Reading Time: 6 minutes

Click here to read highlights from the story

• Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu struck a compromise to spend $1.8 billion in surplus state funds on tax rebates, special education funding and lower property taxes. The state Senate rejected the proposal Wednesday night.

• The rejection leaves the money on the table for the next governor and Legislature to use in the next biennial budget, raising the stakes for who wins the November election.

• Lead Republican gubernatorial candidate U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany and several of the Democratic contenders slammed the proposal, though Democrat Missy Hughes criticized her opponents for opposing it.

A bipartisan deal struck between Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and Republican legislative leaders to spend $1.8 billion of Wisconsin’s projected budget surplus failed in the Senate late Wednesday night after days of criticism that put both Evers and GOP leaders at odds with members of their own parties. 

The fallout has become a blame game over who is responsible for the deal’s failure:

• Republicans blamed Democrats for not being willing to provide assistance to Wisconsinites.
• Senate Democrats blamed Republicans and Evers for not involving them in negotiations and described the bill as “reckless” and “irresponsible” spending. 
• Several Assembly Democrats criticized the deal for not providing long-term structural changes to education funding or property taxes.
• Evers blamed both Democratic and Republican lawmakers and Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, the likely GOP gubernatorial nominee in the governor’s race.
• Tiffany called the proposal a “backroom relief deal” that “fails to deliver lasting relief to Wisconsin taxpayers.” 
• The Democratic gubernatorial candidates split on whether the bill was a good idea. 

The underlying reason for all of the statements, social media posts and comments debating the surplus spending is that future control of the Capitol hangs in the balance come November, said Anthony Chergosky, an associate professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse. 

“It’s very interesting that this agreement was struck by three politicians who will not be in office this time next year, when the upcoming budget process is taking place,” Chergosky said. “There are a lot of people involved in the politics of this agreement who will be around potentially and are kind of wondering about the wisdom of three lame-duck members of state government striking a significant deal that will have potential ripple effects, whether they be positive or negative.” 

Evers, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, and Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu, R-Oostburg, who are not seeking reelection this year, announced the deal on Monday. It followed months of negotiations that began after state leaders learned of the projected surplus in January. The nearly $2.4 billion surplus far exceeded projections made last year as lawmakers crafted the state’s 2025-27 budget. 

The deal would have directed over $300 million to Wisconsin school districts through special education reimbursement, another $300 million for school districts to lower property taxes and $870 million through income tax rebates for those who filed state income taxes in 2024. It also would have permanently eliminated state income taxes on tips and overtime wages, which Evers vetoed in Republican-led bills in April. 

Here are a few lessons we learned from the failed surplus deal debate. 

Democrats are increasingly splitting with Evers 

Not too long ago, legislative Democrats had to be ready to defend Evers’ vetoes from Republican overrides. 

This week, all 15 Senate Democrats and 32 in the Assembly broke with the two-term governor on the surplus deal. Ten Assembly Democrats, including several running in close districts this fall, voted with Republicans to pass the bill in the Assembly. 

In statements and comments, many looped Evers in with Vos and LeMahieu as lame-duck elected officials leaving the Capitol in the coming months. 

“This is a completely reckless proposal stitched together in a backroom deal by three people who will not be running around and won’t be here when the consequences of a multibillion-dollar deficit comes home to roost,” Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein, D-Middleton, said ahead of the Senate vote. “It’s simply something I can’t support.”

Even the majority of the seven top Democratic candidates for governor criticized the deal. Only Missy Hughes, the former CEO of the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp., directly supported the surplus spending plan. 

“@GovEvers bargain with the GOP is bad for Wisconsin,” Democratic gubernatorial candidate and state Rep. Francesca Hong, D-Madison, said in a social media post this week explaining her no vote. “This backroom deal is a payday loan taken out at the expense of our children, our infrastructure, our economy, and our future.”

Evers this week did not hesitate to return criticism to the lawmakers of his party. He told CBS58 that Democrats calling the bill irresponsible was “the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.” 

