Demonstrators protest outside the immigration processing and detention facility this month in Broadview, Ill. President Donald Trump wants to deploy Texas National Guard members to the Chicago area but has been blocked by federal courts. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

As President Donald Trump prepares to send National Guard troops — from either Oregon, California or possibly Texas — into Portland, Oregon, entrepreneur Sarah Shaoul watches with deep concern.

A three-decade resident of the Portland area, Shaoul leads a coalition of roughly 100 local small businesses, including many dependent on foot traffic. Armed troops could spook customers and, she fears, trigger a crisis where none exists.

“I don’t want this to be a political conversation but, I mean, the fact you bring people from other states who maybe have different politics — I think it shows an administration that’s trying to pit people against other people,” Shaoul said.

Trump’s campaign to send the National Guard into Democratic-leaning cities he describes as crime-ridden has so far reached Los Angeles; Washington, D.C.; Memphis, Tennessee; Chicago and Portland. He has federalized — taken command of — hundreds of active-duty guard members to staff the deployments.

But in the two most recent attempted deployments to Portland and the Chicago area, the Trump administration has turned to out-of-state National Guard troops, the part-time soldiers who often respond to natural disasters.

National guards are usually under the control of state governors, with state funds paying for their work. But sometimes the troops can be called into federal service at federal expense and placed under the president’s control.

In addition to federalizing some members of the Oregon and Illinois National Guard within those states, the president sent 200 Texas National Guard troops to the Chicago area and plans to send California National Guard members to Portland. A Pentagon memo has also raised the possibility of sending some Texas troops to Portland.

Presidents who have federalized National Guard forces in the past, even against a governor’s will, have done so in response to a crisis in the troops’ home state. That happened to enforce school desegregation in Arkansas in 1957 and Alabama in 1963.

But the decision to send one state’s National Guard troops into a different state without the receiving governor’s consent is both extraordinary and unprecedented, experts on national security law told Stateline.

The cross-border deployments evoke concerns stretching back to the country’s infancy, when the Federalist Papers in 1787-1788 grappled with the possibility that states could take military action against one another. While the recent cross-state deployments have all included troops under Trump’s command, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has been an enthusiastic supporter of Trump ordering his state’s National Guard to Chicago.

The troop movements raise questions of state sovereignty and how far the president can go in using the militia of one state to exercise power in another. At stake is Trump’s ability to effectively repurpose military forces for domestic use in line with an August executive order that called for the creation of a National Guard “quick reaction force” that could rapidly deploy nationwide.

“It’s really like …  a little bit like invading another country,” said Claire Finkelstein, a professor of law and philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania who studies military ethics and national security law.

The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow it to proceed with the Chicago-area deployment, which is currently blocked in federal court. On Monday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the deployment in Portland to move forward, overruling a district court judge, but additional appeals are expected.

The deployments come as Trump has repeatedly threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to expand his ability to use the military for law enforcement. Presidents are generally prohibited from deploying the military domestically, but the Insurrection Act, which dates back to 1792, could be used to bypass restrictions and potentially allow National Guard members to make immigration-related arrests.

For now, Trump has federalized National Guard members under a federal law known as Title 10, which allows the president to take command of National Guard members in response to invasion, rebellions against the United States and whenever the president is unable to execute federal laws with “regular forces.”

He has characterized illegal immigration as an invasion and sought to station National Guard members outside of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, facilities and other federal property.

While Chicago and Portland fight Trump’s moves in court, other cities are bracing for the arrival of troops in anticipation that the deployments will continue to expand. Washington state went so far as to enact a new law earlier this year intended to prevent out-of-state National Guard members from deploying in Washington. The new state law doesn’t pertain to federalized troops, however, only to those that might be sent by another governor.

“I’m incredibly concerned but not necessarily surprised by the president’s method of operation, that there seems to be a theme of fear, intimidation, bullying without a clear plan,” Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell said in an interview with Stateline.

Harrell, who is running for reelection to the nonpartisan office in November, said Seattle officials are monitoring what’s happening in other cities. Any deployment of guard members — whether they were from Washington or elsewhere — would be concerning, he said.

“At the end of the day, they would be following orders with some level of military precision, so my concern isn’t so much out-of-state or in-state. I just oppose any kind of deployment.”

Courtroom fights

Whether the out-of-state status of National Guard members matters legally is up for debate. Experts in national security law are split over whether sending federalized troops across state lines poses constitutional and legal problems, even as they broadly agree the move is provocative.

Joseph Nunn, a counsel in the left-leaning Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program, doubts the cross-state deployment of federalized troops is itself a legal issue.

Still, he criticized the decision to send in out-of-state National Guard and, speaking about Chicago, called the underlying deployment unlawful and unjustified. In ordering troops to Illinois, Nunn said, Trump was abusing his presidential power, regardless of the servicemembers’ home state.

“It is unnecessarily inflammatory,” Nunn said of that choice. “It is, I think, insulting to say we’re going to send the National Guard from one state into another.”

Democrats, especially in cities and states targeted by Trump, condemn the deployments as an abuse of presidential power, regardless of where the troops are from. Republicans have largely supported or stayed silent about Trump’s moves, though Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, who chairs the National Governors Association, has criticized the sending of Texas troops to Illinois.

Abbott wrote on social media in early October that he had “fully authorized” Trump to call up 400 Texas National Guard members. Abbott’s office didn’t respond to Stateline’s questions.

“You can either fully enforce protection for federal employees or get out of the way and let Texas Guard do it,” Abbott wrote on X.

In the Chicago area and in Portland, the Trump administration wants the National Guard outside ICE facilities where small protests have taken place in recent weeks. Dozens of people have been arrested in Portland since June, but there’s been no sign of widespread violence. A Stateline analysis of U.S. Census Bureau and federal crime data found that Trump’s National Guard deployments have not, with a single exception, targeted the nation’s most violent cities.

For weeks federal courts have kept National Guard troops off the streets of Portland and the Chicago area as legal challenges play out, but that could be changing. The Trump administration on Friday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow it to deploy National Guard troops in the Chicago area. If the court sides with the administration, the decision could clear the way for additional deployments elsewhere.

In the Friday filing to the Supreme Court, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote: “This case presents what has become a disturbing and recurring pattern: Federal officers are attempting to enforce federal immigration law in an urban area containing significant numbers of illegal aliens. The federal agents’ efforts are met with prolonged, coordinated, violent resistance that threatens their lives and safety and systematically interferes with their ability to enforce federal law.”

The U.S. Department of Defense didn’t directly answer questions from Stateline about whether further cross-state deployments are planned, saying only that it doesn’t speculate on future operations.

U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut wrote in an order blocking deployment of the National Guard in Portland that a handful of documented episodes of protesters clashing with federal law enforcement during September were “inexcusable,” but added that “they are nowhere near the type of incidents that cannot be handled by regular law enforcement forces.”

But on Monday, a divided three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Trump had “lawfully exercised his statutory authority” to deploy Oregon National Guard servicemembers to Portland. Lawyers for Oregon and Portland are seeking a review by the full appeals court, a move that would put the case in front of 11 appellate judges.

Shaoul, the Portland business leader, said the presence of troops would itself risk creating “drama” at the expense of taxpayers.

“Tell me how that’s helping anybody to go in and intimidate a bunch of people who are dressed up in friggin’ costumes, playing music,” Shaoul said. “I mean, if nothing else illustrates what a joke this is, that should tell you right there.”

10th Amendment concerns

Top Republicans have long telegraphed their desire to use the National Guard to aid immigration enforcement.

In December, before Trump took office, 26 GOP governors — at the time, every Republican governor except Vermont’s Phil Scott — signed a statement promising to provide their national guards to help.

Since Trump’s inauguration, at least 11 Republican governors have ordered National Guard members to help ICE, typically by providing logistical support. At least four states — Florida, Louisiana, Texas and West Virginia — have entered into federal agreements that allow ICE to delegate some immigration enforcement duties, potentially including arrests, to National Guard members.

Trump’s decision to federalize National Guard members goes further, placing troops under the president’s command. The cross-state deployments represent the next step in testing his authority to command guard members.

Finkelstein, the national security law professor, said sending one state’s National Guard into another state raises serious legal issues under the 10th Amendment. The amendment reserves for the states or the people powers not specifically granted to the federal government — the idea at the core of federalism.

A president and governor may reasonably disagree about whether federalization is necessary to help their state, Finkelstein said, but “even that fig leaf” isn’t available when troops are sent to another state. California gets nothing out of the deployment of its National Guard to Oregon, she said. And unless it’s California’s governor — rather than the president — making the choice to deploy guard members elsewhere, it’s a “very real problem” that undermines state autonomy, she said.

Washington state Rep. Jim Walsh, who chairs the Washington State Republican Party, has been monitoring the attempted deployment in Portland, as well as the possibility of a deployment to Seattle. He said Trump has broad discretion under federal law to federalize National Guard members.

Still, Walsh said federalizing the National Guard gives him pause and is something that a hypothetical president — “leave this one out of the equation” — might overuse. But he argued state and local leadership in cities where the National Guard has been deployed have brought the situation on themselves by allowing a breakdown in law and order.

Asked about cross-state deployments, Walsh largely dismissed any legal concerns.

“I guess they would know the area better,” Walsh said of troops deployed in their home state. “But this is kind of a specious argument. … The president, whoever he or she is, can federalize National Guard units.”

Walsh said he doesn’t see a situation at the moment that would necessitate a Guard deployment within Washington state.

But Seattle isn’t taking any chances.

Harrell, the Seattle mayor, signed two executive orders in October, one that pushes back on the practice of federal agents making immigration arrests while wearing masks, and another that seeks to maintain control over local law enforcement resources if the National Guard is deployed in the city.

“I’m critically concerned about what can occur as a reaction,” Harrell said. “That’s exactly what Trump’s goal is, to raise tension and create chaos and to use blue cities as scapegoats.”

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correct the year, 1957, that President Dwight D. Eisenhower federalized National Guard troops to enforce desegregation in Arkansas. Stateline reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@stateline.org.

Advocates gather outside the Hippodrome Theater in Richmond, Virginia, this summer to protest Medicaid cuts. Medicaid covers nearly two-thirds of Black babies’ births in the U.S., federal data shows, and congressional cuts to the program are already limiting reproductive health care in Black and low-income communities. (Photo by Bert Shepherd/Courtesy of Protect Our Care PAC)

At least 90% of Black people surveyed for a new poll said Medicaid is important to them or their families, and more than half either have public insurance or a family member who relies on the program. 

“Medicaid is critical for so many things with regards to making sure that we’re healthy and addressing health disparities. By losing it or weakening it, it is just going to disproportionately harm our communities,” said Regina Davis Moss, the president and CEO of In Our Own Voice: National Black Women’s Reproductive Justice Agenda. 

Davis Moss’ organization commissioned the 10-state poll, which includes views from California, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Nonpartisan research firm PerryUndem conducted the survey between May and June and interviewed 500 Black adults in each state. 

The findings, shared exclusively with States Newsroom, show a significant number of Black people who want children are not yet planning to have them due to cost and health care concerns. 

Results were released just as several Planned Parenthood clinics that served Black patients with low incomes closed after a law took effect blocking certain reproductive health clinics affiliated with abortion providers from receiving Medicaid reimbursements until July 2026.

