he said.
Walker said he would be continuing his work as president of Young America’s Foundation, a conservative nonprofit focused on youth, and emphasized that Republicans need to do better outreach to young voters.
Wisconsin has only had one governor serve nonconsecutive terms.
Prior to Wisconsin adopting four-year terms for its governors, former Gov. Philip La Follette served his first term as governor from 1931 to 1933 as a Republican.
According to the National Governors Association, La Follette, the son of former U.S. Sen. “Fighting Bob” La Follette, spent a significant portion of his time in office seeking the expansion of public works, including highway construction, increased government control over the electric power and banking industries and helped set up an unemployment insurance program, which became a model for similar legislation in other states.
La Follette ran for another term in 1932 but was defeated by Democratic Gov. Albert G. Schmedeman.
After one term out of office, La Follette ran for governor again in 1934, this time as a third party candidate for the newly formed Progressive Party. He went on to serve a second and third term from 1935 to 1939.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
An elementary school student concentrates while performing a sit-up during physical education class. (Photo via Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump is bringing back a physical fitness test to public schools after over a decade, but details of the new test, including timing and implementation, remain to be seen.
Trump signed an executive order July 31 that reestablished the Presidential Fitness Test — a source of both fear and achievement among youth — and committed to revitalizing the “President’s Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition,” which would develop the test.
“Rates of obesity, chronic disease, inactivity, and poor nutrition are at crisis levels, particularly among our children,” the executive order notes. “These trends weaken our economy, military readiness, academic performance, and national morale.”
The president designated Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to administer the test.
The council is tasked with creating “school-based programs that reward excellence in physical education and develop criteria for a Presidential Fitness Award,” according to a White House fact sheet.
The order did not provide any details on what the test will look like or how or when it will roll out.
Laura Richardson, a clinical associate professor of kinesiology at the University of Michigan, said she hoped to see an updated version of the test that focused more on level of activity than on a student’s performance.
“I’m hopeful that maybe it will be reevaluated and revised and really have some tools that don’t just look at how fast you are or how strong you are, but more holistic in the tools we need to get our children to be active in childhood that should then continue through the trajectory into adulthood,” Richardson told States Newsroom.
Richardson added that testing alone would not be sufficient to see improvement in kids’ physical fitness, and called for increasing resources to schools to help students be more active.
“Sedentary behavior is really widespread — we’re seeing increasing obesity among all ages,” Richardson told States Newsroom. “We can test … but if we’re not giving the tools to the teachers and the students and the parents, we may continue to see the same data.”
Rep. Jeff Van Drew announced last week that he will introduce a bill to codify Trump’s executive order.
In a statement, the New Jersey Republican said he coordinated with the administration, including Kennedy, when writing the bill.
“Every parent wants their kid to grow up strong and healthy,” he added. “This bill is about making sure they are given the tools to do just that.”
The Presidential Fitness Test dates back to President Dwight Eisenhower, who set up the President’s Council on Youth Fitness in 1956 following alarming findings on the state of youth fitness in the United States compared to youth in European nations.
The test initially included sit-ups, a mile run, a shuttle run, pull-ups or push-ups and a sit-and-reach, according to Harvard Health.
Since then, the test has seen several versions. The most recent major revamp was in 2012, when President Barack Obama’s administration replaced the Presidential Fitness Test with the Presidential Youth Fitness Program, which aimed for a more individualized and health-focused approach.
The program, which came after criticism of the Presidential Fitness Test and concerns about its psychological effects on youth, aimed to minimize “comparisons between children and instead supports students as they pursue personal fitness goals for lifelong health,” according to the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion within the Department of Health and Human Services.
President John F. Kennedy, an uncle of the current HHS secretary, expanded on Eisenhower’s efforts. In a 1960 essay, “The Soft American,” the president-elect at the time described physical fitness as a “vital prerequisite to America’s realization of its full potential as a nation.”