“Wisconsin’s kids and schools aren’t going to get the investments they desperately need this year because Tom Tiffany and a few Republican and Democratic lawmakers chose to blow up a bipartisan plan to invest in our K-12 schools, lower property taxes, and help working families afford rising costs, all because they’d rather do what’s best for the next election than what’s right for the people of our state,” Evers said in a statement immediately after the Senate vote. “So many Wisconsinites feel left behind, frustrated, and disillusioned by politics these days because they think a lot of politicians in the Capitol are only here to serve themselves. And, today, they’re right.” 

Strange bedfellows on good governance

For nearly eight years, Republican lawmakers have frequently sparred with Evers both in the Capitol and the courts.

The debate over the surplus deal saw legislative Republicans defending Evers against criticism from Democratic lawmakers. Several thanked Evers for being willing to compromise and work with Republicans. 

“You’re going to hear from my Democratic colleagues that they want to save the money because they want to invest it in growing the size of government. That’s what they’re going to say, even though they might not use those words, we know the truth. We want to give it back. Some Democrats want to keep it,” Vos said on the Assembly floor. “Luckily, Tony Evers isn’t one of those. He actually had the ability to say, let’s compromise, let’s each give, let’s find a consensus, because the people of Wisconsin expect us to do better than to just stand up and shake our fist.” 

On the other hand, many Democratic lawmakers urged caution against approving the spending for the projected surplus when there are economic uncertainties at the federal level.

Sen. Kelda Roys, D-Madison, who is running for governor, said she was “shocked” to agree with Tiffany and state Sen. Steve Nass, R-Whitewater, a hard-line fiscal conservative, in their criticism of the deal. 

“This is a deal that does not help us fix the significant long-term structural problems we have, namely the way we have robbed our children of their futures in defunding public education,” she said during the Joint Finance Committee meeting Tuesday. 

Nass, who is not seeking reelection, was one of three Republicans who sided with Senate Democrats on Wednesday in opposing the deal. Sen. Chris Kapenga, R-Delafield, and Sen. Rob Hutton, R-Brookfield, also voted against it.  

Nass asked Senate Republicans to reject the proposal for concerns about financial stability. 

“I’ve enjoyed standing up for we, the people, especially financially, as I’m doing this evening, and until my final day, I will vote in a way that financially protects those I represent,” Nass said during Wednesday night’s Senate floor debate. “What we’re doing now is mortgaging our future and our children’s future, to some extent, for the temporary convenience of the present. And the only way that can stop is for us to resist it and to vote no.” 

The surplus as an election issue

Legislative inaction on the surplus likely means the next governor and whoever holds majorities in the Assembly and the Senate in January will control how that money is or is not spent. 

Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer, D-Racine, told reporters on Thursday that future election criticism about the deal’s failure should be directed at Republicans. 

“Republicans are in the majority, and they failed to get this bill out of the state Senate with their own members,” she said. “That’s something that they’re going to have to answer for, as well as, of course, 16 years of failing to address these issues and creating an affordability crisis.”

Tiffany said if he is elected governor, the surplus funds will “be returned to taxpayers where they belong.”

It’s possible, for the slew of candidates running in the Democratic gubernatorial primary, that this is a turning point in what has otherwise been a quiet campaign so far, Chergosky said. 

“This might be the thing that gives the nomination race a little kick in the pants or a little nudge to start getting moving because we are seeing some daylight between the candidates,” Chergosky said. 

For example, Hughes, the lone Democratic gubernatorial candidate who directly supported the deal, in a social media post on Thursday criticized Tiffany but slammed, without naming names, “certain self-serving Democratic candidates for governor who would rather boost their own personal political ambitions than serve our kids and taxpayers.”

“Imagine if those candidates had acted like the leaders they profess to be. Imagine if they had paused before sending press releases and Twitter threads and jumping to name calling. Imagine if they had set aside their bruised egos and leaned in,” Hughes said. “Ultimately, they could still have voted no or opposed the bill, but they never even gave it due diligence. That’s not leadership, that’s gamesmanship. These Democratic candidates exposed themselves for lacking the maturity and responsibility a governor must have if they are to move our entire state forward.” 

