A large and diverse crowd packed a community center on Milwaukee’s  south side Thursday, calling for the release of Salah Sarsour, president of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee. Sarsour, who is of Palestinian descent, was detained by federal immigration agents Monday morning. His supporters are calling Sarsour’s arrest an targeted act of political retaliation designed to chill opposition to the Israeli government and support for the Palestinian people.

“This is a man who came to the United States and kind of lived the American dream,” Othman Atta, executive director of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee, told the audience of community members, press, activists, and local elected officials. “And they are trying to tarnish his image. They’re trying to target him.”

A green card holder and lawful permanent resident, Sarsour has lived in the United States for over 30 years. “The U.S. government fully vetted his visa application at that time,” Kathryn Brady, head of the Muslim Legal Fund of America’s Immigration Litigation Department, said in a statement Wednesday. Brady said that it’s difficult to believe that the federal government’s “position now is not rooted in a violation of his First Amendment right to speak about the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.”

Atta said that on Monday Sarsour stopped at an old warehouse on Milwaukee’s south side which he owned because mail kept arriving there. As he left, a car came on the wrong side of the street “flying toward him,” said Atta, forcing Sarsour to jump out of the way. The unmarked car stopped and a person allegedly in civilian clothes pointed a gun at Sarsour and asked who he was by name. 

Atta said 12 vehicles were involved in the arrest, and Sarsour was loaded into a van before being told he was being taken by federal immigration officers. 

Atta said that the story was relayed to Sarsour’s attorney Munjed Ahmad during a phone call in which Sarsour declared that he was a lion and willing to fight. Sarsour was transported to the Broadview Detention Center in Illinois before being quickly transferred to another facility in Indiana, Atta said.  

“This is America,” said Atta. “This is Trump’s America.” 

He described Sarsour as a husband, father, grandfather, and a successful business owner who has no criminal record or convictions. 

“According to the papers that were filed in immigration court, they went back to when he was a minor — a teenager — in the West Bank under Israeli occupation,” said Atta. 

When he was a teenager, Sarsour was arrested and detained by the Israeli police. “He served two years,” said Atta. “Many of you who know him know that his passion for Palestine, his passion for justice, was based on the experience he had and that his family and friends had. He would talk to us many times how for 80 straight days, he was interrogated, and brutalized, and tortured while he was in Israeli military custody.” 

Palestinians living both in the West Bank and the region of Gaza, which has suffered catastrophic damage and where tens of thousands of people have been killed during attacks by the Israeli government in the last two and a half years, have reported similar abuse. 

In 2024, the United Nations found that due process rights for Palestinians had been violated in the West Bank for nearly 60 years. Last year, charges were dropped against five Israeli soldiers accused of beating and sexually abusing a Palestinian prisoner in an assault that was captured in a video. A top legal official in the Israeli military admitted to approving the video’s release in an effort to show the world how the over 9,000 Palestinians detained by Israel are treated, the Associated Press reported. 

Al Jazeera reported that the bodies of Palestinians released as part of a ceasefire deal between Israel and militant factions of Hamas exhibited signs of torture including restraints and injuries still evident on the dead. 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said in a statement Thursday that Sarsour was convicted of throwing Molotov cocktails at the homes of Israeli armed forces.” In the statement, which repeatedly called Sarsour a “terrorist” and an “illegal alien from Jordan,” DHS charged that he “lied” on his green card application to enter the country in 1993 during the Clinton administration, and that his first attempts to apply for an immigrant visa at the American consulate in Jerusalem were rebuffed because of those allegations and others of “illegally attempting to possess” weapons and ammunition. 

Atta and Sarsour’s supportive community urged onlookers Thursday not to forget the reports about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. 

Atta said that Sarsour was again detained by the Israeli government after returning in 1995, which is where the weapons allegations came from, and that the written charges were in Hebrew, “which he doesn’t read or understand.”

Sarsour’s son, Kareem, was joined by other members of his family Thursday. Over the last two days, the family has been “bombarded” with “thousands of messages from all the people who knew him saying what he meant to them as a father-figure, as a role model, as a beloved community member, it just tells you who he was,” said Kareem Sarsour. Kareem described his father as “always giving” and said that Sarsour had tried to give his children everything he couldn’t have when he lived in the West Bank. 

The crowd that assembled to support Sarsour and his family included many Muslim residents, local activists, and elected officials, with Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley and  Mayor Cavalier Johnson in the front row, and further back, Alds. JoCasta Zamarripa watched Alex Brower. Christine Neumann-Oriz, executive director of Voces de la Frontera, was in the audience, and speakers from Jewish Voices For Peace joined Muslim and Christian faith leaders in denouncing Sarsour’s detention and calling for his release.

A flurry of Wisconsin lawmakers and local officials have condemned Sarsour’s arrest. Sen. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee) said in a statement that the federal government was “increasingly fascist”  and called Sarsour “a vocal advocate for a free and independent Palestinian State.” 

“We have already seen numerous Muslim activists unfairly and unlawfully targeted by the Trump Administration for their beliefs and their speech,” Larson said. “These Unconstitutional assaults on our freedoms should alarm all of us. When any individual or group is targeted by the government for their speech, all of our freedoms are threatened.” 

Congresswoman Gwen Moore called Sarsour’s detention “completely unacceptable.” “Salah Sarsour is a respected leader in the Milwaukee community, and his detention raises serious concerns about the continued targeting of lawful residents based on the color of their skin or their political beliefs,” she said.

Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee) charged that Sarsour’s detention was an attack on free speech. “Until free expression and free speech are protected, not treated as a privilege of the Trump Administration’s loudest supporters, this openly fascist government should be neither trusted nor obeyed,” Clancy said in a statement. “We must abolish ICE and hold those responsible for these repeated acts of state violence accountable.” 

Statements supporting Sarsour were also put out by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Mandela Barnes for governor campaign, and the Milwaukee Area Labor Council Immigrant Rights Committee. 

Ahmad said that he’s “shocked” at how many communications he’s received from attorneys around the country on Sarsour’s case. “We have assembled a very capable legal team, that legal team continues to grow,” said Ahmad, declaring that they will work to free Sarsour. A hearing is scheduled on April 18. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

WASHINGTON — One year after President Donald Trump announced his now-illegal “Liberation Day” tariffs, he marked the anniversary by signing executive orders adjusting duties on pharmaceuticals and metals as Democratic critics slammed economic fallout from Trump’s trade policies.

Last April 2, Trump shocked American businesses and global markets when he declared a national emergency to impose a 10% tariff on goods from nearly every country, plus higher double-digit duties on imports from major U.S. trading partners. 

Investors lost trillions days after the announcement, and Trump began months of delays and on-again, off-again taxes on imports. 

In doing so, Trump raised the effective tariff rate on foreign goods to its highest point since the 1930s. Economists warned the average American household would end up losing up to a few thousand dollars in increased costs. 

After lawsuits from small business owners and Democratic state officials, the Supreme Court decided 6-3 in February that Trump’s unprecedented triggering of sweeping tariffs under the 1977 International Economic Emergency Powers Act exceeded presidential authority.

Since then, the White House has sought other legal routes to impose tariffs. Several, like duties on metals, are already in place under national security statutes, and have been since Trump’s first term. Almost immediately after the Supreme Court’s major blow, Trump announced a temporary base 10% tariff on all imports under section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.

On Thursday, Trump signed two executive orders changing the tariff calculation on imported steel, aluminum and copper, and slapping a whopping 100% tariff on pharmaceuticals made by transnational companies that decline to invest in manufacturing their drugs in the United States.

Both tariff adjustments are under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, a statute authorizing the president to impose trade restrictions in response to national security threats.

Dems stress affordability 

Democrats pounced on Trump’s “Liberation Day” anniversary ahead of the 2026 midterm elections that will determine control of Congress and will surely include affordability as a central issue.

On a press call organized by the Democratic National Committee, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries laid blame on Trump’s tariffs for increasing costs.

“We can thank the Trump tariffs for imposing thousands of dollars in additional costs on everyday Americans, small business owners and farmers throughout the country,” he said.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement that in one year, Trump “thrust the United States’ economy into chaos with sweeping tariff taxes on dozens of countries.”

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., described Trump’s trade policy as “manic.”

“Trump is taking money out of the pockets of families walking an economic tightrope, by slapping huge taxes on groceries and other essentials,” he said in a statement Thursday.