According to HHS’ Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, President Kennedy also promoted “taking the 50 mile hikes previously required of U.S. Marine officers” in a national public service advertising campaign.
President Lyndon B. Johnson established the Presidential Physical Fitness Award Program in 1966 for “exceptional achievement by 10- to 17-year-old boys and girls,” per HHS.
Nearly all abortions, except those to save a patient’s life, would be banned at U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals and would no longer be covered by VA medical benefits under a rule proposed by the Trump administration. The policy change comes from the Project 2025 playbook. (Getty Images)
The Trump administration has taken its first step toward restricting access to abortions for veterans who are covered by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ medical benefits, reversing a 2022 rule.
Former Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration enacted the rule following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, which ended federally protected access to abortion. More than a dozen states implemented abortion bans after that decision, and the policy was meant to preserve access to abortion for veterans in certain circumstances, regardless of where they lived. Veterans Affairs medical centers were allowed to provide abortions in cases of rape or incest, and when the life or health of the pregnant person was in jeopardy. Counseling about abortion was also permitted.
Under the proposal, nearly all abortions, except those to save a patient’s life, would be banned at U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals and would no longer be covered by VA medical benefits.
In eight states with abortion bans, there are no rape or incest exceptions, including Texas, Alabama and Oklahoma, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Five states with bans also don’t have an exception in cases where the pregnant person’s health is at risk, only to save their life.
The rule also applies to recipients of the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA), which provides coverage to veterans’ families, including children, along with caregivers of veterans.
Officials wrote in the proposal that the 2022 policy was enacted because the administration expected increased “demand” for abortion services, but the rule cited abortion bans in several states that created an environment of uncertainty for veterans who might need care.
The Department of Veterans Affairs provided 88 abortions in the first year after the rule went into place, 64 of which were performed because of a threat to the pregnant person’s health, according to VA data reported by Military.com.
Rescinding the rule was a directive in Project 2025, the blueprint document published by the conservative Heritage Foundation and co-authored by anti-abortion organizations such as Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America. The first of what the document calls “needed reforms” calls for rescinding all department clinical policy directives that are “contrary to principles of conservative governance, starting with abortion services and gender reassignment surgery.”
“Neither aligns with service-connected conditions that would warrant VA’s providing this type of clinical care,” the Project 2025 document reads.
U.S. law already mandates that federal funding cannot be used for abortions except in cases of rape, incest and in certain medical circumstances. The administration argues the 2022 rule violated the “bright line between elective abortion and health care services” and should return to a policy that only allows abortion care to save the pregnant person’s life. Counseling about abortion options would no longer be permitted.
“Taken together, claims in the prior administrations rule that abortions throughout pregnancy are needed to save the lives of pregnant women are incorrect,” officials wrote in the proposed rule description. “Prior to September 9, 2022, abortions and abortion counseling were excluded from the medical benefits package, with no exceptions.”
According to estimates from nonprofit National Partnership for Women and Families, more than 400,000 women veterans lived in states that already had an abortion ban in place or were likely to ban it in 2023. That figure represents more than half of the women veterans in the country.
Public comment on the proposed rule will be accepted until Sept. 3.
A researcher surveys wild rice on the Pine River. (Wisconsin SEA Grant)
Through executive orders and the Republican reconciliation bill signed into law in July, the administration of President Donald Trump has cancelled or proposed the cancellation of about $75 million in grants and loans meant for climate-focused projects in Wisconsin, according to data collected by the environmental policy group Atlas Public Policy.
Federal Fallout
As federal funding and systems dwindle, states are left to decide how and whether to make up the difference. Read the latest
The cancelled projects include money for the state’s Department of Military Affairs to make infrastructure more resilient to climate change and a grant for the Milwaukee-based water quality non-profit Reflo, Inc. to help children in the city learn about sustainability and the environment.