Former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes said the deal delivered “meaningful dollars” to schools, but did not fix the state’s “broken system” to help working people. 

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Joel Brennan, the former Department of Administration secretary under Evers, criticized the deal negotiations for not being done in public. 

Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley said “a one-year property tax break is not a long-term affordability plan.” 

Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez called the deal “a compromise that’s far from perfect.”

Wisconsin’s $1.8 billion budget deal collapses, exposing rifts within both parties 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.

WASHINGTON — Several Republican U.S. senators left a closed-door lunch with Secret Service Director Sean Curran on Tuesday saying they still have questions about how the agency would spend an additional $1 billion. 

“I’ve asked for a lot more data,” said Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine. “If there are needs for new training ranges, for example, that should have been in the president’s budget.”

Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, tucked the significant increase into a larger immigration enforcement bill, leading to concerns from some of his GOP colleagues and criticism from Democrats the money will go toward construction of a White House ballroom.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said after the lunch meeting the additional funding is predominantly for regular Secret Service activities, not to support the creation of a new ballroom.  

“The ballroom is being financed privately but the security associated with it represents about 20% of what this request was,” Thune said.

A breakdown of how the new funding would be used by Secret Service, obtained by States Newsroom, showed: 

• $220 million would go to “hardening” the East Wing Modernization Project with additional bulletproof glass, drone detection technologies and filtration systems designed to detect chemical or other contaminants. 
• $180 million would go toward construction of a “long overdue” White House visitor screening facility. 
• $175 million would bolster Secret Service training as well as its training facilities. 
• $175 million would help the agency “secure frequently visited venues facing heightened risk due to their public visibility and static nature.”
• $150 million would go to the branch of the Secret Service that focuses on drones, aircraft incursions, biological threats and “other emerging threats through investments in state-of-the-art technologies.”
• $100 million for “high-profile national events that require significant planning.”

Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott said he wants the Secret Service to share more information. 

“I think the bottom line is, people want to be supportive, right? They want security for the president, but they want more detail,” he said. 

The $1 billion for the Secret Service would be in addition to the $1.17 billion Republicans approved for the agency in their “big, beautiful” law as well as the agency’s annual funding level.

The White House released its budget request in early April, asking lawmakers to approve $3.5 billion for the Secret Service in an annual funding bill, a $36 million increase. 

Senators want more specifics

Utah Republican Sen. John Curtis said he wants “more specifics” from the administration in addition to what lawmakers saw during the lunch. 

South Dakota Republican Sen. Mike Rounds said he’s asked for more information from the Secret Service about its needs. 

“They’re trying to make it very clear that what they’re talking about are the security improvements that should be included if we’re making major reconstruction within the White House itself,” he said. “So I think as more of the information begins to come out, I think people are going to feel a lot more comfortable with what they’re requesting.”

Sen. Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican, said he supported the additional Secret Service funding, arguing that security at the White House can be complex.

“I’m fine with that,” he said. “So long as it’s used for security purposes.”

Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski said she wanted to see a detailed breakdown of where the $1 billion would go before committing to supporting the move.

No details from Judiciary chair 

Grassley, who included the line item for “security adjustments and upgrades” for the East Wing Modernization Project in his panel’s immigration enforcement bill, didn’t share details before the lunch about how he landed on the $1 billion figure. 

“It was just kind of a consensus among all of us,” he said, later adding the agreement was among Senate GOP lawmakers, not with the White House.  

Grassley said he didn’t expect to know before the end of the week whether the Secret Service funding would stay in the $72 billion package that is intended to fund immigration activities for the next three years.

The Judiciary Committee bill and one written by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which will be combined in the coming days, would provide Immigration and Customs Enforcement with $38.175 billion, Customs and Border Protection with $26.02 billion, the secretary of Homeland Security’s office with $5 billion and the Department of Justice with $1.457 billion.

GOP leaders in Congress hope to approve the bill next week, sending it to President Donald Trump before the Memorial Day weekend break.