Several questions on the degree to which tariff costs have been passed on to consumers, and how much they have stymied growth and hiring, remain unanswered, according to a one-year analysis from the Yale Budget Lab.

Sen. Andy Kim, D-N.J., said during the virtual DNC press conference he met this week with business owners in his state and heard trepidation about their decisions moving forward.

“The thing that they just continue to hammer over and over again is just how uncertain this moment is, how much unpredictability that there is and that they cannot, you know, they cannot figure out how to invest further or try to grow their business,” Kim said, adding businesses need “immediate relief” after the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s emergency tariffs.

Kim is among two dozen Senate Democrats sponsoring a bill that would require the U.S. Customs and Border Protection commissioner to report to lawmakers every 30 days on the status of IEEPA tariff refunds.

States Newsroom has interviewed several business owners about the effects of tariffs and the prospect of being made whole by the government for the now illegal IEEPA tariffs they were charged.

 

States with and without abortion bans are advancing bills that would shield anti-abortion pregnancy resource centers from certain government mandates and attempts at regulation, allowing them to sue for damages if any part of the law is violated.

At least four states introduced the legislation this session, and two of them, Kansas and Wyoming, made it law. Montana also passed a similar law in 2025. The bills are still pending in Oklahoma and New Hampshire.

They are based on model legislation drafted by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal advocacy group that represented one of the large umbrella organizations for pregnancy centers around the country, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, when the California government attempted to regulate the centers in 2018 by requiring signage to be placed informing clients of available abortion options at state-funded clinics.

“This really just reflects the legal reality that pregnancy care centers have been hauled into court when they’ve decided they are not interested in pushing abortion and (the government is) going to make them,” said Kristi Hamrick, vice president of media and policy for the anti-abortion group Students for Life Action.

Many crisis pregnancy centers are faith based, with a mission of preventing anyone who walks in from choosing an abortion. In a recent 50-state analysis, States Newsroom found that 21 states allocated more than $491 million of taxpayer funds to crisis pregnancy centers since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision in 2022 that upended federal abortion rights. Medical experts, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, say the centers can endanger public health by delaying legitimate health care and some centers that advertise services like free ultrasounds can miss diagnoses like ectopic or molar pregnancies, which are nonviable and can be life-threatening conditions.

The centers have also been criticized by advocates for misleading potential clients about their services, making it look like they provide abortion care, and for promoting treatments like abortion pill reversal that are unproven and potentially dangerous.

California’s law, which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in 2018 on free speech grounds, also mandated disclosure if the pregnancy resource center was unlicensed. Violators would be fined $500 for a first offense.

Hamrick said the center protection bills are an “inoculation” against what she called malicious lawsuits that would punish them for refusing to go against their anti-abortion mission.

Samantha Nagler, a legal fellow with the Equal Justice Works program at Gender Justice, said the bills are carving out an area of health care where providers can omit information during a visit and face no consequences for it.

“No other health care provider I can think of is just exempted from regulation,” Nagler said.

Israel Cook, legislative counsel for the Center for Reproductive Right’s policy and advocacy team, said this type of legislation is becoming more popular as reproductive rights advocates push for regulation of crisis pregnancy centers.

Colorado passed a law in 2023 making it a deceptive trade practice to disseminate any public advertisement that indicates a facility provides abortions or emergency contraceptives when they do not. The law included a similar provision barring advertisement of abortion pill reversal, but a federal judge blocked enforcement of that part of the law in August. Alliance Defending Freedom also assisted with that lawsuit.

“It’s very scary for (the centers) to not be on the hook for the kind of harm that they perpetuate,” Cook said.

Oklahoma sponsor: Law allows centers to ‘stay in their lane’

The bills prohibit a state or local government from adopting or enacting a law, rule, ordinance or any other type of regulation that would require a center to offer or perform abortion, make referrals for abortion or abortion medication, or post any type of advertisement or material promoting abortion or abortion medication. Every bill, with the exception of Kansas, also says the centers cannot be compelled to offer or refer for contraception.

The Kansas Legislature passed House Bill 2635 on March 12 and overturned a veto by Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly on Friday. Kelly said she vetoed it because Kansans already voted to keep the government out of private medical decisions in 2022, preventing lawmakers from passing an abortion ban. Kelly also opposes the funding that crisis pregnancy centers receive from the state on an annual basis — the legislature approved $3 million in 2025, on top of a $10 million tax credit program.

Oklahoma’s House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a similar bill in early March, but it hasn’t yet been heard by the Senate. It was sponsored by Republican Rep. Denise Crosswhite Hader, who said it was legislation that allowed the centers to continue their mission.

Oklahoma’s bill prescribes the largest penalties with an allowance for treble damages, which means a successful lawsuit could yield three times the amount of damages proven in court. A pregnancy center would be entitled to at least $10,000.

“I don’t see abortion as care. I see abortion as ending a pregnancy,” she said on the House floor during debate. The centers want to help with continuing a pregnancy, she said, but when they avoid abortion, they’re getting sued, “and what we’re trying to do is help it so that they can stay in their lane and not fight lawsuits over and over.”

The state government allocated $18 million to a revolving grant fund for crisis pregnancy centers in 2024 that will last through November 2027.

Oklahoma has a near-total abortion ban, with no exceptions for rape or incest, only an exception to save a pregnant person’s life. With that in mind, Democratic Rep. Cyndi Munson told States Newsroom she doesn’t see the need for the legislation.

“If a private organization has a policy, they can stick to their policy. I don’t know why we need to put additional protections into law,” Munson said.

Meanwhile, Oklahoma’s health care struggles continue, according to Munson. The state ranked 46th in infant mortality in a report from the nonprofit March of Dimes, and 31st in maternal mortality. But reproductive health care in general can also be difficult to obtain. Munson said she recently had to wait an entire year to receive her annual gynecological exam because her provider is overbooked.

She worries that at a certain point, crisis pregnancy centers will be the only type of health care that’s left, especially in more rural parts of the state.

“Not every woman is looking for abortion access, but they all need reproductive health care,” Munson said.

Gov. Tony Evers signed a pair of bills Thursday that will create a new state grant program to support nonprofits housing and serving homeless veterans. 

AB 596, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 153, and AB 597, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 154, direct $1.9 million to be used to create a new state grant match program for nonprofits serving homeless veterans. Evers did not comment on signing the bills into law in his release.

The bills were introduced by Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto) and Rep. Benjamin Franklin (R-De Pere) after the closure of two Wisconsin Veterans Housing and Recovery Program (VHRP) sites, one in Green Bay and the other in Chippewa Falls, and disagreements with Democrats and Evers on who was to blame for the closures. The VHRP serves veterans who are on the verge of or experiencing homelessness, including those who have experienced incarceration, unemployment or underemployment, physical and mental health problems. 

“I’m glad that the funding the Legislature provided to house and support Wisconsin’s military heroes will soon be going to organizations helping veterans across our state,” Wimberger said. “I hope the bills encourage even more groups to answer the call and step up to provide vital services to our veterans in need.”

The new program will provide $25 per day per veteran to eligible nonprofits that house veterans. To be eligible, nonprofit groups need to be participating in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs per diem program, which currently provides about $82 per day per veteran housed to groups that offer wraparound supportive services to homeless veterans. 

There are currently just four eligible nonprofits, and none are in the Green Bay or Chippewa falls areas. Democratic lawmakers expressed these concerns as the bills were debated, though Republican lawmakers have argued other nonprofits could become eligible if the program became law.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Universities of Wisconsin President Jay Rothman says that the Board of Regents is trying to oust him from his position — and he is refusing to go as he says he has not been given any clear reasons for their loss of confidence in him.

In a letter first obtained by the Associated Press dated March 26, Rothman said he met with Regent President Amy Bogost and Regent Vice President Kyle Weatherly in a meeting they requested. Rothman wrote that he was “surprised” that during the meeting they “indicated for the first time and without any prior discussion or notice that an unidentified majority of the Board of Regents had lost confidence in my leadership despite all that my team and I along with our universities have accomplished to move the Universities of Wisconsin forward.”

Rothman, who was an attorney in Milwaukee and CEO of the law firm Foley and Lardner, was hired by the UW Board of Regents in January 2022. He was chosen after the UW system did not have a permanent leader for two years.

In the letter, Rothman said Bogost and Weatherly did not give reasons for the regents’ conclusion or the lack of confidence in him, but that “each Regent has his or her own perspective on the matter.” 