Louisiana’s Planned Parenthood clinics, which never offered abortions in their decades of service, closed on Sept. 30. Sixty percent of the Baton Rouge and New Orleans patients were Black and most have Medicaid insurance, States Newsroom reported. One of two Planned Parenthood locations in Memphis, where more than 60% of the population is Black, temporarily closed its doors during the first week of October due to Medicaid cuts, Tennessee Lookout reported. 

“Proximity is important, and the fact that these clinics have to close means that individuals needing their services will go without,” said Danielle Atkinson, executive director of Mothering Justice, a national advocacy group based in Michigan. 

Four Planned Parenthood clinics closed in her state this spring after the Trump administration cut millions of Title X family-planning funding, Michigan Advance reported.  

“They’ll go without STI testing. They’ll go without cancer screening. They’ll go without counseling,” Atkinson said. 

The ban on Medicaid for some reproductive health providers was part of a larger reconciliation package that is also set to slash nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid more broadly over the next decade. 

“Medicaid is a lifeline for Black women, girls and gender-expansive people,” Davis Moss said. The state and federal program covers nearly two-thirds of Black births, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and almost half of all births nationwide. 

Maternal health advocates are bracing for the impact of Medicaid cuts on labor and delivery units, which have already been closing at a rapid pace over the last 10 years, especially in rural communities. A maternity ward in northeast Georgia, one of the states included in the poll, will close at the end of the month partially due to Medicaid cuts, Georgia Recorder reported in September. 

Findings from the In Our Own Voice poll also show that Black people of reproductive age — 18 to 44 in this case — want children but are not planning to have them, citing high costs of living. 

California had the biggest disparity of 28 percentage points: 56% want children but only 28% plan to have them. 

“I believe some of the reasons they said are not new issues that we are grappling with, but it’s deeply concerning because they are being exacerbated in this current administration,” Davis Moss said. 

At least 69% of Black people polled in each of the 10 states said they worry about being able to take care of children or more children than they already have, while at least 67% cited housing costs and 57% pointed to child care expenses. 

“In a lot of these states, the cost of child care is more expensive than a year of tuition, which is such a barrier for people to be able to: one, go into the workforce, two, have that early intervention and early education that really sets their children up for success, and three, give individuals and families the opportunity to go and explore careers and learning opportunities,” Atkinson said. 

Abortion restrictions played a factor in family planning, too, though in smaller numbers. At least 45% said they don’t want children because they or their loved one could die from pregnancy, while 43% worry about miscarriage care and 30% said abortion bans are stopping them from growing their families. 

Three of the states included in the poll — Florida, Georgia and North Carolina — have abortion bans stricter than 20 weeks. Voters in California, Michigan and Ohio approved reproductive rights amendments in recent years that secured the right to an abortion up to fetal viability, while Nevada and Virginia may have similar safeguards in place after the midterms. 

A majority of voters in each of the 10 states say abortion should be legal in all or most cases and at least 78% say Black women should make the decisions about pregnancy that’s best for them. 

Overall, at least half of Black adults polled are struggling with economic security. Black women of reproductive age were more likely to expect less safety and security throughout the rest of Republican President Donald Trump’s second term than Black men. 

“We’re getting ready to celebrate our 250 years, and all the things that we have fought for and all these things that we have gained in terms of civil rights and human rights, they are under threat like never before,” Davis Moss said. 

Women gather outside a Goodwill store inside the Elmwood Correctional Facility in 2024 in Milpitas, Calif. A Council on Criminal Justice report warns that criminal justice policies are failing to address the unique needs of women, from arrest to incarceration. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

A new report from the nonpartisan think tank Council on Criminal Justice warns that policies and practices across the nation’s criminal justice systems are failing to address the distinct factors that drive women into the system — and in doing so, are harming families and undermining public safety.

The report, which was released early this month, calls on states and local communities to reconsider how they respond to women at the earliest stages of criminal justice involvement — from arrest and pretrial detention to charging and sentencing — and to focus more on prevention, treatment and family stability.

“Women are no less responsible for their actions than men, and should be held accountable,” said Stephanie Akhter, the director of the council’s Women’s Justice Commission.

“If we really want to stop crime and put people on a path to success, then we need to take an individualized approach and craft responses that are fair and in service of those goals,” Akhter told Stateline.

The report outlined four major policy recommendations: prioritizing alternatives to arrest, basing pretrial detention decisions on public safety and flight risk, considering women’s unique circumstances during charging and sentencing, and prohibiting sexual contact between law enforcement officers and people in custody.

The authors also urged state and local leaders to invest in research and data collection to better understand women’s experiences in the justice system and the factors that may contribute to criminal behavior, including domestic violence, economic instability, substance use and mental illness.

“We need to know more about what’s bringing them into the system,” Akhter said. 

The report comes as new federal data shows the female prison population is growing faster than the male population. The female state prison population increased about 5% nationwide between 2022 and 2023, according to the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics. Most states saw gains of fewer than 100 women, with Texas being the only state where the number of incarcerated women rose by more than 500. 

Roughly 58% of women incarcerated in state prisons were parents of minor children in 2016, compared with 46% of men, according to a 2021 Bureau of Justice Statistics research brief.

The latest national FBI data shows a similar trend in arrests: Women accounted for 27% of all adult arrests in 2024, nearly double their 14% share in 1980, according to the council’s report. The share of violent offense arrests among women also has steadily risen, from 11% in 1986 to 21% in 2024. 

A separate report from the council’s Women’s Justice Commission examined how communities respond to women in crisis. The authors found that some crisis intervention systems are not designed to meet women’s specific needs, and that more research is needed to understand women’s experiences and long-term outcomes.

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at ahernandez@stateline.org.

An excavator works to clear rubble Oct. 23, 2025 after the East Wing of the White House was demolished. The demolition is part of President Donald Trump's plan to build a ballroom on the eastern side of the White House. (Photo by Eric Lee/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Workers this week demolished the East Wing of the White House, originally built in 1942, to make room for construction of a ballroom that President Donald Trump had said wouldn’t impact the building. 

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the roughly $300 million project during a Thursday briefing, saying it is the next in a long line of additions and renovations to the campus that have taken place throughout the country’s history. 

“Just trust the process,” Leavitt said. “This is going to be a magnificent addition to the White House for many years to come and it’s not costing the taxpayers anything.”

The project is being fully financed by Trump and several private donors, including Amazon, Apple, Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., Caterpillar Inc., Comcast Corporation, Google, Lockheed Martin, Meta Platforms, Microsoft, T-Mobile, Union Pacific Railroad, investors Cameron Winklevoss and Tyler Winklevoss, among others. 

Trump said later in the day that he plans to allocate “millions of dollars” to the ballroom and has spent his own money on other White House projects, including floors and lighting in the Palm Room. 

“I spent millions of dollars on this building, taking care of it,” he said. “It was not properly maintained and now it’s starting to gleam like it should. It should really gleam.”

Photos from The Associated Press appeared to show the ballroom demolition, which was first reported Monday, complete.

Leavitt said tearing down the East Wing did not need approval from the National Capital Planning Commission, according to a legal opinion from that organization, an executive-branch agency responsible for managing federal construction projects in and around Washington, D.C. 

“Their general counsel has said when it comes to phase one of this project, the tearing down of the current East Wing structure, a submission is not required legally for that,” Leavitt said. “Only for vertical construction will a submission be required and that’s a legal opinion from them and we are following that legal opinion.”

Design modified

Trump said in late July that construction of the ballroom “won’t interfere with the current building” and ballparked the price at $200 million.  

“It will be near it but not touching it. And pays total respect to the existing building, which I’m the biggest fan of,” Trump said at the time. “It’s my favorite. It’s my favorite place. I love it.”

Leavitt, when pressed Thursday why the president didn’t tell Americans he would need to demolish the entire East Wing, said designs were modified throughout the process. 

“The plans changed when the president heard counsel from the architects and the construction companies, who said that in order for this East Wing to be modern and beautiful for many, many years to come, for it to be a truly strong and stable structure, this phase one that we’re now in was necessary,” Leavitt said.

She didn’t offer an explanation for why the price had increased by $100 million, repeatedly saying no taxpayer money would go toward the ballroom. 

Security plans, official name unknown

Leavitt declined to say whether the project will include upgrades to the bunker that sits below the East Wing, known as the president’s emergency operations center, citing security concerns. 

“Like any security enhancements that are made on the White House grounds, those will be made and maintained by the United States Secret Service,” she said. 

Trump is also deciding what exactly to name the new ballroom, though Leavitt declined to detail what he’s considering.  

“There will be an official name,” she said. “I will let the president announce that once he firmly decides on it.”

Trump is not currently considering any other major construction or renovation projects on the White House grounds, though Leavitt didn’t rule out that could happen during the remainder of his term, which will last until Jan. 20, 2029. 

“Not to my knowledge, no,” Leavitt said. “But he is a builder at heart, clearly. And so his heart and his mind is always churning about how to improve things here on the White House grounds. But at this point in time, of course, the ballroom is really the president’s main priority.” 

Call for preservation

The nonprofit National Trust for Historic Preservation sent a letter earlier this week urging an immediate halt to demolition of the East Wing “until plans for the proposed ballroom go through the legally required public review processes, including consultation and review by the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts, and to invite comment from the public.”

President and CEO Carol Quillen wrote the 90,000-square-foot ballroom could easily dwarf the 55,000-square-foot White House. 

“As we approach the 250th Anniversary of our country’s founding, the preservation of historic places that represent our nation’s history has never been more relevant or important,” Quillen wrote. “We urge you to take into account the deep reverence that all Americans hold for this iconic place, and to initiate the review process that can ensure the preservation of the historic White House for future generations.”

The National Capital Planning Commission could not be reached for comment Thursday since it is closed due to the ongoing government shutdown. The Commission of Fine Arts did not immediately return a request for comment. 

The White House Historical Association writes on its website that the East Wing was constructed in 1942 “to house additional staff and offices, reflecting the growing complexity of the federal government during World War II.” 

“The East Wing’s construction was highly controversial due to its timing during wartime,” the website states. “Congressional Republicans labeled the expenditure as wasteful, with some accusing (President Franklin D.) Roosevelt of using the project to bolster his presidency’s image. The secretive nature of the construction, tied to military purposes, further fueled suspicions. However, the East Wing’s utility in supporting the modern presidency eventually quieted critics.”

Michael Gableman | Up Front screen shot

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Susan Crawford issued an order Thursday recusing herself from former Justice Michael Gableman’s disciplinary case with the state Office of Lawyer Regulation. 

Gableman faces a suspension of his law license for his conduct during his widely derided review of the 2020 presidential election. The Supreme Court is responsible for delivering the length of his suspension and determining any monetary penalties he’s responsible for paying. 

Crawford’s recusal comes after Gableman had filed a motion requesting that she not participate in the case because of comments she made about him on the campaign trail earlier this year. However, Crawford isn’t recusing at Gableman’s request. 

Instead, Crawford wrote, she is stepping aside from weighing in on the case because part of the allegations against Gableman are his actions during an open records lawsuit against him in the circuit court of Dane County Judge Frank Remington. Crawford, formerly a judge in that circuit, said that because of her proximity to Remington’s court, she learned facts about that case that are not considered part of the official record in the disciplinary matter. 

“I believe it is likely I was exposed to information and impressions related to Attorney Gableman’s conduct and demeanor in the circuit court that fall outside of the record before this court,” she wrote. “Because I may have been exposed to factual allegations beyond those Attorney Gableman has chosen not to contest, I may have ‘personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.’”

Because she recused herself for another reason, Crawford dismissed Gableman’s request as moot.