Opportunity for Dems

Senate floor debate on the package includes a marathon amendment voting session that will give Democrats, or even Republicans, the chance to hold up-or-down votes on the additional spending. 

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, said Democrats “will certainly be able to put our colleagues on record” about the additional Secret Service funding. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Democrats will “fight this bill tooth and nail.”

“We’ll offer amendments and we’ll force Republicans to vote again and again on one simple question — are you with working families or are you with Trump’s ballroom,” he said. 

Thune said earlier in the day that Republicans “can’t have a lot of hiccups right now” and still send Trump the package before the president’s June 1 deadline.

Reading Time: 2 minutes

After months of negotiation, Gov. Tony Evers and Republican leaders in the Legislature said Monday they’ve reached a deal that would spend down the state’s budget surplus on tax relief and education.

The roughly $1.9 billion deal, which is expected to go before lawmakers for a vote this week, includes $850 million in direct payments to taxpayers and the elimination of state income tax for overtime pay and tipped earnings. It would also boost spending on K-12 education by $600 million.

That school funding figure is split between general school aid and increasing the state’s special education reimbursement rate, which has been a point of contention from Evers’ team since the passage last summer of the two-year state budget. Since that time, higher-than-expected costs of special education lowered the total amount received by school districts from the state.

The deal would spend down much of the state’s projected surplus — which the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau had previously estimated at roughly $2.5 billion — but leave the state’s rainy day fund untouched.

Speaking to reporters on Monday, Evers touted the deal as a win for schools, with compromises for Republican tax priorities.

“Money for schools is obviously the most important thing for me,” Evers said. “We’re in a position to actually compromise and have Republicans and Democrats — at least at the leadership level — getting something done.”

That comment alludes to some fracturing within the parties themselves, with several lawmakers putting out immediate statements condemning the deal. But Evers expressed confidence that a majority of lawmakers would vote to approve the plan.

In separate statements, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, and Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu, R-Oostburg, said the deal would put the state’s surplus toward tax relief.

“We’re sending (the surplus) back to help families with the pressure of increasing costs, reward hard work, and to continue investing in schools to help stabilize rising property taxes,” said Vos.

Evers’ office said that the direct payment checks, which would total $600 per married couple or $300 per individual, would be mailed out by November. Evers spokesperson Britt Cudaback called that provision a central priority for Senate Republicans during negotiations. The governor’s office says 3 million people are expected to receive those checks, for a total cost to the state of about $850 million.

“This deal will provide immediate relief with $600 in surplus refund payments and provide permanent property and income tax relief for Wisconsin families,” said LeMahieu in his statement.

While the state Legislature has adjourned for the year, both the Senate and Assembly would need to pass this deal for it to become law. That means that a special session of the Legislature will be called. According to the governor’s office, that path will be expedited, with the Legislature’s budget committee expected to move it forward on Tuesday, and the full Legislature set to debate it as early as Wednesday.

This story was originally published by WPR.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, GOP leaders announce deal on tax relief and school funding 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.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump is looking to eliminate funding in fiscal 2027 for the agency that serves as the primary federal funding source for libraries and museums nationwide.

But congressional appropriators — who rebuffed similar efforts to gut the agency in fiscal 2026 — expressed little enthusiasm for the proposed cut in interviews with States Newsroom. Groups representing museums and libraries across the country also blasted the president’s proposal. 

The administration is requesting $6 million in fiscal 2027 for the agency, known as the Institute of Museum and Library Services, “for necessary expenses to carry out (its) closure.”

U.S. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, chair of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies, noted that her panel did not agree to the same Trump request in fiscal 2026 to eliminate funding for the agency. 

“I personally have always been a fan of libraries, and it does a lot for local communities,” said Capito, a West Virginia Republican whose panel writes the annual bill to fund the Institute of Museum and Library Services. 

“So, that’s what he does, he proposes, and then we look at it and make our own decisions,” she said. 

Last year’s request turned down

The spending package signed into law by Trump in February provides roughly $292 million for the agency this fiscal year — a sharp rejection of Trump’s efforts. 