“You did not provide any tangible reasons for the Board’s determination. It also appears that whatever conclusions were reached, the concerns were vetted without the benefit of any recent in-person or even virtual meeting of the entire Board,” Rothman wrote. “From a Board governance and leadership perspective, I find that to be extraordinarily difficult for the Board to defend; as a person who reports directly to the Board, I am profoundly disappointed.

Rothman wrote that he was given three options for his departure: announcing his resignation and retirement in the near future with an effective date at the end of this calendar year, which he said was the Board’s preferred path; resigning at any time with 120 days notice and the Board terminating his employment if he didn’t resign.

Bogost said in a statement that the Board “is responsible for the leadership of the Universities of Wisconsin and is having discussions about its future.”

“We don’t comment on personnel matters,” Bogost said. 

In his letter, Rothman provided a list of 37 accomplishments throughout his tenure. The list includes obtaining the largest increase in funding from the state Legislature in the last 20 years; engaging with “third-party advisors to evaluate and assist the universities in addressing financial headwinds and improving operational efficiencies”; implementing a direct admissions program for eligible in-state high school students; continuing the tuition promise program by securing private funding; and rebranding the system from the UW System to the Universities of Wisconsin. 

“If the foregoing list is not sufficient evidence of my leadership in driving bold and transformative change, I really do not know what is. Since to date you have not provided any substantive reason or reasons for the Board’s finding of no confidence in my leadership, I am not prepared, as a matter of principle, to submit my resignation. In light of the current circumstances, I do not believe my resignation at this time is in the best interests of either the Universities of Wisconsin or the state of Wisconsin,” Rothman wrote. 

During his tenure, Rothman has overseen the closure or dramatic downsizing of at least eight UW branch campuses and has also sought to work with the Republican-led Legislature, which has often appeared hostile towards the UW system. 

In 2023, Rothman negotiated a deal on university system diversity, equity and inclusion programs (DEI) and funding with Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) and Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg), both of whom are now retiring from the Legislature. Under the deal, which was initially rejected by regents, Rothman got funding for building projects and staff cost-of-living adjustments — which lawmakers had already approved but were holding back as a bargaining chip — while Republicans got cuts to UW DEI initiatives. 

In 2024, Rothman also responded to student pro-Palestinian protests by defending the actions of police officers on campus and saying encampments would be gone eventually.

While Rothman appears confident in his achievements, not all UW stakeholders have been happy with his leadership. AFT-Wisconsin President Jon Shelton said in a statement that even without the details of the reported “loss of confidence,” the union supports the Board’s action. 

“President Rothman’s tenure has been defined by his unwillingness to listen to the stakeholders that truly define our campuses: on everything from our faculty, staff, and students’ commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion to UW System Administration’s disastrous efforts to impose a general education curriculum on our campuses instead of simply implementing a universal credit transfer policy last December as required by Act 15,” Shelton said. 

“We are encouraged by the Board’s recent actions,” Shelton added. “We will gladly work with them moving forward to ensure any UW system president fights to uphold the values that has made the UW System great.”

Rothman wrote that there are also to-do list items that make it a bad time for him to leave, including finding new chancellors for UW-Madison and UW-Eau Claire as well as establishing priorities for the next state budget.

“I understand that, as you indicated on Saturday, the Board may act to terminate my employment, which the Board is empowered to do,” Rothman wrote. “If, however, the full Board would like to discuss this matter with me in either an open or closed session, I would welcome the opportunity to participate in such a meeting.” 

In a second letter to Regents Ashok Rai and Jack Salzwedel dated April 1, Rothman wrote that in a separate conversation, they also provided no reason for the request for his departure. 

“Similar to Regent President Bogost, you indicated that you could not offer any reason at this time. In fact, you said that topic would be discussed at the upcoming meeting of the Board,” Rothman wrote. 

The Board of Regents met in a closed special meeting on April 1 in the evening to discuss personnel matters. 

“Unfortunately, I am left to conclude that any basis for a Board finding of no confidence in my leadership will be, at best, an after-the-fact rationalization of a decision that clearly has already been made without the benefit of any recent meeting of the Regents and despite all the successes and transformative accomplishments during my tenure as President,” Rothman wrote in the letter to Rai and Salwedel. “I am not prepared, as a matter of principle, to submit my resignation at this time.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Democrats this week blasted the Trump administration’s attempts to shift management of federal student loans from the Education Department to the Treasury Department, saying it would contribute to dysfunction in the student loan system.

In a Wednesday letter, the ranking members of five Senate panels — the committees covering banking, finance, education, federal spending and the Appropriations subcommittee overseeing the Education Department — called on Education Secretary Linda McMahon and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to “immediately” rescind the interagency agreement announced in March.

The letter is part of Democrats’ efforts to stop President Donald Trump and his administration from outsourcing Education Department responsibilities to other agencies as part of the administration’s attempts to dismantle the department, which Congress created and only Congress can abolish. 

Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Ron Wyden of Oregon, Patty Murray of Washington state and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, along with independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who caucuses with the Democrats, penned the letter. 

They are the respective ranking members of the Senate Committees on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs; Finance; Appropriations; the Appropriations subcommittee overseeing Education Department funding; and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.  

They argued the transfer would introduce “more dysfunction into the federal student loan system, worsening the ongoing student loan default crisis that the Trump Administration has already exacerbated.” 

An ‘illegal scheme’

Under the agreement, Treasury will take over Education’s responsibility for collecting on defaulted federal student loan debt — the first step in a multi-phase process toward Treasury taking on the entire, roughly $1.7 trillion federal student loan portfolio. 

The senators called the move an “illegal scheme” that “threatens to trap student loan borrowers, students, and families in chaos and bureaucracy, all while American taxpayers are left to foot the bill for Treasury to administer programs that (the Education Department) can and should administer itself, likely costing more money and burying borrowers and families in unnecessary red tape.” 

The lawmakers also emphasized the spending package Trump signed into law in February rejects the president’s calls to axe the agency — funding the Education Department at $79 billion this fiscal year. 

The senators point to the joint explanatory statement accompanying the measure, which states that “no authorities exist for the Department of Education to transfer its fundamental responsibilities under numerous authorizing and appropriations laws, including through procuring services from other Federal agencies, of carrying out those programs, projects, and activities to other Federal agencies.” 

The lawmakers gave McMahon and Bessent two weeks to respond to their inquiries on the logistics, timing, costs and implementation of the transfer. 

‘A hard reset’

Education Department spokesperson Ellen Keast said in a statement shared with States Newsroom on Thursday that the current approach to student loan management was not working.

“With the student loan portfolio approaching $1.7 trillion and defaults nearing 25 percent, now is the time for a hard reset in how the federal government provides and services student loans,” Keast said. 

“We are confident that our partnership with the Treasury, an experienced and proven fiduciary, will strengthen program administration and better serve American students, borrowers, and taxpayers,” she added.

The Treasury Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate approved legislation Thursday that would end the shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security, sending the same bill it passed last week to the House, which didn’t take any action during a brief session.

But it appeared the shutdown also could be affected by executive action. President Donald Trump wrote in a social media post later in the morning that he “will soon sign an order to pay ALL of the incredible employees at the Department of Homeland Security.” 

He didn’t detail when that would take place or from where he would pull that money. White House spokespeople did not immediately respond to a request for details. 

Asked about the Senate-passed bill, Speaker Mike Johnson’s office didn’t immediately return a request for comment as to when the House may approve the legislation. But members aren’t scheduled to return from a two-week spring break until April 14. 

The House could have cleared the measure for Trump’s signature during a short session it held an hour after the Senate approved the bill, but its leaders chose not to.

Those pro forma sessions, as they are known, are held about every three days when one or both chambers of Congress are on break and the vast majority of lawmakers are away from Capitol Hill. They typically don’t include any real work and are intended to avoid recess appointments. 

The Senate approved the bill after a few procedural remarks from Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and didn’t hold a recorded vote. 

‘Deep division and dysfunction’

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement after the House opted not to clear the legislation that the “deep division and dysfunction among House Republicans is needlessly extending the DHS shutdown and hurting federal workers who are missing another paycheck.”

“The Senate did its work twice to fund key parts of DHS without funding the lawlessness of ICE and Border Patrol,” he added. “House Republicans need to get to work and end the longest Republican shutdown in history.”

The DHS appropriations bill the Senate approved would provide funding for the vast majority of the department except Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol. 

It would ensure funding for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, Coast Guard, Federal Emergency Management Agency and Secret Service. 

Senators approved an identical DHS funding bill last week by voice vote, but Johnson, R-La., rejected it and instead put an eight-week stopgap spending bill up for a vote in the House.