Gableman had also requested the recusal of Justice Rebecca Dallet, arguing that comments she made about his judicial record when she announced her campaign for the Court in 2017 meant she couldn’t impartially assess his case. In an order, Dallet denied the request, writing that her comments about him in 2017 have nothing to do with how she assesses actions he took in 2021. 

“Although Gableman tries to characterize my comments as reflecting a view of ‘Gableman’s moral turpitude,’ and his ‘professional judgment and character,’ no objective reasonable observer would understand them as such,” she wrote. “Simply put, I expressed my disagreement with Gableman’s actions as a candidate and justice between 2008 and 2018. That disagreement is irrelevant to whether he engaged in attorney misconduct in 2021 and 2022, and whether I can impartially adjudicate claims that he did so now.”

With Crawford recusing, the Court is divided 3-3 between liberals and conservatives — though conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn has previously sided with the Court’s liberals in cases relating to the 2020 presidential election.

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., talks to a reporter in the basement of the U.S. Capitol on Thursday, Oct. 23, 2025. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The Senate Thursday failed to advance a Republican measure and rejected unanimous agreements on two related bills from Democrats that would have paid federal employees and contractors who have continued to work amid the government shutdown, which entered day 23. 

The stalemate constituted the latest example of how dug in to their arguments both parties are as the shutdown that began Oct. 1 drags out, as well as the heightened political tensions in the upper chamber when it comes to striking a deal to resume government funding.  

Most federal employees will miss their first full paycheck on Friday or early next week. More than 42 million Americans, some 40% under the age of 17, are also at risk of delayed food assistance if Congress doesn’t address a funding shortfall expected by Nov. 1 in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. 

Senate Democrats Wednesday sent a letter to U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins over concerns that the agency has warned states to hold off on processing SNAP benefits. They contended the agency has the resources to keep payments flowing.

“We were deeply disturbed to hear that the USDA has instructed states to stop processing SNAP benefits for November and were surprised by your recent comments that the program will ‘run out of money in two weeks,’” according to the letter. “In fact, the USDA has several tools available which would enable SNAP benefits to be paid through or close to the end of November.”

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., introduced a bill Wednesday to continue SNAP funding through the shutdown. During Thursday’s briefing, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the administration would “absolutely support” the legislation.

Deadlock on federal worker pay

In the Senate, a measure from Wisconsin GOP Sen. Ron Johnson on a 54-45 vote did not reach the 60-vote threshold needed to advance in the chamber. Its failure means that federal employees who have continued to work will not be paid until the shutdown ends.

Democratic senators who agreed to the measure included Pennsylvania’s John Fetterman and Georgia’s Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock. Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota changed his vote in order to reconsider the measure. 

“I don’t think it makes sense to hold these federal workers hostage,” Warnock told States Newsroom in an interview on his vote Thursday. “If I could have a path to give some of these folks relief while fighting for health care, that’s what I decided to do.”

A separate measure from Maryland Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen also failed to move forward after Johnson objected. Van Hollen requested unanimous consent to approve his bill that would have also protected federal workers from mass Reductions in Force, or RIFs, that President Donald Trump has attempted during the shutdown. 

A second Democratic bill, from Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., was narrower, only including pay for federal workers. But when he requested unanimous approval for his measure, it was also blocked by Johnson.

Senators then left Capitol Hill for the weekend. On Wednesday, the Senate took a failed 12th vote to provide the federal government and its services with flat funding through Nov. 21.

Senate Republicans have pressed Senate Democrats to approve the GOP-written stopgap measure. But Democrats have maintained that they will not support the House measure because it does not extend tax credits that will expire at the end of the year for people who buy their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act Marketplace.

Layoffs cited by Van Hollen

Van Hollen argued his bill would protect workers from the president’s targeting of certain federal agencies and programs.

“We certainly shouldn’t set up a system where the president of the United States gets to decide what agencies to shut down, what they can open, who to pay and who not to pay, who to punish and who not to punish,” Van Hollen said on the Senate floor before asking for unanimous consent to move the bill forward.

Johnson objected to including Van Hollen’s provision to ban federal worker layoffs during a shutdown. President Donald Trump’s efforts to lay off thousands of federal workers during the shutdown have been on hold since last week, after a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order that was later expanded.  

However, Johnson said he was willing to add into his own bill the provision from Van Hollen to pay furloughed workers.

“I’m more than happy to sit down with you. Maybe we should do that later today,” Van Hollen told Johnson during their debate on the floor.

Shortly after, Peters introduced a near-mirror version of Van Hollen’s bill, except that his measure would not prohibit layoffs — essentially what Johnson told Van Hollen he would agree to.

“We all say we agree on this, so let’s just pass this bill now,” the Michigan Democrat said before asking for unanimous consent to advance the legislation.

Johnson also objected to that proposal.

“It only solves a problem temporarily. We’re going to be right back in the same position,” Johnson said in an interview with States Newsroom about why he rejected Peters’ proposal.  

Johnson said he talked with Peters and Van Hollen after the vote and “we’ll be talking beyond this.”

‘Waste of time’ for House to meet

Even if the Senate passed the bill sponsored by Johnson or Van Hollen, it’s unlikely the House, which has been in recess since last month, would return to vote on either measure.

At a Thursday morning press conference, House Speaker Mike Johnson argued that Republicans already passed a stopgap measure to pay federal workers and that Senate Democrats should support that legislation. 

Johnson said bringing back the House would be a “waste of time,” noting that Democrats would not vote on the Republican proposal. 

“If I brought everybody back right now and we voted on a measure to do this, to pay essential workers, it would be spiked in the Senate,” said the Louisiana Republican. “So it would be a waste of our time.”

Duffy warns of flight delays due to shutdown

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy joined Johnson and House Republicans during their press conference. 

He said that flight delays have increased due to staffing shortages.

More than 50,000 TSA agents and more than 13,000 air traffic controllers have continued to work without pay during the government shutdown. 

“They’re angry,” Duffy said of air traffic controllers. “I’ve gone to a number of different towers over the course of the last week to 10 days. They’re frustrated.”

Next Tuesday, air traffic controllers will not receive their full paycheck for their work in October, Duffy said.

He added that the agency is already short-staffed — by up to 3,000 air traffic controllers.

“When we have lower staffing, what happens is, you’ll see delays or cancellations,” Duffy said. 

The FlightAware tracker said there were 2,132 delays within, into or out of the United States of unspecified length reported by Thursday afternoon, compared to 4,175 on Wednesday, 3,846 on Tuesday and 6,792 on Monday.

A shortage of air traffic controllers helped play a role in ending the 2019 government shutdown, which lasted 35 days, after thousands of commercial flights were ground to a halt. 

Michael Gableman in Dane County Circuit Court on Thursday, June 23 | Screenshot via Wisconsin Eye

Former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman could be forced to pay $48,192 to cover the costs of the state Office of Lawyer Regulation’s investigation into him for his conduct during his widely derided review of the 2020 presidential election. 

That review of the election, which did not turn up any proof of wrongdoing, has resulted in 10 counts of misconduct being filed against the former judge. Late last month, he agreed to have his law license suspended for three years because of the charges. 

Last week the OLR filed a statement arguing that the case against Gableman should follow Supreme Court precedent, which would mean the costs incurred by the OLR investigator and independent referee overseeing the case should be paid by the lawyer under investigation. The referee issued a recommendation stating that there was no reason the case shouldn’t follow the existing precedent.

Both the responsibility for paying the bill and the ultimate punishment will be decided by the state Supreme Court. 

Also last week, Gableman filed a motion in his case last week seeking the recusal of liberal justices Susan Crawford and Rebecca Dallet.

Gableman’s filing notes that Crawford called him a “disgraced election conspiracy theorist” and accused him of leading a “sham” investigation of the 2020 election during her campaign earlier this year. 

His filing notes comments Dallet made in 2017 after she had announced her campaign for the Court but before Gableman had decided not to run for another term. Dallet accused Gableman of not recusing himself from cases in which he had a conflict of interest, called his 2008 campaign “one of the most unethical” in state history and said he was a “rubber stamp for his political allies.”

Gableman argues that these comments create the appearance of bias and that the justices shouldn’t weigh in on his punishment. If they were to recuse, the Court’s conservatives would hold a 3-2 majority — though Justice Brian Hagedorn sided with the Court’s liberals in the 2020 election cases it decided.

U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan speaks with furloughed federal workers on Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2025. Pocan, a Democrat, brought pizza for the group and discussed the current federal shutdown. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

Ellie Lazarcik worked in a few different industry jobs after moving to Madison in 2017. None of them really fit, she says. Then she learned that the U.S. Forest Service Forest Products Lab in Madison was hiring.

Coincidentally, she knew of the lab from a visit she made “way back when I was in college, for a wood sculpture class of all things,” Lazarcik said Wednesday.

“Over a decade had passed since then, and I saw a job opening come up in the lab and thought, ‘Why not? That place was really amazing when I visited. They had really cool stuff going on then, and they probably still have really cool stuff going on,’” she recalled.

She applied and got the job.

That was five years ago. Her job title is physical science technician in the lab’s building and fire science program. Her work supports other members of the research team — setting up lab tests, preparing samples and then running them through the testing or analysis process and sorting through the data afterward.

“And I love what I do,” Lazarcik said.

Since President Donald Trump took office in January, “there have been a lot of really sort of rapid-fire changes,” she said. “We’re on our toes a lot trying to figure out what we can or can’t pursue in terms of research.”

Still, she has continued to find the job engaging. “We’ve been able to keep doing cool projects,” Lazarcik said. “I’ve been involved in some interesting stuff in the lab — but it has been challenging.”

Since Oct. 1, however, Lazarcik has been furloughed along with hundreds of thousands of federal workers on account of the federal government shutdown.

“This is my first furlough and I’m not particularly enjoying it,” she said. Missing a paycheck is one reason, but it’s not the only one.

“It is pretty uncomfortable not knowing when I will get paid next, when I can go back into the lab and continue working on projects that got stopped abruptly,” Lazarcik said, “It’s stressful.”

Lazarcik is married and  her husband “has a job and a paycheck, which definitely helps,” she said. “But going from a two-paycheck household to one has been a pretty stark difference.”

On Wednesday, Lazarcik brought her toddler in his stroller over to the Social Security Administration office on Madison’s far West Side. U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Black Earth) and members of his staff stopped by a little after noon with boxes of pizza as a token of appreciation for some of the furloughed federal workers.

About 18,000 federal employees live in Wisconsin, and about 8,000 are expected to be out of work currently due to the shutdown, the state labor secretary, Amy Pechacek, said at a virtual news conference on Thursday, Oct. 18.

“We’re seeing you and we very much appreciate what you’re doing,” Pocan told the group of just over a dozen federal employees who turned out. “We understand the sacrifice you and your families are making.”

Even before the shutdown, the Trump administration fired about 200,000 federal workers, Pocan said.

“These actions are illegal,” he said, but added that they are likely to drive some people out of the federal workforce. “We’re going to lose a lot of good, qualified people with experience.”

Pocan said communication in Washington, D.C., between the Republican majority in both the House and the Senate and Democrats has been at a standstill.

“I’d prefer we were there now, negotiating to get things done. But we’re not,” Pocan told the group. “We’re seeing a lot of things happen this session that aren’t normal.”

In September the Republicans sought to pass a continuing resolution on spending that if enacted would have averted the shutdown. A majority voted for the measure in the House, but in the U.S. Senate there were not enough votes to clear the 60 needed to advance most bills in the upper chamber.