Capito said that though her committee will consider the president’s fiscal 2027 request, “if you look at what we did last year, it shows that we kind of rejected that premise.” 

Rep. Robert Aderholt, an Alabama Republican and chair of the corresponding Appropriations subcommittee in the House, appeared noncommittal about pursuing Trump’s fiscal 2027 request to gut the agency.

In response to States Newsroom’s request for a phone interview, Aderholt provided a written statement. 

“We are reviewing the request from the Administration and the requests from every member of the House,” Aderholt said, adding that “this is a member-driven process, and we look forward to working with our colleagues in putting together a strong bill for the American taxpayers.” 

Legal battles

The agency was created by Congress in 1996 and has a mission to “advance, support, and empower America’s museums, libraries, and related organizations through grantmaking, research, and policy development.”

The administration has taken major steps to try to dismantle the agency, including through a March 2025 executive order. 

However, Trump’s Department of Justice reached a settlement earlier in April with the American Library Association — the nation’s largest library association — and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees — the country’s largest union of cultural workers — that protects the agency and guarantees it will continue issuing grants and program operations. 

In another setback for the administration, the DOJ dropped its appeal this month in a case brought by 21 attorneys general, who challenged the administration’s efforts to dismantle the agency and had secured a major court victory in November. 

‘The barbarians are at the door’

Meanwhile, leading Democrats on the House and Senate appropriations panels dealing with the agency’s spending were quick to lambaste Trump’s proposal in interviews with States Newsroom. 

Sen. Tammy Baldwin, ranking member of the Senate subcommittee and a Wisconsin Democrat, described the agency as “such an incredibly valuable entity” and vowed to fight “tooth and nail” to protect it. 

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, ranking member of the full House Appropriations Committee and the spending subcommittee with jurisdiction over the agency, said the administration’s request is “just neanderthal.”

The Connecticut Democrat said “we’ll work to restore like we try to do every time,” while adding that Trump’s request indicates that “the barbarians are at the door.” 

Library, museum organizations push back

Leading library and museum organizations fiercely opposed Trump’s request and called on Congress to reject the proposal. 

In a statement, Sam Helmick, president of the American Library Association, said Trump’s “continued attack” on the agency in the budget request and the March 2025 executive order to shutter it “shows the extent to which the administration is tone deaf to the needs of millions of Americans who rely on libraries every day: older adults and veterans who use library telehealth spaces; unemployed people who use library resources to find a new job or learn new skills; families who count on story time; and students and faculty who do research in school and academic libraries.”

John Chrastka, founder and executive director of EveryLibrary, said Trump’s proposal is “a direct threat to the infrastructure that millions of Americans rely on every day,” in a statement. 

Chrastka, whose organization is dedicated to building support for libraries, said “libraries are not optional,” but instead represent “essential public resources that support literacy, workforce development, and community connection in every state.”

The American Alliance of Museums blasted the proposal as “misguided and out of step with the American public and Congress,” noting that similar efforts in fiscal 2026 and prior budget cycles to yank funding for the agency were rejected due to “strong bipartisan, bicameral support in Congress and sustained advocacy from the museum community.” 

The Institute of Museum and Library Services declined to comment on Trump’s fiscal 2027 budget request. 

WASHINGTON — Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. testified before Congress on Thursday that he’s not pleased with how spending cuts to programs that help lower-income Americans afford food will affect his efforts to bolster healthy eating habits. 

“Am I happy about the cuts? No, I’m not happy about the cuts,” Kennedy said during a lengthy hearing in front of the House Ways and Means Committee, one of several congressional panels he’ll testify before in the days ahead. 

Kennedy added that President Donald Trump and White House budget director Russ Vought also didn’t truly want to propose funding cuts to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, often called WIC, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. 

“Nobody wants to make the cuts. Russ Vought doesn’t want to make the cuts. President Trump doesn’t,” he said. “But we got a $39 trillion debt.”

Wisconsin Democratic Rep. Gwen Moore, who asked the questions, then referenced comments Kennedy made earlier in the hearing about Froot Loops, when he said it “isn’t even a food. It’s just poison.”