That legislation had no chance of getting past procedural hurdles in the Senate, which require at least 60 lawmakers to vote to end debate. 

Objections to immigration enforcement

Senate Democrats originally held up approval of the DHS spending bill after federal officers shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis in January. They have said repeatedly since then they won’t approve any more funding for immigration and deportation activities without new guardrails. 

Thune reached a deal with Schumer last week to pass a DHS funding bill without any new money for ICE or the Border Patrol, which have tens of billions available from Republicans’ “big, beautiful” law. 

GOP lawmakers said at the time the idea was to approve another reconciliation package to further bolster funding levels for immigration enforcement and deportations. 

“To my Democrat colleagues, this bill is the moderate option. What’s coming next is going to supercharge deportations,” Missouri Sen. Eric Schmitt said during floor debate at the time. “To my Republican colleagues, let this be a rallying cry every time the Democrats obstruct the safety of American families, the wall gets 10 feet higher and ICE gets another $100 billion.”

Thune and Johnson released a statement Wednesday that they had brokered a deal to do just that, with Trump’s support. 

“In following this two-track approach, the Republican Congress will fully reopen the Department, make sure all federal workers are paid, and specifically fund immigration enforcement and border security for the next three years so that those law-enforcement activities can continue uninhibited,” they said. “In return, Democrats will once again demonstrate to the American people their support for open borders and keeping criminal illegal immigrants in America.”

Trump wrote in his social media post that “Republicans are UNIFIED, and moving forward on a plan that will reload funding for our FANTASTIC Border Patrol and Immigration Enforcement Officers.” 

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Pam Bondi is leaving the Department of Justice and will be replaced for now by President Donald Trump’s former personal defense lawyer, the president announced Thursday.

“Pam Bondi is a Great American Patriot and a loyal friend, who faithfully served as my Attorney General over the past year. Pam did a tremendous job overseeing a massive crackdown in Crime across our Country,” the president wrote on social media.

Bondi will depart for an “important new job in the private sector, to be announced at a date in the near future,” Trump added.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, “a very talented and respected Legal Mind,” will move up in an acting role, he said.

Blanche thanked the president on social media and praised Bondi for doing her job “with strength and conviction” adding he was “grateful for her leadership and friendship.”

Trump did not indicate who he would nominate to succeed Bondi on a permanent basis.

Bondi’s exit follows the departure last month of another high-profile Cabinet member, Kristi Noem, whom Trump reassigned from the position of secretary of Homeland Security. 

Epstein files

Bondi, the former attorney general of Florida, oversaw the legally mandated release of government files on the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who surrounded himself with powerful figures, including Trump, even after he pleaded guilty to soliciting a minor in 2008. Epstein died in a Manhattan jail cell awaiting federal trial on sex trafficking charges.

Trump’s name appeared thousands of times in the files, along with those of numerous celebrities, writers and tech giants. Trump denies knowing about Epstein’s scheme to groom and solicit hundreds of young girls for sex.

Shortly after being installed as attorney general, Bondi touted her access to the Epstein files, telling Fox News in February 2025 that the sex offender’s client list was “sitting on my desk,” and distributing binders marked “Epstein Files: Phase I” to conservative political commentators.

By July, the department announced it had found no leads in the files warranting further investigation and that no further information would be made public. The announcement set off a firestorm in Congress that eventually led to the bipartisan passage of legislation mandating the department to release millions of documents related to Epstein.

Bondi received heavy criticism for missing the legally mandated deadline to release the files, and for a botched rollout that disclosed the names of several victims. 

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform subpoenaed Bondi on March 4 to testify before the committee for its separate investigation of the files. Bondi appeared on Capitol Hill for a closed-door briefing with the committee that quickly turned heated, according to CNN’s Kaitlan Collins.

Dem slams ‘legacy of failure’

Lawmakers released an avalanche of statements upon Trump’s announcement that Bondi will no longer hold the highest law enforcement role in the United States.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., ranking member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, slammed Bondi’s tenure as a “profound betrayal not only of the Department of Justice but of the American people the Department exists to serve.”

Bondi’s “legacy of failure” includes the firing of prosecutors and federal law enforcement agents who investigated crimes committed leading up to and during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, Raskin said in a statement Thursday. Three FBI agents sued this week over their ouster.

“This shameful legacy is cemented by her grotesque mishandling of the Epstein files,” Raskin said, alleging Bondi protected powerful figures by redacting their names, yet allowing names of victims to be publicly disclosed.

Bondi and Raskin shared a heated exchange over the Epstein files during a Feb. 11 oversight hearing, at which she called Raskin a “washed-up loser lawyer.”

Bondi built a reputation of combativeness and an unwavering loyalty to Trump during hearings before lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who chairs the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, thanked Bondi for being responsive to his oversight records requests and said she “helped bring violent crime down to historic lows.”

“The Judiciary Committee stands ready to advance President Trump’s next Attorney General nominee,” Grassley said.

Wisconsin’s economy, along with the nation’s, is cooling, the state’s labor department reported Thursday, with unemployment up slightly in January and jobs trending down from January a year ago.

The state’s trend tends to match seasonal patterns in Wisconsin, said Scott Hodek, section chief for the Office of Economic Advisors in the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, during an online briefing. But it also tracks with the national economic slowdown, he said, although Wisconsin’s experience has been easier.

“The Wisconsin labor market has cooled a bit along with the national economy, but unemployment does remain historically low” in the state, Hodek said.

The state projected 3,032,500 jobs in January 2026 — an increase of 8,000 from December 2025, but a drop of 15,400 from January 2025. “That fits what we know of national trends that we have seen so far in the first quarter,” Hodek said.

Wisconsin’s construction industry has been gaining in the last year, with 10,000 more jobs in January 2026 compared with January 2025, and an increase of 2,400 jobs since December.

Manufacturing, however, lost 2,100 jobs in January 2026 compared with December 2025, and 8,600 jobs from January 2025. That continues “a long-running trend,” Hodek said.

The number of jobs reported each month is a projection made from a federal survey of employers’ payrolls.

The Wisconsin unemployment rate edged up to 3.3% in January — an increase from 3.2% in December 2025, but the same as January 2025, Hodek said. Labor force participation in Wisconsin is 64.3%, higher than the national average of 62.5%, DWD reported.

Labor force participation measures how many people age 16 or older are working or looking for work; it leaves out people in the military or living in institutions including prisons and nursing homes.

The employment and labor force projections are based on a different survey that the federal government conducts of households.

The report released Thursday is one of three to come out in April. Hodek said the January data didn’t come out sooner because the federal government shutdown in October delayed an annual review that adjusts the labor market statistics to new benchmarks. Data for February and March will be released later in April to catch Wisconsin up with the calendar. 

A national report that looks at hiring trends as well as layoffs and firings through February shows that “hires have been down and overall openings have been down, and separations have been pretty stable,” Hodek said.

Those numbers aren’t available yet for Wisconsin, he said, but the December data showed the state had a higher rate of job openings and a lower rate of job separations, he added.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

About 100 Wisconsinites joined a virtual town hall hosted by Citizen Action of Wisconsin Wednesday evening to share how data center developments across the state are harming local residents through the increased use of energy. 

Over the past year, data centers have become an increasingly potent issue in the state as the number of data center facilities in Wisconsin has risen to about 50. Data center proposals are currently pending in communities including Beaver Dam and Janesville. The Democratic and Republican candidates for governor have frequently been asked about the issue and lawmakers of both parties introduced legislation to manage data center growth — yet both chambers of the Legislature adjourned for the year without the bills being signed into law. 

The Legislature’s lack of action, and the 10 month wait before the body is back in session in January 2027, was a big concern for data center opponents at the event Wednesday who are worried about how many data center projects can be planned and started before then. 

“These are happening fast. A lot of these decisions are being made in the next six to 18 months, which is especially concerning because, as mentioned earlier, the state Legislature went home on a 10 month long vacation without helping us with many of these important decisions,” Kat Klawes, Citizen Action of Wisconsin’s climate policy coordinator, said. “There are data centers and power plants being built 24/7, so there are people out at construction sites across the state, still working late at night. And there’s local projects that are being approved.

“And this is a big issue, because Wisconsin does not have a statewide plan,” Klawes said “These projects are being approved on a case-by-case basis. Local towns are coming up against billion dollar companies and teams of lawyers who are demanding things. There’s no consistent framework for cost, water use, energy demand, community impact or community say. There is none of that. Wisconsin is the wild, wild west.”