Since taking office in January, Trump and congressional Republicans have attacked federal government efforts to address climate change by slashing programs and withholding money. Many of the projects that have lost money in Wisconsin were aimed at marginalized communities such as Native American tribes and Milwaukee’s Black residents — putting them in Trump’s crosshairs because of his aversion to diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.
Through the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act and the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the administration of President Joe Biden targeted billions of dollars to help communities undertake projects meant to help transition to renewable sources of energy, restore local waterways and make homes more energy efficient.
Under Trump, that money has been clawed back as Republicans have become even more hostile to efforts to address climate change. For example, U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, who represents much of northern Wisconsin and is considering running for governor next year, has spent a significant amount of time fighting the construction of solar energy in the state.
“The loss of this funding represents a profound missed opportunity for Wisconsin, especially for its most vulnerable and disadvantaged communities,” says Jaclyn Lea, an associate at Atlas Public Policy. “These canceled projects would have supported investments in communities building energy efficiency, workforce development, and climate resilience. The impact of these cancellations will be felt across the state, slowing progress on critical environmental and resilience efforts.”
Among the projects that have lost their funding is a grant program under the Inflation Reduction Act to help the city of Milwaukee’s Environmental Collaboration Office work with non-profit organizations to help residents of the city’s predominately Black north side and predominately Latino south side connect with programs to make their homes more energy efficient.
About $200,000 of the $1 million grant would have supported energy audits of 250 homes in the two neighborhoods. Many of the aging homes in the city have problems with old electrical systems, causing energy bills to rise for some of the city’s poorest residents and posing a fire risk. The program would have also helped connect residents with programs to weatherize their homes and remediate lead contamination.
Erick Shambarger, Milwaukee’s director of environmental sustainability, says the program would have helped the city’s lowest income residents — who are at the greatest risk of environmental harms — lower their energy costs while helping the city as a whole cut emissions.
It was rolled back as part of the tax- and spending-cut mega-bill that congressional Republicans passed this summer and Trump signed into law on July 4.
“We also have to do a better job of maintaining and improving our existing housing stock,” Shambarger says. “And this was one tool that we had to try to do that, and it got pulled away. And then now you look at all of the other things that the big, ugly bill did in terms of eliminating tax credits for energy efficiency and all of the rest. And so this isn’t just one [decision], there’s a real pullback at the feds to support low- to moderate-income households.”
He adds that the grant program project highlighted the ways it would help minority communities because that’s what the Biden administration was looking for, but he doesn’t think the program should be controversial.
“At the end of the day, we are trying to help the people that need the help the most, help them save on their energy bills and help them get their families stabilized, and create better environments for kids, and better environmental conditions for kids to have a better chance in life,” he says.
Shambarger says that political instability is one of the greatest obstacles to addressing climate change. The instability caused by the Trump administration taking back money the federal government had already promised to deliver makes it more difficult for industries and businesses relying on more predictable government action, he adds.
“It is just very, very frustrating just to not have the consistency of policy that we need to address the climate crisis,” he says. “It should be frustrating for every American, including our contractors, who have to plan for the future, who have to hire workers with skill sets, and all of that takes time to set up training programs for new industries. It takes time to build partnerships for the financing for all of this.”
Shambarger is particularly frustrated by the federal government canceling contracts in midstream.
“It’s one thing to say ‘wind down this contract, and maybe you don’t get renewed, and you have time to adjust,’” he says, “but to just terminate stuff without notice, without looking into the particulars of what our program was achieving is really, really disruptive.”
The effects of climate change are here, Shambarger says. Wisconsin and the Midwest have faced days of poor air quality because of wildfires across Canada this summer. Floods have continued to get worse every year.
Meanwhile, lower-income working Americans are getting less help, “and that’s too bad, because this country, in order for it to really be great, we’ve got to make sure that we are providing really safe and affordable housing that is climate resilient,” he says.