Democratic support is necessary to meet that threshold, but Democratic lawmakers argued that in return for their votes they should have an opportunity to have some input into the continuing resolution.

Their demands have included extending enhanced subsidies for health insurance premiums sold through the federal HealthCare.gov marketplace and reversing cuts to Medicaid that Republicans included in their big tax cut and spending cut bill enacted in July.

In previous spending standoffs, Pocan said, leaders of both parties in both houses of Congress have been able to hash out agreements, usually avoiding a shutdown altogether or else managing to resolve one before it drags on.

“This time, though, so much has changed,” Pocan said.

A bipartisan deal failed in December after Trump and Elon Musk opposed it. Congress managed to approve another stopgap spending bill two days later that carried the federal government to March 2025.

“Then we had to start over in March,” Pocan said. That measure was unpopular with Democrats, he said, but enough Senate Democrats voted for it to pass,  funding the federal government through Sept. 30.

“And immediately we saw recissions — illegal again — and more illegal actions by the Trump administration taking funds away,” Pocan said. That history over the last 10 months has made Democrats wary of a deal that doesn’t address their priorities, he added.

Lazarcik hopes Congress acts soon to pass legislation that ends the shutdown. In the meantime, she gets by, tapping into savings, “looking at where you can squeeze a little bit tighter,” and skimping on putting aside funds for retirement — “which is really hard.”

Not everyone understands, however.

“I hear a lot  of people talk about, ‘Oh, man, that must be cool.’ It’s really not,” she said. “It’s pretty stressful having to try to plan when you can’t know when your next paycheck is coming.”

She is grateful for a support network of close friends and family members. “[They] do understand furlough is not just some crazy vacation you get to go on,” Lazarcik said.

The forest products lab has had a strong feeling of community that Lazarcik has always enjoyed. That has persisted during furlough, “even in this time when we’re not all going to the same building every day.”

Coworkers have stayed connected, reaching out to each other to meet up, talk and “de-stress,” Lazarcik said. “Even though we’re not all working on a regular schedule and we’re not getting paychecks, we still are supporting each other, and that’s been really great.”

Halle Berry calls for Wisconsin lawmakers to advance a bill related to menopause education as Rep. Robyn Vining and Sen. Dianne Hesselbein watch. (Photo courtesy of Vining's office)

Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) and Rep. Robyn Vining (D-Wauwatosa) brought in a big name — award-winning actress Halle Berry — this week to help them call for better education on perimenopause and menopause. 

Berry, who wasn’t able to be at the hearing in real time, has become an advocate nationally for raising awareness of menopause and advocating for changes. She joined the Wisconsin bill authors at a virtual press conference on Tuesday afternoon, and her testimony was played at a Senate Health Committee public hearing Wednesday. The committee also took testimony Wednesday on bills to help with falls prevention among older Wisconsinites and on medical marijuana. 

“This is not a political issue — I promise you, it’s not. It is a human rights issue,” Berry said. 

Menopause is the period of time usually in middle age when a woman has not had her period for 12 consecutive months. Perimenopause is the period of time when hormone levels fluctuate and decline and a woman begins transitioning into menopause. It typically lasts between 4 years and 10 or more years.

Women can reach menopause at different ages, but often women reach it between 45 and 55. Symptoms typically begin during perimenopause. 

During the hearing, Vining listed part of a long list of symptoms that women can experience when they hit perimenopause and menopause.

“Wisconsin women deserve to know what is happening to their bodies. Wisconsin women deserve to access to information that can help explain symptoms like increased anxiety and depression, brain fog, frozen shoulder, concerns about increases in cholesterol, decreases in bone density, sleeplessness, night sweats, increased sensitivity and pain in joints, vertigo, gut issues, loss of libido, the unusual exhaustion, confusing dryness, hot flashes, and more,” Vining said. “Many women say, ‘I don’t feel like myself’ and they deserve to know why that is and what they can do about it.”

Berry said her experience started with “excruciating” pain in her vagina and her OB-GYN telling her that it was herpes “and probably one of the worst cases” he had seen. 

“I had just started dating a new guy, one year into a wonderful new relationship, and [my doctor] said, ‘Well, go have a talk with this guy [because] you have herpes.’”

Berry said she and her partner both got tested and found that neither of them had herpes. She said that when she went back to her doctor, he said that he didn’t know what was wrong with her. She saw another doctor, when she started experiencing dry mouth, who suggested she might have had an autoimmune disorder. She saw the first doctor again when she started experiencing dry eyes. 

It was then that he reluctantly told her she was experiencing menopause. 

“Why couldn’t you just say that to me? You’re my health care provider. You’re my doctor,” Berry said she asked her OB-GYN. “He said, ‘because my patients don’t want to hear they’re in menopause. It scares them. They think they’re getting old.’” 

“I have real life examples of how more education would have saved me almost four years of self-exploration and self-diagnoses,” Berry said.  “I would have loved to have gotten this information from my health care providers.”

Lack of education about menopause is connected to stigma, she said.

Hesselbein and Vining are lead authors on a bill meant to help women in Wisconsin get the information that they need. 

SB 356 would require the Department of Health Services to partner with health care providers, including obstetricians and gynecologists, community health centers and hospitals, to educate women on symptoms and other issues surrounding perimenopause and menopause. The bill is bipartisan with Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevera (R-Appleton) as a cosponsor. 

Under the bill, DHS would also be required to create digital and physical informational materials to be distributed to women who are or are soon to experience perimenopause and menopause. 

The authors said it was discussions with their friends and shared experiences that led them to introduce the bill. 

“We’re all talking about the same thing right now,” Hesselbein said. “[Halle Berry is] having this problem with all the resources she has, and as a state employee with my health insurance, I also ran into some obstacles where people weren’t giving me the correct information. …How many other women in the state of Wisconsin are going through this?” 

Hesselbein said a big moment for her was when she was dealing with “frozen shoulder” — a condition that causes pain, stiffness and limited range of motion in the shoulder joint and is common during perimenopause. 

“I didn’t know what it was, and I thought it’s not related to menopause,” Hesselbein said. “They gave me a cortisone shot, which was really great because it released the frozen shoulder, and I had [physical therapy] after that… I talked to friends about it, they’re like, ‘oh, yeah, I’ve had that too.’”

Hesselbein said the bill is based on a similar model adopted in Pennsylvania. 

“It is my hope that we can pass this bill so that we can get Wisconsin women the help they deserve and in the process of doing so that we can destigmatize honest and forthright conversations and discussions about menopause and perimenopause,” Vining said.

Falls prevention awareness

Rep. Rick Gundrum (R-Slinger) and Sen. Andre Jacque (R-New Franken) are seeking to cut down on the number of falls that Wisconsin residents are experiencing through a state grant to raise awareness for prevention. 

“If passed, the impact that this bill would have on Wisconsin’s older population is significant,” Gundrum said during the public hearing. “Falls are the leading cause of injury-related death and hospitalization for seniors. According to the CDC, Wisconsin has the highest fall death rate among older adults in the country.”

According to a recent Department of Health Services report, emergency medical services responded to 35,564 more falls-related calls in 2024 when compared to 2019 — an increase of nearly 10,000 a year or 7.4% a year since 2019. 

Speculation on why the state’s high fall death rate includes Wisconsin’s cold weather, the amount of alcohol that is consumed in the state and that the state may be better at reporting death-related falls.

SB 410 would provide $900,000 across 2025-26 and 2026-27 to the Wisconsin Institute for Healthy Aging, a nonprofit that oversees the Falls Free Wisconsin Coalition. The coalition is responsible for a statewide initiative to reduce older adult falls and works to raise awareness; curate and share best practices in falls prevention; gather and report falls data; and address policy and systems changes. The state funds provided under the bill would be used by the organization to support falls prevention awareness and initiatives. 

A legislative council staffer told lawmakers in response to a question that the bill in its current form is  “really a broad charge to the Institute for Healthy Aging for how they’d want to spend the money in the category of falls.” 

“I think it would kind of remain to be seen exactly how, what initiatives they’ve spent the money on,” the staffer said. “The bill gives the Institute broad latitude to figure out how to use the money.” 

Jill Renken, executive director of the Wisconsin Institute for Healthy Aging, told the committee that she has seen the benefits of programs through her own mother, who had started falling in her home after she retired. She said that she encouraged her mother to take a class at the local aging and disability resource center, which she said can reduce falls by 31%. 

“I noticed that she was applying what she learned… She was doing her exercises. She talked with her pharmacist about her medications. My dad made some home safety modifications in the home,” Renken said. “I’m so excited that she has not fallen. It’s been over two years.” 

Renken said the organization for the last decade has worked to diversify funding, but there isn’t enough to sustain their activity.

“State investment is critical in order to maintain the stability of the programs, to maintain the services that we offer and also to grow the program so we can make a much more significant impact in our communities,” Renken said. “We want more older adults to be able to have access to these programs and services. We want to increase awareness so that people know what these services exist.”

A view of medical marijuana products at a New York medical marijuana cultivation facility. Wisconsin Assembly Republicans have proposed a bill to legalize medical cannabis in the state under strict conditions. (Drew Angerer | Getty Images)

“Illness does not discriminate,” said Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point) during a hearing of the Senate Committee on Health on Wednesday. “It affects people from all walks of life. There is no doubt that each and every one of us knows someone that has suffered through an illness and struggles to find ways to make it through each day.” 

Testin was speaking in favor of SB 534, a bill introduced by Republicans to legalize medical cannabis in Wisconsin. If passed, the bill would allow registered patients to have cannabis in a non-smokeable form such as a concentrate, oil, tincture, edible, pill, cream or vapor. The bill would also create an Office of Medical Cannabis Regulation attached to the state health department and tasked with overseeing the budding program. 

Testin shared a story about his grandfather, whom he described as his role model and as “the reason I decided to take a life of public service.” Back in the 1990s, Testin’s grandfather was diagnosed with lung cancer, which then metastasized to bone cancer. 

The senator recalled watching his grandfather undergo chemotherapy. The man “was a big guy,” Testin said, “and we watched him wither away.” At that moment, over 25 years ago, “my family made the very difficult decision to go outside the law to get him marijuana,” Testin said. “It gave him his appetite back, and it gave him time that we probably otherwise would not have had.”

Testin said his story was not unique. Although other medications exist, he said that many “come with side effects that can make living a normal life much more difficult.” He noted that 40 states, including Wisconsin’s neighbors Michigan, Illinois and Minnesota, give patients access to medical cannabis when recommended by doctors. Texas is the most recent state to legalize medical cannabis, he noted

“So both red and blue states alike have been able to come together and recognize that this is a viable option,” Testin said. “Medicine is never a one size fits all, and it’s time for Wisconsin to join the majority of the country and add another option which may help patients find relief they need.”

Legislation’s provisions

Under the proposed bill, medical cannabis sales would be tracked through the state’s prescription drug monitoring program. Pharmacists would also be required to be on-site at dispensaries. The legislation would only cover certain conditions: cancer, seizures or epilepsy, glaucoma, severe chronic pain, severe muscle spasms, severe chronic nausea, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, inflammatory bowel disease, and any terminal illness, including patients with a life expectancy of less than a year. 

Patients must be at least 18 years old. Minors could have access if there is  written consent “from all” of their parents or guardians. Patients would be given registration cards and would be charged $20 a year to remain on the registry. 