Among the biggest concerns shared by attendees were the pressure that data centers’ massive energy use will put on regular Wisconsinites’ energy bills and the effect that increased energy use will have on the climate. 

Keviea Guiden, who works on energy burden issues on Milwaukee’s north side, noted that Wisconsin is two weeks away from the end of the winter moratorium on utilities shutting off people’s power. She said that with so many Wisconsin families already struggling to pay their bills, the state needs to do something to prevent data centers from further increasing the cost of energy. 

“We will be burdened with having to pay for those facilities being built,” she said. “Families are already being forced between if they should pay for health care, day cares, diapers, if they should figure out if the dog could even eat as well.” 

Attendees complained about the large amount of water data centers use to cool their systems and the effect that could have on local water supplies — especially the Great Lakes. But the bigger climate concern is the emissions caused by increasing the amount of electricity Wisconsin’s utility companies generate. Green Bay resident Arden Kozlow connected the fight against data centers to the fight against oil pipelines such as the activism against the Line 5 pipeline across northern Wisconsin. 

“We’re just fast tracking a process that is already happening with absolutely no regulation and no care for how it’s happening, and that, frankly, this only adds to the problem that we’ve already had with oil pipelines,” Kozlow said. “So it’s all just sort of feeding into itself and creating a bigger and bigger problem.”

Attendees still suggested a number of statewide solutions for managing the effects of data centers. 

One proposal is capping the state’s utility rates at 2% of household income, which advocates said would encourage the state’s utilities to invest in lower cost renewable energy. Attendees also supported legislation proposed by Democratic lawmakers that would put a moratorium on data center construction until many of the questions about their impacts can be answered.

State Rep. Angelito Tenorio (D-West Allis) joined the town hall to tout his proposed legislation that would require Wisconsin get 100% of its energy from carbon free sources by 2050. 

“We have a moral imperative to move towards clean energy, renewable energy,” he said, noting that Wisconsin lags behind its neighbors in Iowa, Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota on the issue. 

With the Legislature out for the year, local government approvals will remain the only lever Wisconsin residents have to push back against data center developments.

Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley and County Board President Marcelia Nicholson-Bovell signed legislation Wednesday afternoon reaffirming the county’s commitment to adhering to the goals of the 2016 Paris Climate agreement. 

“In Milwaukee County, we know that the climate crisis is a real, pressing threat to our environment, our economy, our health, and our quality of life,” Crowley said at the gathering beside other officials at the Urban Ecology Center of Washington Park. 

The international agreement called on nations to adopt policies to keep average global temperatures from increasing more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The United States joined nearly 200 global nations and states in signing onto the agreement under President Barack Obama. President Donald Trump pulled out of the agreement after he was sworn into office in 2017 and, after President Joe Biden rejoined the agreement, again in 2025.  Trump has called the agreement “unfair,” “one-sided,” and a “rip-off.” Since the Trump administration exited the agreement, state and local governments across the country have signaled their aims to stick with the agreement’s aims. 

Milwaukee County first signed onto the Paris Climate Accords in 2017. The county’s goal is to reach net-zero operational emissions by 2050. The event Wednesday was held on the first day of Earth Month.

Crowley praised Milwaukee’s efforts towards reducing carbon emissions and climate resiliency despite being in a time “when federal climate leadership is stepping back.” He said at the event that the county has reduced its emissions by nearly 50% since 2005. 

Nicholson-Bovell echoed the sentiment.

“Milwaukee County continues leading the way in the march toward a more environmentally sustainable community,” she said. “Our legislation recommits Milwaukee County to the Paris Agreement and Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding, because our children’s future depends on how we combat the climate crisis and build the equitable future we all deserve.” 

Crowley and Nicholson-Bovell were joined by Milwaukee County Supervisors Felesia Martin, Anne O’Connor and Sky Capriolo.

The Urban Ecology Center itself is an example of the steps Milwaukee County has taken towards reaching net-zero. The Washington Park center was recently renovated, becoming the first all-electric non-residential building in Milwaukee County, the center’s executive director, Jen Hense, explained. 

Now the building creates zero emissions and, with the planned installation of 100 new solar panels next week, is set to reduce its energy consumption by about one-third.

When the building was renovated, about 60% of its original structure was re-used. Some of the wood used in the renovations was also reclaimed from trees felled by Milwaukee County to combat the emerald ash borer insect. Bird-safe glass had also been installed, so far decreasing the number of collisions the building is responsible for. Surrounding the ecology center are ponds where people often fish, and the center works to re-introduce native plants to assist local ecosystems.

Hense stressed the importance of the Urban Ecology Center’s work. There are over 35,000 young people who attend outdoor and science programs at the county’s three Urban Ecology Centers, and more than 600,000 people visit the green spaces the center stewards in Riverside Park, Washington Park, and Menomonee Valley. 

“We know that these natural spaces, and hundreds more across the county — that are loved and cared for by amazing individuals and incredible environmental organizations — are important to our community, and are essential to protect for generations to come,” said Hense. “We know that combatting the global climate crisis can start right here in the county, and that this work is truly an act of environmental justice.” 

Nicholson-Bovell recalled growing up in a Milwaukee neighborhood where the nearest park didn’t have grass. She said that she was born premature with under-developed lungs, a condition worsened by the air pollution in her community. Studies have shown that increasing the number of urban trees would help improve polluted air conditions. 

“The environment that I grew up in had been ripped apart by the building of a freeway,” said Nicholson-Bovell. “And it was little kids like me who struggled to breathe in our communities. We didn’t have access to clean air, we didn’t have access to green space. And when I became a Milwaukee County supervisor, I promised that no child that I could help support would ever have to experience that again.”

Crowley said visiting the county’s parks reminds him “of just how lucky we are to have accessible access to beautiful green spaces like the one that we are in today.” He stressed that having this “in our backyard” should never be “taken for granted” while highlighting the success the county has already achieved at reducing its climate impact. “And it is because, and through, our office of sustainability that we remain focused on building green infrastructure, creating local sustainability jobs, and making sure that every single neighborhood is part of our climate solution,” said Crowley. 

Crowley said that partnership and collaboration with higher levels of government will be needed to fully accomplish the county’s climate goals. Yet that assistance is unlikely to come from the current federal government. Trump has repeatedly called climate change a hoax. Under Trump, the Environmental Protection Agency also repealed the 2009 endangerment finding that greenhouse gases threaten public health. During both Trump Administrations, climate data and even the words “climate change” have been purged from federal websites. Climate policies at the state level have also been blocked or frustrated by Wisconsin’s Republican-controlled legislature. 

Grant Helle, director of the Milwaukee County Office of Sustainability, said that “while federal climate leadership declines, Milwaukee County is taking action.” Helle said that local action is “not optional, but essential.” Helle noted that the new Marcia P. Coggs Health and Human Services Center will have on-site solar which will off-set over 11% of that facility’s energy use. The county is also re-thinking how building design could impact climate change, an issue which Helle said residents are concerned about. 

A stream of extreme weather events in recent months and years have likely fueled those concerns. Just weeks ago, people in parts of Wisconsin endured a historic blizzard, receiving so much snow that plow services needed to be shut down. Some Milwaukee communities still haven’t fully recovered from record-breaking amounts of rain and flooding that swept through the city in August. The Trump Administration has denied multiple requests for assistance and flood relief made by Wisconsin communities. 

Extreme heat gripped areas of the state in 2023, coinciding with increased wildfire activity within the state, while smoke from fires in Canada worsened air quality. Severe storms also hit Milwaukee and other Wisconsin communities in 2022 and 2021. O’Connor recalled the floods of 2010, where people were “literally canoeing down the street where I live in my district.” 

Crowley said that the August floods should be an indication that the midwest is not safe from climate change. 

“That tells us how do we build infrastructure that is resilient, and how do we think long term making sure that this planet is continuously livable for our young people and for many generations moving forward,” he said. 

Nicholson-Bovell said that the floods were devastating, but that climate change is a national issue. “My husband I met in St. Louis,” she said. “They had a historic tornado rip through the inner-city of St. Louis and they’re still scrambling to try and find housing for individuals.” 

Helle said that increased flooding, harsher heatwaves, and worse air quality are climate hazards Milwaukeeans are already experiencing. “It’s really unfortunate,” said Helle. “But what it does is go to show that we need to continue to make efforts here in Milwaukee County right now where we can to lower the impact on those residents that we ultimately serve.” 