Global warming continues to heighten risks, from wildfire smoke in the Midwest air to floods and wildfires threatening cities, “and all of that threat is not going away,” Shambarger says. “We just appeal to all levels of government to recognize that there is something we can do about this … It’s a benefit to all Americans.”
Another project cancelled by the Trump administration is a $3 million grant meant to help researchers at the University of Wisconsin work with the Brothertown Indian Nation to restore wild rice habitat in the Lake Winnebago watershed and study the effects of that restoration on the lake’s water quality.
While the project would have helped the tribe connect with a plant that many of the state’s tribes view as sacred, it would also have served as a wetland restoration project on the drinking water source for hundreds of thousands of people in the Fox River valley. Wetland restoration is a major tool for improving water quality because wetlands can serve as a sort of filter to block potentially harmful nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrates from running off of farm fields and into the water system.
“There’s over 200,000 people that rely on Winnebago alone for drinking water, and we know the positive impact of having better health for that water,” Jessica Ryan, the tribe’s vice chair, says. “And the community has been trying to improve the water quality for a long period of time in that area. But there’s, there’s a long way to go yet. There’s tremendous negative impacts that have happened from prior generations. So we need to keep our foot on the gas.”
The grant was meant to fund five years of rice seeding and studying to see if the rice population can be increased and if that increase can improve the quality of water, both for drinking and for supporting populations of fish such as sturgeon and waterfowl such as geese and ducks. The grant was designed as a collaboration between indigenous and western methods of science and involved a number of the state’s tribes as well as local groups and farmers.
“We’d like to have the support of all of the state and the federal politicians to support us because we see the similarities in these interests,” Ryan says. “We see how it lifts up the entire community. Regardless of whether we’re American Indian or not, we have this common core value of looking after the land and the water.”
Those values are shared by local farmers and by the large tribal communities in the area — along with the Brothertown, the Oneida, the Stockbridge and the Menominee, she says.
The Brothertown Indian Nation began in 18th century New England as a community of Christian Native Americans. The tribe later moved west to Wisconsin to avoid the conflicts over land that pushed out most of the East Coast’s native populations. The tribe settled east of Lake Winnebago.
But in 1838 the federal government then tried to force the tribe out of Wisconsin and into Kansas. Looking for a way to prevent the government from taking their land, the tribe requested the allotment of their land and U.S. citizenship. Members believed that this would allow private ownership of their land and protect the tribe.
But unbeknownst to the members, this agreement terminated the federal government’s recognition of the tribe — ending its status as a sovereign nation. The tribe continues to work toward once again being recognized by the federal government. But Ryan says that the Trump administration’s cancellation of the Brothertown grant was especially painful because it was another promise to the tribe broken by the U.S. government.
“The federal government, in my opinion, has an opportunity to make it, to do the right thing, and they have chosen not to do the right thing,” she says. “They’ve chosen to do the opposite. And I don’t know what’s behind that decision making, right? Like, I don’t know if it’s a political decision, if it’s a racial decision, I don’t know what that is, but to us as the recipients who worked diligently, we’ve complied with all that’s been expected of us. We followed the rules, right? And the application process, it was a competitive process. We were selected. And to have the government again unilaterally go back on its word, it’s pretty devastating.”
Because the tribe isn’t recognized, it has very little resources. All of its budget comes from charitable support, grants and what the tribe can make selling crafts at its store. It can’t cover the work that was supposed to be covered by a $3 million grant. For now, the tribe has kept one person on its payroll to keep collecting data through the project and is hoping for volunteers to help with the additional work.
“We had so much good in mind that we were going to do with the funds that would benefit far more than just us,” Ryan says. “This was going to have a tremendous positive impact on the entire community within the watershed. It’s not just something that was going to look after our people or a small group of people. This was intended to have a statewide positive impact.”
The research the tribe wants to continue collecting “is something that can be used on a larger model for the entire region,” Ryan says. “This is a long-term ecological restoration effort, and we are three years into this project, and it’s a really critical, pivotal moment.”
Login