The bill also prohibits dispensaries or their staff “from claiming that medical cannabis may cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent any disease or medical condition.” Dispensaries would also be prohibited from “advertising their services to the general public, with certain exceptions.” 

The bill includes a provision preventing courts from considering  lawful use or possession of cannabis, or being registered as a patient, when determining  custody or placement of a child, except where the child has access to the cannabis. Unlawful possession or use could still be used against parents in court, however. The bill also protects people who lawfully possess cannabis against housing discrimination, and prevents local governments from regulating legal medical cannabis programs or using zoning laws to restrict the location or operation of a legal cannabis operation. 

Support and opposition

Earlier this year, two-thirds of registered voters polled by Marquette Law School said that cannabis should be legalized in Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Wellness Coalition has registered with the Wisconsin Ethics Commission in support of the legislation and the Wisconsin Medical Society against it, The Alzheimer’s Association, Outdoor Advertising Association, and Pharmacy Society have all registered their positions as “other.” 

People from a variety of backgrounds also spoke during the public hearing. Many supported legalizing cannabis, but had concerns about restrictions in the bill. 

“This should not be a partisan issue,” said Testin. “It is clear that we as a state need to begin having a real discussion about medical cannabis legalization, and it is our hope that this bill will be the first step. It’s time for Wisconsin to provide our citizens with another option in their health care.” 

Sen. Mary Felzkowski (R-Tomahawk), who has proposed  medical cannabis legislation for years, echoed that sentiment. 

“Wisconsin is on an island surrounded by neighboring states that allow the use of medical cannabis products,” Felzkowski said during the Wednesday hearing. “Someone who suffers from a serious health condition should not have to make the choice to travel to another state or break the law so that they can try an alternative medicine for relief.”

Felzkowski recounted her battles with breast cancer, first when she was 40 years old, which resulted in a double mastectomy, and then a stage 4 diagnosis a decade later. She described the side effects of opioids that doctors prescribed to control her pain as “something nobody should have to live through.” 

She said her oncologist called medical cannabis  “another tool in the toolbox, and it could help a lot of people.” 

 “Here we are sitting in our Ivory Tower, denying that for people that really need it, and it’s wrong that we’re doing that,” Felzkowski said.

Legislators are divided

Lawmakers hope to get more colleagues behind the bill. Yet, despite lagging behind many other states, Wisconsin’s Legislature still struggles with just talking about cannabis. “We are not going to be talking about overall legalization for cannabis products,” said Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevera (R-Appleton), as she chaired a meeting of the Senate Committee on Health on Wednesday. “So, if you’re here to testify on how this should be 100% legal, this is not the spot for you today.” 

The Legislature held its first public hearing on legalizing cannabis in 2022 in the Senate. Rep. Patrick Snyder (R-Weston), who also spoke during Wednesday’s hearing, said in an interview with the Wisconsin Examiner that he’s optimistic that the new bill will survive the Senate. “My goal this time,” Snyder told Wisconsin Examiner, “is something we haven’t done yet since I’ve been here and that is to have a hearing in the Assembly, where people I talk to can come down and explain their situations.”

Snyder said he hears from constituents who want the state to legalize medical cannabis. When he talks to Republicans who oppose the bill, he said, “I try to tell them first of all, this is something that helps a person. This is something that is going to be focused on folks that really need it.” 

Snyder stressed that “these are people not looking for shortcuts to get marijuana, I mean they could do that without [legalized medical cannabis].” Rather, his constituents are people who often don’t want to travel so far north or south to get their medicine, or who would prefer going to a local farmer or dispensary instead.

The bill’s critics include Republicans who feel medical cannabis would only lead to legalizing recreational use, which they don’t want, as well as Democrats who criticize the bill’s restrictive framework and want Wisconsin to legalize recreational use of cannabis. 

Even with the Republican bill’s restrictions on the form in which cannabis can be used and its system of rigorous licensing, testing and enforcement, Snyder said there are “far right” Republicans in the Assembly who need to be won over. 

Felzkowski said of the 24 states that allow recreational marijuana, 15 did so through ballot measures, which aren’t available in Wisconsin. “So that’s never going to happen in the state,” she said. 

Nine states that have legalized recreational  marijuana after legalizing medical cannabis “are solid blue states like Illinois, New York, and Connecticut,” she said. “Wisconsin is not a solid blue state.”  

Another 16 states have only legalized medical cannabis. Hawaii, the first state to pass a comprehensive medical cannabis program in 2000, still does not allow recreational cannabis, she said.  

“Fortunately, Wisconsin is able to learn from the experience of other states,” said Felzkowski. “We can create an effective program with safeguards, so patients and small businesses can benefit from medical cannabis products, while preventing abuse, or those without medical need from gaining access.”

A boy plays with a wooden numbers puzzle. Sensory exercises like this are often used in special education classrooms. (Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Proposed mass layoffs at the U.S. Department of Education have raised alarm among disability advocates and Democratic lawmakers over the potential impact on millions of students with disabilities. 

Advocates warn that the department cannot carry out its legally mandated functions for special education services and support at the staffing levels put forward by President Donald Trump’s proposed reduction in force, or RIF. 

The agency is also reportedly weighing a transfer of special education programs to a different department. 

“If we’ve learned anything this year, it’s that the fight is just beginning,” Rachel Gittleman, president of American Federation of Government Employees Local 252, which represents Education Department workers, told States Newsroom. “And we’re going to do everything we can to fight these illegal firings and the dismantling of the department, but it is just beginning.”

Trump’s administration took another axe to the department earlier this month amid the ongoing government shutdown, effectively gutting key units that serve students with disabilities. The affected offices administer $15 billion in formula and discretionary grant programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, provide guidance and support to families and states and investigate disability-based discrimination complaints, among other responsibilities. 

Though a federal judge has temporarily blocked the administration from carrying out the layoffs, the ruling provides only short-term relief as legal proceedings unfold. 

The administration moved to lay off 465 department employees, including 121 at the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, or OSERS, 132 in the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, or OESE, and 137 in the Office for Civil Rights, or OCR. 

The layoffs also hit the Office of the Secretary, Office of Communications and Office of Postsecondary Education. 

“You can’t look at any of this in a silo,” Gittleman said. “When you’re thinking about special education specifically, you also have to think about the fact that OESE, the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, also saw an almost full RIF as well.” 

Gittleman called the civil rights office “the place that ensures families have a place to go for help when students are denied access for education based on their disability.”

“That was also almost entirely gutted,” she said. “So you’re debilitating these programs in multiple ways because … kids with disabilities benefit from OESE programs, OCR assistance and OSERS programs.” 

Those three units had already been hit with a separate set of department layoffs earlier this year. 

Parents as advocates

Katy Neas, CEO of The Arc of the United States, an advocacy group for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, said that while IDEA has not been changed and the rights of children with disabilities continue, the government’s ability to enforce and implement those rights has deteriorated. 

OSERS is responsible for managing and supporting IDEA, which guarantees a free public education for students with disabilities and is in its 50th year. The umbrella unit OSERS includes the Office of the Assistant Secretary, Office of Special Education Programs and the Rehabilitation Services Administration.

“You take away the knowledge of the folks at the U.S. Department of Education at the Office of Special Education Programs — the law is complex, the combination of the federal law with state laws is complex — you need that trusted source of accurate information, and so, I think it’s going to make the implementation of this law that much more difficult,” Neas told States Newsroom. 

During the 2022-2023 school year, 7.5 million students in the United States received services through IDEA, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, a federal agency. 

Neas encouraged parents to “know your rights” and “understand what the law does and does not do for your child, and don’t take no for an answer.” 

She said parents “really have to be well-versed in what the law requires schools to provide to their child,” and “have to be the ones that insist that the law is implemented with fidelity, because they’re the ones that are going to be on the front lines trying to make that happen.” 

‘Flabbergasted’

Jacqueline Rodriguez, CEO at the National Center for Learning Disabilities, said the RIFs would make it “impossible” for the Office of Special Education Programs to “carry out its statutory requirements.” 

Rodriguez, whose organization advocates for people with learning and attention issues, said “we had hundreds of staff doing this type of work — the statutory requirements are monitoring, compliance, guidance, support — it’s not just pressing a button and issuing funding.” 

She also noted that advocacy groups, including hers, are “flabbergasted” regarding the sweeping layoffs of special education staff because of the contrast with previous assurances Education Secretary Linda McMahon has made to both Rodriguez and Congress about supporting students with disabilities. 

“I am not stunned that the administration would try to dismantle something that was legally required in place,” she said. “But I am flabbergasted that the secretary would sit and give congressional testimony at her confirmation hearing. She did it at the oversight hearing. She sat in front of me and said, ‘No, Jackie, this administration supports kids with special needs. We will always be good advocates. You don’t have to worry.’”

Just days after the layoff notices were sent out, McMahon took to social media to downplay the consequences of the shutdown on her department.   

Two weeks into the shutdown, “millions of American students are still going to school, teachers are getting paid, and schools are operating as normal,” McMahon wrote. 

The secretary added that “it confirms what the President has said: the federal Department of Education is unnecessary, and we should return education to the states.” 

McMahon also specified that “no education funding is impacted by the RIF, including funding for special education.” 

Rodriguez said McMahon’s post indicates the secretary believes the “status quo is perfectly reasonable — when we know that’s not the case — and she dismantles every opportunity for a kid with a disability to actually have his or her legally-entitled education.”

“I am beyond being polite and providing professional deference because there has been no consideration or deference to kids with disabilities for the last 10 months,” she added.

The groups that advocate for students with disabilities are united in their opposition, Rodriguez continued.

“Disability organizations across the country are united, we are all talking to one another,” she said. “We all work collaboratively, and we are in concert, lock and step.”

Congressional Dems fiercely oppose cuts 

Meanwhile, a slew of Democratic lawmakers expressed outrage and concern over the department RIFs in two separate letters to the administration this month. 

Reps. Lucy McBath of Georgia, Mark DeSaulnier and Lateefah Simon of California, led dozens of fellow House Democrats in an Oct. 17 letter voicing to McMahon and White House budget director Russ Vought their “deep opposition” to the layoffs and urging them to “immediately reverse course and rescind the termination notices that were sent to these workers.”

In another letter to McMahon, 31 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus wrote Monday that “punitive, reckless actions like these latest firings demonstrate how President Trump and …Vought are relishing the government shutdown they caused — and are treating students as political pawns,” adding: “That is outrageous — and flatly unacceptable.”

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, led the letter, along with: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York; Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; and Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, ranking member of the Appropriations subcommittee overseeing Education Department funding.

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., talks with reporters inside the Capitol building in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, Oct. 21, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The government shutdown became the second longest in U.S. history Wednesday, though the mounting repercussions for dozens of federal programs, including food aid for some of the country’s most vulnerable residents, failed to spur any momentum in Congress. 

The Senate was unable for the 12th time to advance a stopgap spending bill that would have reopened the government and kept funding mostly on autopilot through Nov. 21. 

The 54-46 vote was nearly identical to those that have come before, a predictable outcome since neither Republicans nor Democrats are talking to each other. The legislation needed at least 60 votes to advance under the Senate’s legislative filibuster. 

Nevada Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto and Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, both Democrats, and Maine independent Sen. Angus King voted with Republicans to advance the legislation. Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul voted no.

The vote came shortly after Oregon Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley held the floor for nearly 23 hours, speaking at length about his concerns and objections to President Donald Trump’s administration. 

The government staying shut down much longer will lead to a funding shortfall for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which is relied on by 42 million low-income Americans, nearly 40% of them children younger than 17. 