 

(The Center Square) – Neither side of Wisconsin’s political spectrum is happy with the latest pitch from the state’s largest utility to hike power bills.

(The Center Square) – Wisconsin’s Department of Public Instruction spent about $8 million on resetting its standards on the Forward Exam, according to new records released by DPI.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

We found no evidence that liberal Wisconsin Appeals Court Judge Chris Taylor has supported allowing noncitizens to vote.

Taylor and conservative state Appeals Court Judge Maria Lazar are running in the April 7 Wisconsin Supreme Court election.

A Lazar ad claimed Taylor is “pushing for noncitizen voting.” 

Lazar’s campaign cited:

Taylor’s opposition, while a Democratic state lawmaker, to the Republican-backed 2011 state law requiring identification to vote.

Her introduction of a 2017 bill, which did not become law. It would have provided driver’s licenses to unauthorized residents, but the licenses would have been labeled: “Not valid for voting purposes.”

Taylor’s opinion, in a 2024 appeals court ruling, which said absentee ballots count even if voters’ witnesses fail to give election clerks their full address. Citizenship is required to vote in Wisconsin, but Wisconsin election officials generally do not verify citizenship when a person registers.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

• Maria Lazar campaign: The Warning
• Maria Lazar campaign: Email
• Urban Milwaukee: Taylor, Stakeholders Call on GOP to Fund Voter ID Information Campaign
• Wisconsin State Legislature: 2017 Assembly Bill 727
• PBS Wisconsin: Wisconsin appeals court upholds ruling on witness addresses for absentee ballots
• Wisconsin Watch: Do Wisconsin election officials verify citizenship when a person registers to vote?

Has Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Chris Taylor been ‘pushing noncitizen voting’? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 5 minutes

In the only debate between the Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates, Appeals Court judges Maria Lazar and Chris Taylor each painted a picture of their opponent as an extreme figure who is unfit for the state’s high court.

The hour-long debate Thursday night, hosted by WISN in Milwaukee, arrived just five days ahead of Election Day on April 7. Lazar and Taylor are running for a 10-year term to replace conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley, who did not run for reelection. 

While there is no court majority on the line in 2026, a win by either candidate will still affect the court’s future. A Lazar victory would maintain the court’s 4-3 liberal majority. A Taylor win would grow the liberal bloc to five justices. 

The evening was peppered with attacks from Lazar that Taylor was “a radical, extreme legislator” and from Taylor that Lazar has brought an “extreme, right-wing political agenda to the bench.”

One of the more intense exchanges came during debate on abortion. Taylor criticized Lazar’s past comments about the U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. Lazar said she supported returning the decision to state governments. Taylor said it was “tragic” for a candidate to celebrate the case. 

“It’s not been very wise for victims of rape and incest who now live in states where abortion has been outlawed,” Taylor said. “It’s not very wise for women who have lost their lives in states because they couldn’t get help when a pregnancy went wrong.” 

Lazar appeared to grow angry, shook her head and rolled her eyes. 

“That’s absolutely ridiculous,” Lazar said. “This is exactly what we’ve been doing in this campaign. It’s the same old political playbook. If you don’t have anything truthful to say about your opponent, then just lie and mislead. I have never wanted women injured, ever, ever, ever. I have always said that the health and life of the mother is the most important thing.” 

The back-and-forth during the debate reflected the 2026 campaign and the opposing judicial philosophies and backgrounds of the candidates. 

Lazar and Taylor are both Appeals Court judges, but represent opposing judicial philosophies and each took starkly different paths to the bench.

Lazar is a member of the conservative Federalist Society, served as an assistant attorney general for the Department of Justice under Republican Attorney General JB Van Hollen and was elected to the Waukesha Circuit Court in 2015 and 2021 prior to her 2022 election to the 2nd District Court of Appeals. 

Taylor was the policy and political director for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin for eight years prior to serving as a Democrat in the Assembly where she represented a Madison-focused district. Gov. Tony Evers appointed Taylor to the Dane County Circuit Court in 2020 and she ran unopposed for the 4th District Court of Appeals in 2023. 

The debate was delayed a week after Taylor announced she had a kidney stone. More than 355,000 voters had already cast early ballots before Thursday. A Marquette Law School Poll released last week found 46% of likely voters said they hadn’t decided who to support.

Here’s what else you need to know about the debate. 

How the judges view recusal rules

In 2010, the Wisconsin Supreme Court adopted rules that did not require a justice to recuse themself based on how much money a party in a case or an attorney spent supporting their campaign.

After the record-breaking 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court race, Chief Justice Jill Karofsky, a member of the court’s liberal majority, said she was committed to holding public hearings about establishing stricter recusal rules. 

Lazar and Taylor were both asked about whether they would support stricter recusal rules for Wisconsin Supreme Court justices. 

Lazar said recusal is “a difficult situation,” because judges have to consider whether they are biased and whether the parties in the case believe they are receiving a fair opportunity before the court. 

“The key thing that I think is important is recusal really is tied to the integrity of the judge or the justice,” Lazar said. “And I have spent the last 12 years as a judge showing that I have that integrity and that independence.” 

Taylor said the court system should consider stricter recusal rules and get public input. 

“It is so critically important that as judges, we have the confidence of the public,” she said. 

Limited responses on redistricting, abortion

Both Lazar and Taylor received multiple questions about how they would have ruled on certain cases or hypothetical situations that could come before the court. Both candidates mostly declined to answer, saying that, as judges, they could not comment on pending cases that could reach them at the Appeals Court or on the state Supreme Court. 

Lazar and Taylor were asked whether the current congressional maps are fair. One of two three-judge panels hearing legal complaints about Wisconsin’s congressional district maps this week dismissed a case brought by Democratic voters. 

While both candidates said they could not comment on the maps, Taylor said she was “committed to making sure that every eligible voter in the state of Wisconsin has the ability to pick their elected representatives.” Lazar said she believed every “eligible vote should count.” 

Lazar and Taylor were also asked about how they would rule on the case challenging the state’s 1849 abortion ban. In 2025, the court reached a 4-3 ruling that invalidated the law. The decision broke along ideological lines. 

Lazar declined comment on the 1849 abortion case but said that she would honor the state’s “20-week compromise,” an abortion restriction Republicans passed in 2015 without Democratic support.  Taylor, who voted against the 20-week ban in the Legislature, said she would have ruled with the majority in overturning the 1849 abortion ban.

Taylor also emphasized at various points what she called her “values,” including support for workers over millionaires and billionaires when asked about a pending court challenge to 2011 Act 10, the Republican law that stripped most public sector workers of union rights.

Lazar characterized Taylor’s support for those issues as “legislative” values, rather than judicial ones. 

“Values do not belong with the judge on the court,” Lazar said. “Values are not what’s supposed to be there. A good judge respects the law. An activist judge respects her causes.”

Wisconsin Supreme Court debate highlights sharp contrast between candidates on abortion, judicial philosophies 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: 2 minutes

The president of the 25-campus Universities of Wisconsin said in a letter obtained by The Associated Press on Thursday that he’s been told to either resign or be fired, but has been given no reason and won’t step aside from the 165,000-student system.

Jay Rothman, president of the university system since 2022, said in the letter addressed to the head of the Board of Regents dated March 26 that he’s been given no reason why regents want him to leave.

Rothman said he’s been told that his options are to resign or retire and that if he doesn’t then the board “was prepared to terminate my employment despite all that has been accomplished.”

The Board of Regents held a closed emergency meeting on Wednesday night to discuss personnel matters.

“The Board is responsible for the leadership of the Universities of Wisconsin and is having discussions about its future,” Amy Bogost, board president, said in a statement to AP. “We don’t comment on personnel matters.”

Rothman declined to comment when reached via email on Thursday.

“I believe my letter speaks for itself,” he said.

Rothman’s tenure has been marked by his efforts to increase state funding amid federal cuts, debates over free speech on campus amid pro-Palestinian protests and declining enrollment leading to eight branch campus closures.

“Since to date you have not provided any substantive reason or reasons for the Board’s finding of no confidence in my leadership, I am not prepared, as a matter of principle, to submit my resignation,” Rothman said in the letter addressed to Bogost.

Rothman notes in the letter that “among so many other things,” the university will need to replace the chancellor of the flagship Madison campus this year. Chancellor Jennifer Mnookin is leaving to take the job as president of Columbia University.

“I do not believe my resignation at this time is in the best interests of either the Universities of Wisconsin or the state of Wisconsin,” Rothman said.