Moore noted the cereal is “a lot cheaper than good, healthy food.”

Froot Loops includes a corn flour blend, sugar, wheat flour, whole grain oat flour, modified food starch and other ingredients. 

Trump advocates reductions for HHS

The Trump administration’s budget request for the fiscal year set to begin on Oct. 1 proposes Congress increase defense spending by more than half a trillion dollars, accounting for a 43% boost, and that lawmakers cut domestic spending by 10%. 

It suggested Congress reduce spending at HHS by $15.8 billion, or 12.5%, to $111.1 billion, though lawmakers largely rejected proposed spending cuts to the department during last year’s government funding process. 

Vought testified earlier this week that the administration expects to ask Congress for additional defense spending for the war in Iran, though he said he couldn’t give lawmakers a ballpark estimate for how much that will add to the current request for $1.5 trillion in defense funding. 

Lawmakers questioned Kennedy about dozens of other issues throughout the hearing, including how he’s spoken about vaccines since being confirmed HHS secretary, the rise in measles cases throughout the country and comments Kennedy and Trump made about the possible causes of autism. 

Utah Republican Rep. Blake Moore, after sharing that his 10-year-old is on the autism spectrum, said he was “underwhelmed” by what the administration has released so far about possible causes. 

He also said that his wife was hurt by claims from Trump and Kennedy that women who take Tylenol when pregnant could increase the risk their children are later diagnosed with autism. 

“We don’t even know if she took Tylenol during her pregnancy, but that was a hurtful moment for her,” Blake Moore said. “And I just want to encourage the administration and your team to keep at it. And I think there’s more we can do here with low expectations.”

Medical experts say that decades of research shows autism is the result of a combination of genetic and environmental factors.  

Measles death

California Democratic Rep. Linda T. Sánchez questioned Kennedy about comments he made during his Senate confirmation hearing on vaccines, arguing that he hasn’t stuck to the commitments he made during that process. 

She then asked him if the measles vaccine could have prevented a boy from dying of the disease in Texas. 

“It’s possible, certainly,” Kennedy said. 

But, he repeatedly declined to answer a question from Sánchez about whether Trump approved the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s decision to remove a messaging campaign to encourage vaccination, even as she asked it several times. 

Sánchez then displayed a poster showing a photograph of Kennedy and Kid Rock to illustrate her discontent with his work so far as HHS Secretary. 

“Now, one thing that I find incredible is that you suspended this pro-vaccine messaging campaign. But somehow you’re spending taxpayer dollars to drink milk shirtless in a hot tub with Kid Rock,” she said. “And somehow you think that’s a better public health message than informing the public about the importance of vaccines.”

Day care, Medicaid, Black maternal health

Illinois Democratic Rep. Danny K. Davis pressed Kennedy about whether he agrees with a statement Trump made earlier this month when the president said, “We can’t take care of day care. It’s not possible for us to take care of day care. Medicaid, Medicare, all of these individual things. They can do it on a state basis. You can’t do it on a federal. We have to take care of one thing, military protection.” 

Kennedy responded that he was “told to make a 12% cut across our department” because the national debt, which has accumulated over decades, has reached $39 trillion. 

“We’re now having to tighten our belt,” Kennedy said. 

Davis also questioned Kennedy on funding and initiatives to reduce Black maternal mortality, saying “the Trump administration is undermining Black maternal health from all sides.”

“The GOP slashed over a trillion dollars from Medicaid, which pays for over 40% of births in the United States. President Trump just proposed cutting maternal and child health programs by over $800 million,” he said. “DOGE canceled funds for several research projects that could save countless Black mothers, like the Morehouse School of Medicine research on improving the health of Black pregnant and postpartum women.”

Kennedy responded by arguing that he and others in the Trump administration are “doing more to advance maternal health than any other administration in history.”

“There was tremendous duplication in the departments. We had 42 different maternal health services in our department,” Kennedy said. “And we cut some of those and consolidated them. Right now, we are investing huge amounts of money in maternal health.”