Despite that looming deadline, congressional leaders remain in their political silos, just as they have since before the shutdown began 22 days ago. They’ve repeatedly held press conferences and meetings with their own members instead of making the types of compromises needed to keep government functioning on the most basic level. 

Republican leaders are waiting for Democrats to help advance the stopgap spending bill in the Senate and say they won’t negotiate on anything until after that happens. 

Democrats maintain they won’t support the House-passed continuing resolution until there is bipartisan agreement to extend tax credits that are set to expire at the end of the year for people who buy their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act Marketplace. 

Johnson warns funding process at risk

The stalled short-term spending bill is supposed to give lawmakers more time to work out agreement on the dozen full-year government funding bills, which Congress was supposed to pass by the Oct. 1 start of the fiscal year. 

But Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., warned during a morning press conference that lawmakers may scrap that process for a second year in a row if Democrats don’t advance the continuing resolution soon. 

“We’re getting closer to November. It is going to be more and more difficult with each passing hour to get all the appropriations done on time,” Johnson said. “We acknowledge that, but we have to do this on a day-by-day basis.”

House Democratic leadership dismissed the notion of a longer temporary spending bill or continuing resolution, possibly for a full year, during an afternoon press conference. 

Democratic Whip Katherine Clark, of Massachusetts, said her message to Republicans is, “Why are you talking about the length of the (continuing resolution)? Come to the table and negotiate with us. End this health care crisis, help the American people.”

Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries sidestepped specifics when asked about a longer stopgap funding bill.

“At this point, we need to reopen the government. We need to enact a spending bill that actually meets the needs of the American people in terms of their health, their safety and economic well-being, particularly in terms of driving down the high cost of living, while at the same time decisively addressing the Republican health care crisis that grows greatly by the day,” the New York Democrat said.

Lawmakers have been unable to approve all the annual funding bills on time since 1996 and have consistently relied on stopgap spending bills to give themselves more time to work out agreements between the House and Senate. 

The alternative to full-year government funding bills is to use a series of stopgap spending bills, or one that lasts the entire year that keeps spending mostly on autopilot. 

Either option requires bipartisanship to gain the support of at least 60 senators, since Republicans control 53 seats. That means the only solution to the shutdown is for Republican and Democratic leaders to compromise. 

But that seemed like a remote possibility Wednesday. 

Democrats criticize layoffs

House Democrats’ Steering and Policy Committee held a mock hearing where they railed against Republicans and Trump for how they’ve managed unified control of government. 

House Appropriations Committee ranking member Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., rebuked Trump administration officials for trying to lay off federal workers by the thousands and for canceling funding to projects in regions of the country that vote for Democrats. 

“It is a corrupt abuse of power that they have chosen to carry out,” DeLauro said. 

White House budget director Russ Vought and Trump, she said, “have launched a scorched earth campaign to decimate the federal government and the programs and services the American people depend on.”

Rob Shriver, managing director of the civil service strong and good government initiatives at Democracy Forward, who worked as deputy director at the Office of Personnel Management during the Biden administration, said the layoffs could negatively affect federal operations for years. 

“The government has had historic challenges in recruiting young people and recruiting tech talent, and what this administration is doing is turning it into a workforce that doesn’t try to recruit the best and the brightest, but that tries to recruit the most loyal,” Shriver said. 

Lawsuit gains more unions

The Trump administration’s efforts to lay off thousands of workers during the shutdown have been on hold since last week, when a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order that was later expanded.  

The lawsuit was originally brought by the American Federation of Government Employees and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. It expanded last week to include the National Federation of Federal Employees, the National Association of Government Employees and the Service Employees International Union.

The updated restraining order issued by U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Judge Susan Illston applies to any federal department or agency that includes employees represented by those unions, even if the Trump administration doesn’t recognize their contracts. 

Illston on Wednesday granted a request to add the National Treasury Employees Union, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers and American Federation of Teachers to the case. 

Illston wrote that she found “good cause exists to modify the existing TRO without a written response from defendants due to the emergency nature of this case.” 

Those three unions represent hundreds of thousands more federal workers, including those at the departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Interior, Justice and Veterans Affairs. 

Employees at the Environmental Protection Agency, Internal Revenue Service, National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Social Security Administration are also represented by the three new unions seeking to join the case. 

The next stage in the lawsuit comes on Oct. 28, when the judge has set a hearing to determine whether to issue a preliminary injunction in the case. 

‘Patently illegal’

AFGE National President Everett Kelley wrote in a statement released Wednesday that the “administration’s move to fire thousands of patriotic civil servants while the government is shut down is patently illegal, and I’m glad we are able to expand our lawsuit to protect even more federal workers from facing termination.”

“President Trump has made no secret that this is about punishing his political enemies and has nothing to do with the actual work that these employees perform,” Kelley added. “Data provided by the administration under court order illustrates how vast and unlawful these intended firings are and validates our union’s determination to challenge this illegal action.”

Ashley Murray contributed to this report. 

President Donald Trump speaks as FBI Director Kash Patel and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi look on during a press conference in the Oval Office on Oct. 15, 2025. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said late Tuesday he is personally owed a massive payment from the Department of Justice and would have the authority to approve it, saying he was “damaged very greatly” during the government’s investigations into his alleged hoarding of classified documents and Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

Responding to a question about reports that he was seeking up to $230 million in compensation from the Justice Department, Trump replied, “I don’t know what the numbers are. I don’t even talk to them about it. All I know is that they would owe me a lot of money, but I’m not looking for money.” 

“I’d give it to charity or something. I would give it to charity, any money. But look what they did. They rigged the election,” Trump said, apparently referring to his false claim that President Joe Biden did not win the 2020 election. Trump’s attempt to overturn the election results, including sparking the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot, was the subject of a separate federal criminal investigation.

The situation shines a spotlight on ethical concerns that Trump’s former defense attorneys, who now occupy top positions at the Justice Department, would presumably play a role in deciding whether the president receives the money. 

Trump claimed he would make the final call on whether to pay himself the damages.

“It’s interesting because I’m the one that makes the decision, right? And you know that decision would have to go across my desk, and it’s awfully strange to make a decision where I’m paying myself,” Trump told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins Tuesday evening after a White House Diwali celebration.

The New York Times reported Tuesday that Trump submitted claims in 2023 and 2024 seeking compensation for violations to his rights during a special counsel probe into whether his 2016 presidential campaign colluded with Russia, and violations to his privacy when federal agents searched his Florida Mar-a-Lago residence in 2022 for classified documents.

“But I was damaged very greatly, and any money that I would get, I would give to charity,” he added.

The Department of Justice declined to comment on the status of Trump’s claims.

“In any circumstance, all officials at the Department of Justice follow the guidance of career ethics officials,” department spokesperson Chad Gilmartin said.

Attorney General Pam Bondi has been a vocal advocate and legal adviser for Trump on multiple probes, including the handling of the 2016 Russian meddling inquiry. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche defended Trump during the government’s investigation into classified documents stored at Mar-a-Lago following the president’s first term. 

Stanley Woodward, the former defense lawyer for Trump’s co-defendent in the classified documents probe, now heads the Justice Department’s civil division, which reviews compensation claims, according to the Times.

When asked Wednesday morning, House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters he was not aware of the details, but largely defended Trump.

“I didn’t talk with him about that. I know that he believes he’s owed that reimbursement. What I heard yesterday was if he receives it, he was going to consider giving it to charity. I mean, he doesn’t need those proceeds. But we’re for the rule of law, we’re for what is just and right. And it’s just absurd. As has been noted here several times this morning, they attack him for everything he does. It doesn’t matter what it is,” the Louisiana Republican said.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a New York Democrat, slammed Trump’s request for compensation as the president trying to “rob taxpayers of $230 million to continue to line his pockets.”

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

A “SNAP welcomed here” sign is seen at the entrance to a Big Lots store in Portland, Oregon. (Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — More than 42 million low-income Americans are at risk of losing food assistance Nov. 1 if the government shutdown continues.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which operates the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, has about $6 billion in a multi-year contingency fund. That’s short of the roughly $9 billion needed to cover a full month of the program.

Even if a shutdown deal were reached immediately, the time needed to process the payments and make them available for recipients means benefits would likely be delayed.

The shortfall is caused by the shutdown, which hit its 22nd day Wednesday. The fund is supposed to maintain a balance of about $9 billion, but $3 billion of the funds expired at the end of the fiscal year Sept. 30. Because Congress has not approved the next year’s funding, the fund only has $6 billion.

USDA would have to come up with the remaining $3 billion. The department could try something similar to its shuffle of more than $300 million in tariff revenue into its Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC, through the rest of the month. 

It’s unclear if USDA plans to use the SNAP contingency fund or any other maneuvers to extend benefits.

Nearly 40% of the 42 million SNAP recipients nationwide are children 17 and younger, according to the USDA. About 20% are seniors aged 60 and older and the remaining 40% are adults aged 18 to 59.

USDA did not respond to multiple requests for comment from States Newsroom.

Parties in Congress remained nowhere near a deal to end the shutdown as of Wednesday.

States scrambling

A Democratic congressional staffer familiar with the SNAP program said that even if Congress passes a stopgap before Nov. 1, the month’s benefits will still be delayed because it takes time to process the benefits and there are limited vendor processors.

The program issues electronic benefits on a card that can be used like cash to purchase food. States will upload either all or part of a month’s benefits on the first day of the month.

Even in states that say they have enough funds to extend SNAP through November, such as North Dakota, state officials have said they are unable to load the funds on the cards. 

Kansas officials said once Congress passes a stopgap, the state can distribute benefits to the state’s 188,000 SNAP recipients within 72 hours, meaning any deal would have to be completed by next week to avoid an interruption of services. 

Other states, including Minnesota, have halted new enrollments in SNAP. 

Wisconsin’s Gov. Tony Evers warned that 700,000 residents are at risk of losing their SNAP benefits. 

Tennessee officials have informed SNAP recipients — nearly 700,000 people — that it received notice from USDA that SNAP funding will cease entirely on Nov. 1 if the government shutdown doesn’t end.

Unheeded warnings

USDA on Oct. 10  warned states to hold off on sending SNAP files to electronic benefit transfer vendors due to the government shutdown

“Considering the operational issues and constraints that exist in automated systems, and in the interest of preserving maximum flexibility, we are forced to direct States to hold their November issuance files and delay transmission to State EBT vendors until further notice,” SNAP acting Associate Administrator Ronald Ward wrote. 

“This includes on-going SNAP benefits and daily files,” Ward continued. 

Last week, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said that SNAP will run out of funds by the end of the month if Congress fails to strike a deal and end the government shutdown.

U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat, speaks on the Senate floor on Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2025. Merkley began speaking Tuesday evening. (Screenshot via C-SPAN)

U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley spoke on the Senate floor for nearly 23 hours beginning Tuesday night against what he called President Donald Trump’s authoritarian actions. 

Merkley started speaking after 6 p.m. Eastern on Tuesday and ceded the floor at about 5 p.m. Wednesday.

The marathon speech was not a traditional filibuster, in which a senator holds the floor indefinitely to block action on a piece of legislation, as the chamber has been stalemated for weeks over government spending. 

Instead, Merkley spokespeople say he is seeking to draw attention “to how Trump is ripping up the Constitution and eroding our democratic institutions.”

Merkley read from the book “How Democracies Die,” blasted the administration’s efforts to control media companies that broadcast critical content, such as CBS and Disney, and spoke against Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to Democratic-led cities. 