Rothman said in the letter that he has devoted his “heart and soul to the mission of the Universities of Wisconsin” and that he was surprised when told “an unidentified majority of the Board of Regents had lost confidence” in his leadership.

“When I asked you to articulate reasons for the Board’s conclusion and apparent lack of confidence in me, you merely noted that each Regent has his or her own perspective on the matter,” Rothman wrote. “You did not provide any tangible reasons for the Board’s determination.”

Rothman, the former chair and CEO of the Milwaukee-based Foley & Lardner law firm, was chosen as UW president in 2022. He had no prior experience administering higher education.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup. This story is published in partnership with The Associated Press.

Universities of Wisconsin president refuses to leave after being told to resign or be fired 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: < 1 minute

Betting on an election one is voting in is illegal in Wisconsin.

Politics betting has become popular on platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket. Just this year, people have placed lucrative bets on the capture of the Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and on the war with Iran, among other events. 

On Kalshi, people have placed bets worth tens of thousands of dollars on Wisconsin’s Supreme Court election on April 7 and the governor’s primary election on Aug. 11.

Ann Jacobs, Wisconsin’s Elections Commission chair, noted on X that voters’ ballots can be disqualified and thrown out if they were found to have bet on the election. 

Wisconsin Statute 6.03(2) specifies that no one is allowed to vote in any election in which the person has placed “any bet or wager depending upon the result of the election.” The idea behind the law has existed since 1849.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

• Kalshi: Wisconsin bets
• Wisconsin state statute: 6.03

Is it illegal for Wisconsin voters to bet on election results? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 5 minutes

On a rainy Friday afternoon, I walked into the Manitowoc County Jail. I asked tentatively into the metal box at the door: “I’m here to see Randy Curtis?”

I was there to deliver a simple message. What I stumbled into was something much larger, a reality I had not previously fully understood.

Randy had missed a few shifts without calling in. His supervisor looked for him where we sometimes do when an employee disappears without a word: the inmate list at the county jail. Sure enough, there was his name.

Randy is a knockout pourer at Wisconsin Aluminum Foundry, doing hard physical work for $27.53 an hour – good money, the kind that, if you’re careful and nothing goes wrong, can be the beginning of something. He had spent years rebuilding his life in Manitowoc after a troubled young adulthood in Milwaukee. He had a girlfriend. He was saving for a car. Then an old legal matter surfaced, along with a small claims debt.

It is not uncommon for our employees to find themselves in jail. Often it’s a DUI, delinquent child support or drugs. The ones who don’t have money for bail spend weeks or months awaiting resolution. Usually in these situations we let the employment relationship expire.

But Randy’s supervisor called me: “We have to keep his job for him.” Of course we would. But how would we let him know? I pictured him in that cell, cut off from the outside world, assuming he had lost his job and maybe his apartment and girlfriend too, watching his precarious new life crash down.

I went to tell him myself.

The corrections officer was polite but matter-of-fact. I could not see the inmate in person. To speak with him, I would need to create an account on a third-party video service, deposit money, schedule a window and wait.

I am a CEO. I work on computers all day. It still took me the better part of an hour to figure it all out.

The service was called CIDNET, operated by Encartele, a corporation in Nebraska. The site defaulted to a purchase of 150 megabytes at 30 cents per megabyte. That’s $45, before a “Data Security Token” fee and a 5% merchant surcharge on top. I put $10 on the account, enough for a few minutes. On Sunday evening I logged on, saw Randy on a small screen and quickly told him his job was waiting. He looked relieved.

I want to be fair. Someone has to pay for that infrastructure. The same logic applies to bank overdraft fees and payday loan rates. Even the $2.59 Snickers bar in our plant vending machine, nearly four times what my family pays at Costco, is bought by a worker without the time or transportation to shop elsewhere. Each of these charges is, on its own terms, defensible. Together they amount to something else: a compounding tax on not having enough.

Being poor, it turns out, is expensive.

Randy made it through. Another of our employees didn’t fare as well.

I’ll call him Michael. He had spent his entire life in America, brought here as a small child. He was a DACA recipient – a “Dreamer” – tantalizingly close to getting his papers in order for permanent residency, but first he had to navigate old speeding tickets, lawyer fees, court dates and filing costs. He had a newborn and two toddlers at home. He could not even afford a cellphone. Outside of work, he reached me through Facebook Messenger when he could find Wi-Fi.

The fees accumulated the way fees do: the lawyer, the filings, the court dates that cost him wages he couldn’t replace, the paid leave that drained away appointment by appointment. Everything was a small thing.

But Michael had no margin for small things.

The weight of it followed him onto the shop floor. He grew distracted, made mistakes — costly ones in a manufacturing environment — and we had to let him go. I think about that a lot.

The word I keep coming back to is margin. In business, margin is everything. The difference between a company that survives a bad few years and one that doesn’t is not always the size of the problem. It is the cushion beneath it.

Families have margins, too.

A salaried employee who gets a DUI posts bond and goes home. She takes a long lunch for a dental appointment and loses nothing. When life disrupts her, it disrupts her. When life disrupts Randy or Michael, there is no category called disruption. There is functioning, and there is collapse. A car breaks down, the flu strikes, child care closes unexpectedly — attendance points rack up, the job is suddenly in jeopardy, and the carefully assembled structure of a life starts to come apart.

What I find remarkable is not that Randy and Michael sometimes stumble. It’s that they hold everything together as long as they do, maintaining a level of daily discipline against a backdrop of distress that most of us will never be tested to match.

My 8-year-old and I have been reading about black holes. The closer you get, the more energy you need to escape – until escape becomes physically impossible. That is what I witnessed. Not a failure of will. A gravitational pull that compounds with every setback, every fee, every missed day. 

There is a threshold, call it escape velocity, below which the system’s small relentless extractions become unsurvivable. My former college professor Lisa Dodson, who spent years embedded with low-income workers across the country, calls this the “house of cards” – the architecture of poverty where there is no redundancy, no reserve, no margin for the ordinary turbulence of a human life.

So what can we do? At Wisconsin Aluminum Foundry, we’ve introduced daily pay so workers can access wages as they earn them rather than waiting two weeks. We offer $400 per month in child care reimbursement, structured specifically to help newer, younger employees.

Most traditional benefits – vacation time, tenure-based wage levels, pension plans – naturally favor workers already on solid footing. Our most expensive benefit, health care, is the one our youngest and lowest-paid employees use the least. We can design benefit structures with that reality in mind, and we are trying.

These are imperfect responses to a structural problem. They are what one employer can do.

On policy, cash bail reform deserves serious attention. In theory, judges already weigh risk when setting bail. In practice, a $500 bail amount means freedom for one person and months in jail for another. A system that makes that distinction irrelevant might have kept Randy’s life from nearly unraveling.

The full set of public policy answers is beyond my grasp. But what I do know is that the national conversation about affordability — housing, gas, airfares — is largely about the middle class. Randy and Michael aren’t worried about buying a house. They are fighting for the basic foothold that most of us take entirely for granted.

My parents came to this country with very little and found the American Dream to be real. I believe it can still be real. Randy believed in it enough to leave Milwaukee and start over in a city where no one knew him. Michael believed in it enough to show up every single day while his entire future hung on a bureaucratic decision somewhere.

Just this week, JPMorgan Chase announced its “American Dream Initiative” aimed at strengthening small businesses, homeownership and economic mobility – a recognition that the American Dream is not self-sustaining and requires constant effort from institutions large and small.

At our holiday party earlier this year, my wife and I spotted Randy across the room — arm around his girlfriend, at a table full of co-workers, dressed in his best, laughing. 

Michael messaged me last week. He’s been out of work for two months, getting by on his wife’s income. He said he’s going to reapply at the foundry. When he does, we’ll take him back.

Neither story is finished yet. They haven’t reached escape velocity. But they are defying gravity, every single day.

Sachin Shivaram is the chief executive officer of Wisconsin Aluminum Foundry in Manitowoc.

Opinion: How poverty’s gravity pulls workers under 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: 6 minutes

Months before becoming one of the nearly 200 Madison voters in 2024 whose absentee ballots were never counted, Nathan Haimowitz did what he thought he was supposed to do.

As a journalist living in Spain and out of the habit of voting, the 26-year-old former poll worker said he wanted the 2024 presidential election to “be the thing that would spur me to vote more consistently.” To make sure everything was in order, he emailed Madison officials to confirm they had received his absentee ballot application. They told him they had, so he filled out his ballot, sent it in and assumed his vote would be counted.