The speech follows thousands of No Kings demonstrations throughout the country Saturday that saw millions protest against Trump, particularly an immigration crackdown and the use of military troops for policing. 

Early in his speech, Merkley focused on the National Guard deployments, which include Portland, Oregon. 

“This is an incredible threat to our nation, to the entire vision of our Constitution, to the entire platform on which our freedom exists,” he said.  “If you remove a clear standard as to whether there is a rebellion, and just say a president can deploy the military on a whim in places he doesn’t like, … then you have flung the doors open to tyranny.”

A produce cooler at Willy Street Co-op in Madison, Wisconsin. FoodShare funding from the federal government will stop Nov. 1 if the federal government shutdown continues. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

Unless the shutdown ends by that date, Wisconsin’s FoodShare program, which serves more than 700,000 Wisconsin residents — about 12% of the state’s population — will run out of funds Nov. 1, Gov. Tony Evers said Tuesday. FoodShare is funded through the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, previously known as Food Stamps.

Two Wisconsin Head Start early childhood education programs are at risk for not receiving their expected federal authorization that was to start Nov. 1, according to Jennie Mauer, executive director of the Wisconsin Head Start Association.

“Our social safety net is stretched,” Mauer said Tuesday. “This is just going to really short communities, and I think providers are bracing. We just don’t know the tidal wave that’s going to hit us, so everybody is really concerned.”

The U.S. Department of Agriculture notified states earlier this month that the SNAP program would not have enough funds to pay full benefits to the program’s 42 million participants nationwide.

The department directed states to hold off on the transactions that move SNAP funds onto the electronic benefit cards that FoodShare members use to buy groceries.

FoodShare “may not be available at all next month if the federal government shutdown continues, leaving nearly 700,000 Wisconsinites without access to basic food and groceries,” the governor’s office said in a statement Tuesday.

“President Trump and Republicans in Congress must work across the aisle and end this shutdown now so Wisconsinites and Americans across our country have access to basic necessities like food and groceries that they need to survive,” Evers said.

Both the FoodShare and Medicaid programs refer to their participants as members. “FoodShare benefits are 100 percent funded by the federal government and the shutdown will need to end before members can begin getting benefits again,” the state Department of Health Services announced in the FoodShare news page Tuesday.

If FoodShare benefits stop in November, they won’t be lost, but they will be delayed, said Matt King, CEO of the Hunger Task Force in Milwaukee. When the shutdown ends, benefits will become available again, including those not paid during the shutdown.

The Hunger Task Force supplies food pantries throughout the greater Milwaukee area. If benefits stop, food pantry operators and suppliers expect to see a sharp increase in the need for their services.

“FoodShare is the first and most critical line of defense against hunger,” King said Tuesday. “The food pantry network across Wisconsin acts as a safety net to help people in an emergency. It’s not set up to be a sustainable source of food to meet all of their grocery needs.”

While helping people get access to food in an emergency, the food pantry network also works to connect people with “more sustainable and ongoing resources like the FoodShare program,” he said.

The impending pause on FoodShare funds will compound a need that has already increased by 35% across the state in the past year, King said. “The longer the government shutdown goes on, the more strain it will put onto the emergency food system.”

Mauer of the Head Start association said two of the state’s 39 Head Start programs were to receive authorization for their next round of funding starting Nov. 1, and with them the ability to draw on their federal grants for the next several months.

So far, the authorization hasn’t been received, Mauer said. In addition, however, if the authorization is issued but the shutdown remains in effect, “there’s no money” until a budget is enacted, she added. “They need money in the coffers for [Head Start agencies] to draw down.”

The issue will repeat for programs that must reauthorize by Dec. 1 and Jan. 1 if the shutdown continues.

The remaining Head Start programs are not believed to be in peril, Mauer said, because their grants have already been funded by the previous fiscal year’s appropriations.   

The Head Start program operated by the Sheboygan Human Rights Association is one of the two awaiting its Nov. 1 reauthorization and the new round of funding that would ordinarily begin then.

“At this point, we are unsure how we will be affected,” said Theresa Christen-Liebig, the executive director of the nonprofit. The agency is using “some state funding resources to continue services until mid-November,” Christen-Liebig told the Wisconsin Examiner in an email. The agency’s board will meet next week to consider its steps for the rest of November and beyond, she said.

“The uncertainty makes the situation stressful and hard on our staff and families,” Christen-Liebig said. “We are keeping everyone updated as we try to work things out and decisions are made to continue to provide services.”

David Bintz, who was wrongly incarcerated, stands outside Mountains of Hope, the nonprofit where he finally found temporary housing after trying local shelters. | Photo courtesy Jarrett Adams Law

David and Robert Bintz’s release last fall drew attention to a Wisconsin law about compensation for people wrongly convicted of crimes. Wisconsin law allows less compensation for wrongly convicted people than many other states, unless the state passes a bill awarding additional money to a specific wrongly convicted person. 

In decisions released last week, the Wisconsin Claims Board decided the Bintz brothers, now 69 and 70, will each be awarded $25,000 and attorney fees. The board recommended an additional $1 million for each brother to the Wisconsin Legislature. Two of the board’s five members dissented from the majority’s decision on David Bintz’s compensation. 

“We are thankful for the board’s recommendation and pray that [legislators] vote to approve the recommendation in expedited fashion,” Jarrett Adams, an attorney advocating for the brothers, told the Wisconsin Examiner in an email. 

Over two decades after their convictions in a 1987 murder case, the brothers were released from prison. In April, the Examiner reported on challenges the brothers have experienced, as well as gaps in support for people who reenter society after being wrongly convicted of crimes in Wisconsin. The compensation claims that the brothers submitted included mention of medical expenses, housing needs, additional neurological testing and day-to-day needs.

“Increasing the annual cap and adding a robust layer of services would be beneficial to exonerees who are trying to reestablish themselves in their communities,” Rachel Burg, co-director of the Wisconsin Innocence Project, told the Examiner over email in March. 

The board’s decisions state that both brothers sought the maximum compensation under the statute — $25,000 — and attorney fees, as well as recommendations that the Legislature award $2 million for each brother. 

Under Wisconsin’s law, the board decides whether the evidence of the petitioner’s innocence of the crime for which they were imprisoned is “clear and convincing.” If they find the petitioner was innocent and that they did not contribute to bring about their conviction and imprisonment by action or inaction, the board decides how much money the petitioner should receive. 

A three-member majority of the board found David met the requirement about not contributing to his conviction and imprisonment. 

“Nonwithstanding any contradictory statements, David maintained his innocence and was willing to go to trial to defend his innocence,” the decision states. 

The Examiner has reported on how in his request for compensation, David Bintz argued that he was interrogated for several hours and coerced into a confession, and on Brown County District Attorney David Lasee’s disagreement with that argument. Bintz’s request also said he was intellectually disabled.

Over a quarter of 375 DNA exonerations between 1989 and 2020 were cases that involved false confessions, according to the Innocence Project. 

State Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto) and state Rep. Alex Dallman (R-Markesan) disagreed with the other three board members regarding David Bintz. Both legislators are part of the finance committees in the Assembly and the Senate, respectively, and on the Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee. 

According to Fox 11 News, Wimberger said that “it had everything to do with the fact that David Bintz’s conviction was really his own fault and not anything the state did wrong” in reference to a conversation David had with a cellmate. David Bintz’s cellmate Gary Swendby said David talked about committing the crime in his sleep and also admitted his involvement while he was serving time for a different crime. 

“I think on the Robert Bintz side of things, there’s a lot of sympathy and perhaps there should’ve been a better investigation done,” Wimberger said.

A research project took up the question of how much money states pay exonerees per each year lost, specifically for exonerees who were paid. For Wisconsin, they found an average of $4,947 per year lost. The research was by the National Registry of Exonerations and Professor Jeffrey Gutman of the George Washington University Law School.  

Gutman analyzed wrongful convictions compensation in Wisconsin in the 2022 publication “Compensation Under the Microscope: Wisconsin,” which was updated in July 2023. 

Gutman wrote about Wisconsin exonerees wrongly convicted in state courts and  recorded by the National Registry of Exonerations, going back to 1989. Of the exonerees awarded compensation, he wrote that only one appeared to have been provided additional compensation from the Legislature following a claims board recommendation. 

In 2014, then-Gov. Scott Walker awarded an additional $90,000 to Robert Lee Stinson, after the claims board had awarded $25,000. Stinson had requested reimbursement for 23 years in prison at the rate of $5,000 per year.

Lindsey Buscher, a volunteer with the Wisconsin chapter of Moms Demand Action, said at a press conference at the state Capitol that the group’s policies reflect Wisconsin values of “responsibility, accountability and community.” (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Wisconsin gun violence prevention advocates, including Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action, laid out their legislative goals for 2025 and spoke to lawmakers about their priorities on Tuesday, including a package of bills focused on gun trafficking. 

Lindsey Buscher, a volunteer with the Wisconsin chapter of Moms Demand Action, said at a press conference at the state Capitol that the group’s policies reflect Wisconsin values of “responsibility, accountability and community.”

“We believe in a safer future for our communities — one where every Wisconsinite, no matter where they live, work, go to school or attend their place of worship, can thrive without fear of gun violence,” Buscher said. “We all know that gun violence is shattering communities across our state from Milwaukee and Madison to the small towns that make Wisconsin who we are.”

The proposals will take several actions including requiring secure storage of inventory, employee background checks and recording gun sales, closing loopholes and ensuring that all gun sales require comprehensive background checks, ensuring that law enforcement can trace weapons and “shut down trafficking rings” and stopping bulk trafficking by prohibiting multiple gun purchases within a single month.

There were 762 firearm deaths in Wisconsin in 2023, including 502 firearm suicides and 236 firearm homicides, according to a report released this year by the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort (WAVE) Educational Fund, the state’s leading gun violence prevention organization, and the Violence Policy Center (VPC), a national research and advocacy organization working to stop gun death and injury. 

According to the report, 84.9% of firearms recovered in Wisconsin originate in state. 

Rep. Joan Fitzgerald (D-Fort Atkinson), who will sponsor the measures, called on her Republican colleagues to work with her on the legislation. Draft bills will be ready for official introduction in the coming weeks she said.

“If we want to stop that gun violence we have to start at the source, and that is at the sale of those guns,” Fitzgerald said at the press conference. “Each year, tens of thousands of illegal guns are trafficked across our country, getting into the hands of criminals… We need to crack down on those few bad actors who endanger everyone else and make our communities less safe. We need to finally bring Wisconsin law in line with the views of the majority of our citizens who value safe communities.”

“We don’t have to live in fear of our loved ones getting shot and killed,” said Angela Ferrell-Zabala, executive director of the national Moms Demand Action. “Law enforcement, faith leaders, students, doctors, parents are all saying the same thing: enough. Enough is enough. I’m a woman of deep faith, but we can’t have just thoughts and prayers without action. That’s what we need from our lawmakers.”

Ferrell-Zabala said their “fight isn’t against the Second Amendment… We can respect responsible gun ownership in Wisconsin, as we should, while also stopping illegal gun trafficking and protecting our communities from violence.”

Other speakers at the press conference included Nessa Bleill, founder and president of the University of Wisconsin-Madison chapter of Students Demand Action and a survivor of a mass shooting at a parade in Illinois in 2022. 

After the press conference, Fitzgerald told the Wisconsin Examiner that she hasn’t spoken with her Republican colleagues about the proposals yet. Republicans currently control the state Assembly and Senate, meaning their support will be necessary to advance any bill. 