It wasn’t. 

The mistake that disenfranchised Haimowitz and nearly 200 other voters set off a chain of consequences: The longtime city clerk resigned, state and local officials launched investigations, a lawsuit was filed, and the city began overhauling its voting procedures.

Haimowitz hasn’t cast a ballot since.

“It was definitely a deterrence,” he said. “I didn’t know why my vote hadn’t been counted.”

Early signs suggest the error is already reshaping how many of the disenfranchised voters engage with elections — pushing some away from absentee voting and, in some cases, out of the electorate altogether. Interviews with affected voters also reveal a broader disconnect: Many say they are dissatisfied both with how the city handled the mistake and with the high-profile lawsuit filed in its wake to seek damages for the disenfranchised voters. The city, they say, has not been appropriately responsive, and the lawsuit does not reflect their values. 

Until now, the public conversation has largely reflected the perspectives of the eight voters who joined the lawsuit as named plaintiffs. But others Votebeat spoke with described a different perspective — one that questions whether financial compensation is the right remedy at all.

Mark Ediger, a recently retired chemistry professor at UW-Madison, for example, said he found the lawsuit “pretty bewildering,” adding that as a Madison taxpayer, it would be people like him footing the bill. 

The 193 voters range from dozens of students who are only in Madison for a few years to some of their professors and other longtime city residents. Their responses to the error are just as varied. 

Some, like Haimowitz, stopped voting entirely. Others, like Ediger, say the incident was a one-off mistake that hasn’t impacted their voting behavior. Notably, Ediger is the only voter among the disenfranchised group who has voted absentee in both of the two elections following the error, according to election data obtained by Votebeat.

“The incident has not diminished my trust in elections,” Ediger told Votebeat, adding that he’s satisfied the city has appropriately addressed its cause. “I don’t see how this should change my voting behavior moving forward.”

But other voters said their experience will change how they vote in future elections. “I’m definitely going to prioritize in-person voting,” Joanne Fairbotham, one of the disenfranchised voters, told Votebeat.

“There’s growing evidence that when someone tries to vote and they are prevented from doing so for one reason or another, it makes them less likely to vote in the future, and it can change their behavior,” said Kevin Morris, a senior research fellow and voting policy scholar with the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program. “You can lose a lot of trust very easily, and it can be very difficult to build that trust.”

All of the disenfranchised voters cast absentee ballots in the 2024 presidential election. But, among the 22 who cast ballots in the February 2025 primary for state superintendent of public instruction and city council, nearly all did so in person. Two months later, two-thirds of the 132 who voted in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race did so at the polls, a share similar to how the same group voted in previous April elections. 

Disenfranchised voters question city follow-up 

Shortly after learning that her ballot hadn’t been counted, Fairbotham — a 35-year-old medical coder who lives in Madison — wrote to City Clerk Maribeth Witzel-Behl, saying the error was “beyond devastating as an American who prides herself in voting in every election.”

“This is how people lose faith in their government that their rights will be protected,” she said in the letter, calling on Witzel-Behl to resign. 

Fairbotham said she never received a response from Witzel-Behl, who has since resigned — or anyone else employed by the city. 

“Not hearing a peep,” she said, is the most frustrating part. Fairbotham’s vote in the 2024 presidential election was the first time she cast an absentee ballot since the peak of the pandemic in 2020. She has only cast in-person votes since and said the incident still makes her angry.

Madison City Attorney Mike Haas disputed the characterization that the city didn’t communicate the seriousness of the error, pointing to a city and state investigation and a public apology from the mayor.

Still, some voters said the city’s outreach fell short after such a significant error. Haimowitz, for example, didn’t hear from the city when most of the voters did — a separate oversight by city officials meant overseas voters did not receive the same notice as those living locally. Until speaking with Votebeat, Haimowitz said, he didn’t know whether the mistake that kept his ballot from being counted was his or the city’s, nor what steps officials had taken to prevent it from happening again.

Election administration experts say direct, proactive communication can be critical in rebuilding trust. After a mistake like the one in Madison, jurisdictions should reach out to affected voters, review what went wrong and clearly explain how it will be prevented in the future, said Jennifer Morrell, CEO of The Elections Group and a former Colorado election administrator.

The city has completed the first two steps, Morrell said, but it did not fully follow through on the third.

After sending an initial notice telling voters they could reach out with questions, the city held no further public hearings, said Haas, a longtime election lawyer and former administrator of the Wisconsin Elections Commission. Few of the disenfranchised voters followed up, he added.

Some disenfranchised voters find lawsuit bewildering

The divide among disenfranchised voters extends to the lawsuit filed in the aftermath of the error.

In March 2025, the liberal group Law Forward filed a claim seeking $34 million from the city and Dane County over the error, later turning it into a lawsuit. In February, a circuit court judge ruled that the city could be held liable for monetary damages.

A small group of affected voters has joined the case, arguing it’s one of the only ways to hold the city accountable for failing to count their ballots.

But others see it differently. “In an era where the reliability of elections is being challenged by some groups in completely spurious ways, it seems to me that this lawsuit just adds to that noise,” Ediger said.

Lawsuits seeking monetary damages for disenfranchisement are now rare, but were more common in the late 1800s and 1900s, when Black voters were intentionally and repeatedly disenfranchised by election workers. Then, the fines forced the government to think twice, said Ediger. But there’s no similar pattern of errors or intentionality here in Madison, he added, which makes him doubt the lawsuit’s purpose. 

Haimowitz said he also opposed the lawsuit, despite how much it has shaken his confidence.

“I’m not sure that the city should pay such a heavy price for this,” Haimowitz said, adding that at a time when some Republicans are peddling “Stop the Steal” narratives and casting doubt on election integrity, especially in battleground states like Wisconsin, the Law Forward letter unnerved him.

“That kind of money could be debilitating to a city elections board that is already under immense scrutiny and pressure to get it all right,” he said.

Law Forward staff attorney Scott Thompson pushed back on comparisons between the case and post-2020 lawsuits filed by Republicans, including one that sought to throw out over 200,000 absentee ballots in Wisconsin.

“That cavalier attitude towards votes that we saw in 2020 is simply unacceptable, and not compatible with democracy,” he said. “And so what do we do with that? Well, I can tell you what we will not do: We will not stand idly by if hundreds of people in a community lose the right to vote because their ballot simply wasn’t counted.”

He said that lawsuits often make people uneasy, but that their perspective may change when a fundamental right is taken away. He declined to directly comment on some of the disenfranchised voters’ issues with the case.

For some disenfranchised voters, financial damages are part of accountability. Precious Ayodabo, a named plaintiff, wrote in a Cap Times column that her disenfranchised absentee vote “is worth enough” to warrant compensation.

“It’s worth enough that I waited for hours in line to cast it. It’s worth enough that politicians spend millions of dollars to receive it. It’s worth enough that people have put their lives on the line and died to protect it,” she wrote.

Thompson declined to make Ayodabo and the other plaintiffs available for interviews. Of the 193 voters, eight are plaintiffs in the case, he said.

Others who support the lawsuit say it’s less about personal payment and more about forcing systemic change. Fairbotham said she’s grateful the case is pushing the city to take the error seriously, particularly after the Wisconsin Elections Commission found the city violated state law.

Thompson said the lawsuit isn’t about making sure the government knows “every single jot and tittle” of absentee voting procedure, but to ensure election officials count every vote, which he defined as “the absolute most basic obligation.”

Still, some election experts warn the case could have unintended consequences. Morrell said the lawsuit could become one of many elements that dissuade election officials from staying in administrative roles.

“If we’re setting an unrealistic expectation that any mistake made by an election administrator opens you up to a lawsuit, that feels like an impossible situation to be in,” she said. “Election administrators take this so seriously and do everything they can to ensure mistakes don’t happen,” she added, “but they do.”

For Haimowitz — a voter who has helped others register to vote and served as a poll worker — the question isn’t just whether the city fixes the problem. It’s whether he can move past having his ballot go uncounted.

“It was something that made me think it’s clearly not that easy to vote,” he said.

Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Shur at ashur@votebeat.org.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat’s free national newsletter here.

Disenfranchised Madison voters sound off on city, lawsuit 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.

Director Michael Sajbel’s 20th high school class reunion was the push he needed to reconnect with his Wisconsin roots.

The post Wausau-native movie director reconnects with his Wisconsin roots in new memoir appeared first on WPR.