“Prior bills we’ve introduced had very little Republican support,” Fitzgerald said, adding that Democrats haven’t been able to get a public hearing on proposals either. 

Rep. Deb Andraca (D-Whitefish Bay) told the Examiner that in her experience, some of her Republican colleagues would say behind closed doors that they support some measures similar to those being proposed, but they won’t put their name on proposals publicly.

“I would say that they probably should find their backbone and do what the vast majority of Wisconsin voters want,” Andraca said. “Students are tired of being scared in their classrooms. Teachers don’t want to have to do lockdown drills. As a gun owner with my concealed carry permit, I am not worried about taking away anyone’s Second Amendment rights… We need these measures because we have too many guns in too many places, and it’s endangering our safety and all of our neighborhoods.”

Andraca said her colleagues should at least give Democratic proposals a public hearing. 

The lawmakers said the day of action, which includes advocates speaking directly to lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, is helpful for ensuring that lawmakers know people want action.

“Otherwise, legislators say, ‘Oh, I never hear from anyone’,” Andraca said. “You have to keep showing up, so people know that you won’t go away, because that’s what they’re counting on.”

Fitzgerald, a freshman lawmaker, and Andraca, who is in her third term in office, were both volunteers with Moms Demand Action prior to running for office. Fitzgerald added that they are “good examples of taking advocacy and turning that into running for office” to change the makeup of the Legislature. 

“If they’re not going to react, then we need to start… holding them accountable — electing them out of office and electing people who will pass legislation to reduce gun violence,” Fitzgerald said. 

Advocates were scheduled to meet with over 50 state lawmakers, including about 30 Democrats and about 20 Republicans. Buscher said there were only a few lawmakers who weren’t in town or declined to meet and that they planned to drop off literature at their offices anyway.

While Democratic lawmakers are focused on bills that seek to prevent gun violence, Republican lawmakers are focused on proposals that would protect the Second Amendment and gun access in Wisconsin.

Republican gun proposals

Sen. Andre Jacque (R-New Franken) and Rep. Chanz Green (R-Grand View) are circulating two proposals, including a constitutional amendment. 

One bill would exempt firearms, including accessories, attachments and parts, and ammunition from the state sales tax. The bill would also exempt bows and arrows for archery and crossbows from the sales tax. 

“Taxing constitutionally protected rights can act as an effective restriction,” the bill authors wrote in a cosponsorship memo. “By reducing the tax burden on lawful firearm purchases, this bill ensures that law-abiding citizens can fully exercise their constitutional freedoms.”

Wisconsin already guarantees a right to keep and bear arms in its state Constitution, similar to over 40 other states. 

The constitutional amendment proposal, which would need to pass in two consecutive sessions and be approved by voters to become law, would add language to the state Constitution to ensure the the right of the people to keep and bear arms is without qualification, that it is “an inalienable and fundamental individual right that shall never be infringed” and that any restrictions on the right would be “subject to strict scrutiny.” 

Strict scrutiny, which is the highest standard of review a court can use, is a legal test that when applied would mean that any gun regulations would have to be narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest and be the least restrictive means possible. 

Only a handful of states, including Louisiana, have changed their state constitutions to include this type of language, while others, including Kansas, have debated it.

“Do any of those bills do anything to make our community safe, to make our kids feel safe in school? Do they do anything to reduce gun violence?” Fitzgerald asked. “If they can prove that those are going to reduce gun violence, then let’s have that conversation again.”

The U.S. Capitol building in Washington. D.C., on Wednesday, Oct. 8, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON —  On day 21 of the federal government shutdown, the political tensions and policy differences that contributed to it appeared likely to destroy any chance for the GOP-controlled Congress to find the bipartisanship needed to pass the dozen bills needed to fund the government. 

While that is very inside baseball, failing to approve the 12 appropriations bills will block lawmakers’ funding requests for high-profile projects in their home states, known as earmarks, from becoming law—like highway construction, water systems, education projects, research facilities and more. 

A full-year stopgap spending bill would also cause significant headaches for departments throughout the government that have faced challenges adjusting to the series of stopgaps that funded the government for the last year, even without the turmoil of the layoffs and funding cancellations enacted by the Donald Trump administration.

The full-year spending bills are also the best chance Congress has to exercise its constitutional authority over government spending and are supposed to spur debate about where taxes paid by Americans can most help the country. 

Skipping that process and avoiding tough conversations about where funding is most needed, and where it is not, absolves lawmakers of a core job responsibility — securing money to help their constituents have better lives. 

As of Tuesday, Democrats and Republicans appeared nowhere near any kind of deal to reopen the government, which has been shuttered since Oct. 1. Members of the House are not in session and last voted on Sept. 19. The Senate has voted unsuccessfully 11 times on the same House-passed stopgap spending bill, failing to gain the 60 votes needed for it to advance. 

‘Extremely harmful’ effect of another stopgap 

Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, said she’s opposed to using what’s called a continuing resolution for the rest of the fiscal year instead of working out an agreement on the full-year government funding bills. 

“The impacts of another year-long CR would be extremely harmful to federal programs, particularly the Department of Defense, and should be avoided at all costs,” Collins said. 

Congress used three continuing resolutions to keep government funded during the last fiscal year, which ended on Sept. 30. 

Lawmakers have relied on stopgap spending bills to fund the government for the entire fiscal year a handful of times during the past several decades. 

But Congress has not used stopgap spending bills for two consecutive years since the late 1970s, according to a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. 

Senate Republicans lunch with Trump

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said after a lunch at the White House with President Donald Trump and other GOP senators that talks about the full-year government funding bills can only begin after the shutdown ends. 

“We want a normal appropriations process. We want to give them an opportunity to sit down and litigate some of the issues they want to talk about,” Thune said. “But that can’t happen until the government gets opened up again.”

North Dakota Republican Sen. John Hoeven, chairman of the Agriculture appropriations subcommittee, said a full-year continuing resolution is “absolutely” possible if the process doesn’t start moving forward soon. 

But Hoeven declined to say if he’d vote for a stopgap spending bill that voids the appropriations process for the second year in a row. And said he’s “of course” concerned about the negative impacts of a full-year continuing resolution. 

“I don’t want to get ahead of the process. What I want to do is get government open and get back to regular order,” Hoeven said. 

Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee and a senior appropriator, said it will take real leadership in both chambers to get any movement on the full-year bills. He also said he’s vehemently opposed to a stopgap spending bill for the entire year. 

“I think if we vote for a full-year CR, we’ve fully abdicated our responsibility, constitutionally, to be the power of the purse,” Reed said. 

South Dakota Republican Sen. Mike Rounds, who sits on the Appropriations Committee, said he “could not support a full-year CR.”

“We’ve gotten so much of the work done, and now it’s just a matter of whether or not Democrats allow us to bring them to the floor,” Rounds said, referring to the full-year Defense spending bill that failed to advance last week. 

Rounds said he thinks Democrats are struggling to figure out a way to end the government shutdown, which would potentially allow work on the full-year bills to get going again. 

“I think they made a very serious strategic error when they decided to jump on and to shut down government in the first place,” Rounds said. “And now they don’t have a graceful way out, and that’s a problem.”

Process, interrupted

Normally, by now, Republicans and Democrats would have agreed how much to spend on defense and domestic programs and divvied up that roughly $1.8 trillion to the dozen full-year government spending bills. 

The lawmakers tasked with writing those appropriations bills would have started meeting to work out spending levels and policy differences between the original House bills and the original Senate bills. 

That is all on hold because of the shutdown and may never even happen, potentially leading Republicans to write a stopgap spending bill for the rest of the year. 

Alabama Republican Sen. Katie Britt, chairwoman of the Homeland Security appropriations subcommittee, said she wants Democrats to vote to reopen the government, so she can get back to working on her full-year appropriations bill. 

“I want to do my job, which is why I am so frustrated that we didn’t get to move forward with appropriations bills on Thursday,” Britt said, also referring to the Defense bill. “I think it was incredibly short-sighted of my Democratic colleagues to vote that down, because this is our opportunity to actually do work for the American people. And I think we should get our job done, not pass the buck.” 

Hawaii Sen. Brian Schatz, the top Democrat on the State-Foreign Operations appropriations subcommittee, said he still has “hope for the appropriations process.”

“Obviously, we have to get through the shutdown, but there’s bipartisan desire to get something done and to avoid a full-year CR,” Schatz said, adding that it’s hard to do anything with the House out of session. 

New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, the top Democrat on the Agriculture appropriations subcommittee, opposes using a full-year continuing resolution over negotiating bipartisan versions of the full-year government funding bills. 

“I am concerned about a full-year CR, and I do think that we should get back to the appropriations process and get those bills done,” Shaheen said. “I think there’s interest on both sides of the aisle to do that.”

Uncharted waters

Wisconsin Sen. Tammy Baldwin, the top Democrat on the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations subcommittee, said that GOP leaders will have to accept the regular give-and-take of bipartisan negotiations if they want to get anything through the upper chamber. 

“I think first and foremost, we have to really make sure that Speaker (Mike) Johnson recognizes that the only way forward with appropriations and other matters is a bipartisan way forward,” Baldwin said. “That’s the only way you pass things that require 60 votes in the Senate.”

Baldwin said that means both chambers should use the total spending level that received bipartisan backing in the Senate Appropriations Committee, not the lower spending level used by the House panel. 

Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, the top Democrat on the Homeland Security appropriations subcommittee, was far more pessimistic than many of his colleagues.

“I think you’re living in a world that does not exist,” Murphy told States Newsroom. “I think 2025 is totally unlike every other year that has existed before. Our democracy is literally dying under our feet. The president is engaged in mass scale illegality and corruption, and nothing that we have done here in the past will be precedent for what will happen in the future. The House of Representatives has never boycotted Washington for a month-and-a-half. The majority party has never refused to negotiate with the minority party. So I think we’re in really uncharted waters, and nothing can happen until the House Republicans return and Senate Republicans decide to negotiate.”

Republican gubernatorial candidate Tim Michels and GOP attorney general candidate Eric Toney hold a press conference at the Milwaukee Police Association in this 2022 photo. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Fond du Lac County District Attorney Eric Toney, a Republican, announced Tuesday he’s running for a second time to unseat Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul. 

The 41-year-old Toney has been the DA in Fond du Lac County since 2012. He ran against Kaul in 2022, losing by 35,000 votes. Kaul, a Democrat, recently announced he would be running for a third term as attorney general, ending speculation that he would run for governor after Gov. Tony Evers announced his retirement. 

In a news release, Toney said he decided to run again after having open heart surgery two years ago. 

“By the grace of God — and years of running — my heart held on,” Toney said. “That clarity led me here: if I could still make a difference for Wisconsin, I would. After seven years of broken promises and political spin in the Attorney General’s office, it’s time for change.”

In the campaign announcement, Toney said he would prioritize supporting law enforcement officers, reducing violent crime in Milwaukee and being more aggressive in prosecuting drug crimes. 

“As your Top Cop, I will stand up for every Wisconsinite, enforce the law, and bring conservative, common-sense leadership back to the DOJ,” he said. “That’s what Wisconsinites expect and deserve.”

The Wisconsin attorney general is the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the state, responsible for overseeing state law enforcement agencies, enforcing state laws as varied as water quality rules and election laws and defending state agencies in court. This year, Kaul has been especially active in joining multi-state lawsuits against Trump administration policies.