Clinic escorts attempt to stand between patients and anti-abortion protesters outside A Preferred Women’s Health Center of Atlanta in Forest Park, Georgia, in July 2023. Some abortion opponents say a law created to protect access to reproductive health clinics and houses of worship should be repealed, though providers fear a continued rise in violence. (Photo by Ross Williams/Georgia Recorder) 

The Trump administration is using a law Congress passed in the 1990s after a wave of deadly violence at abortion clinics to prosecute demonstrators and reporters who were at a immigration-related church protest in Minneapolis last month. 

Independent journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort, along with several activists, are accused of violating a 1994 law that made physically obstructing access to reproductive health clinics and places of worship a federal crime. Lemon pleaded not guilty Friday, while Fort is set to be arraigned next week and has denied any wrongdoing. Other plaintiffs have vowed to fight the charges — they’re also accused of conspiring against churchgoers’ right to worship — and maintained they were exercising their First Amendment rights. 

Some abortion opponents say the law should be repealed entirely, even though the statute also protects access to anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers. Reproductive rights advocates say getting rid of the law altogether could spur more attacks on clinics and providers, which already increased in recent years. 

“It would give an even stronger signal to the zealots who would wish to shut us down to intimidate and harm our clinic folks and patients,” said Julie Burkhart, who owns clinics in Wyoming and Illinois. 

The Minnesota indictment is only the second time that the Department of Justice has brought charges under the religious provision tucked in the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. In September, the federal government filed a civil complaint against pro-Palestinian groups and demonstrators, accusing them of violating the FACE Act after they protested outside a New Jersey synagogue in 2024.

During a news conference announcing the charges, Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general for the DOJ’s civil rights division, said the New Jersey case was the “first time in history” the FACE Act was used to “prosecute an attack civilly on a house of worship.”  

While the Trump administration has started to use the FACE Act in religion-related cases, it has also relaxed enforcement of the law against people who interfere with access to abortion clinics. 

Republican President Donald Trump pardoned 23 anti-abortion protesters convicted of violating the law within weeks of taking office in January 2025, and the DOJ released a memo that stated abortion-related cases should only be pursued in “extraordinary circumstances,” such as death, serious bodily harm or severe property damage. 

“This sent a very clear signal to anti-abortion extremists that this administration was OK and even encouraged anti-abortion violence, and we’ve seen the same people that were pardoned within Trump’s first week in office go right back out and start harassing abortion providers and their patients, whether that is putting together blockades or clinic invasions,” National Abortion Federation President and CEO Brittany Fonteno told States Newsroom. 

FACE Act followed murder of abortion provider, clinic sieges 

Tactics by the anti-abortion movement were starting to reach a fever pitch in the U.S. before the FACE Act’s passage. In 1988, hundreds of protesters were arrested in Georgia during the “Siege of Atlanta,” where abortion opponents staged routine clinic blockades over a three-month period. In 1991, thousands of anti-abortion protesters were arrested by local officials for invading abortion clinics in Kansas during the “Summer of Mercy.” 

“We were literally unable to do our jobs,” said Burkhart, who worked in Wichita that summer with Dr. George Tiller, a provider who was later killed by an anti-abortion extremist. 

In 1993, Dr. David Gunn was murdered by an anti-abortion protester outside a Florida clinic, and six months later, Tiller was shot outside his Kansas clinic. Tiller survived that attack, but he was assassinated at his church in 2009.  

Sen. Ted Kennedy and then-Rep. Chuck Schumer, both Democrats, introduced the FACE Act in Congress alongside former Republican Rep. Connie Morella, and President Bill Clinton signed the legislation the following year. 

Legal experts said the religious part of the reproductive health law was added to broaden legislative support for the bill. 

The law protects reproductive health clinics and places of worship from being physically obstructed or damaged, and makes it a federal crime to intentionally injure, intimidate or interfere with access to those places. Violators face up to a year in prison or a $10,000 fine, and up to six months in prison for nonviolent obstruction. A defendant could face 10 years if they inflicted bodily harm or life behind bars if someone is killed.  

Mary Ziegler, an abortion historian and professor at the University of California, Davis School of Law, said the measure was modeled on other civil rights laws, which typically include protections for religious institutions. She said Congress already had a Democratic majority at the time, but the religious part of the law could have been added to avoid accusations of viewpoint discrimination. 

“Even people who saw themselves as pro-life were disturbed by some of the violence,” Ziegler said. 

After the law took effect, violence against abortion clinics declined by 30%, according to the National Abortion Federation. 

The power of anti-abortion groups like Operation Rescue, known for orchestrating mass clinic blockades, waned. 

“The FACE Act was created to suppress civil disobedience at abortion centers, so it’s had a massively negative impact on the anti-abortion movement,” said Terrisa Bukovinac, the founder of Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising. 

Bukovinac’s group along with Students for Life of America and Alliance Defending Freedom have called for the law’s demise since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the federal right to an abortion in June 2022. 

Trump reconfigures enforcement while abortion opponents call for repeal

Violence against abortion clinics increased after the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision. From 2021 to 2022, clinics saw a 100% increase in arsons, a 25% increase in invasions and a 20% increase in death threats or threats of harm, according to the National Abortion Federation. 

The Biden administration pursued enforcement of the FACE Act by prosecuting people convicted of blocking access to abortion clinics in Michigan, Tennessee and Washington, D.C. 

Trump pardoned all of those defendants. But for some abortion opponents, the Republican administration’s narrow use of the FACE Act does not go far enough. 

“It should be repealed because it’s a draconian law,” Bukovinac said. “There are local laws that address trespass, disorderly conduct, disruptions of churches, and various other violations of statutes, but the FACE law adds the full weight of the federal government in these situations.” 

Ziegler said the law isn’t a trespassing statute, it’s about conduct and obstruction. No legal challenges against the law have held up in court before or after Dobbs, she said. 

“If you’re shooting someone in the head because they’re trying to go to a synagogue or they’re trying to go into an abortion clinic — or you’re threatening to kill them or you’re physically blocking all the entrances — that’s not speech protected by the First Amendment,” Ziegler said. 

Matthew Cavedon, a criminal justice and religious liberty expert at the libertarian CATO Institute, has written that the law may be unconstitutional. He said the federal government has typically defended the FACE Act’s constitutionality based on the Commerce Clause and the 14th Amendment.

“Pro-lifers have made the point that in order to defend the FACE Act under the 14th Amendment, you have to have some sort of federal constitutional right to have an abortion,” Cavedon said. “Back in 1994 when the act passed, the Supreme Court said that you did have that right. It doesn’t anymore. That’s been reversed. So I think that’s a very strong argument.” 

U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, a Texas Republican, introduced a bill last year that would repeal the law. The House Judiciary Committee advanced the measure in June, States Newsroom reported. 

Roy did not respond to requests for comment, but during a hearing for the bill, he said he has been criticized by Trump administration officials who wanted to use the law to defend churches. 

“That’s not what my goal is,” he said. “My goal is to alleviate the politicization in the first place.”

Renee Chelian, the founder and CEO of Northland Family Planning Centers in Michigan, testified before the committee about the importance of the FACE Act and the invasion of one of her clinics during the first Trump administration. 

“Once the law went into effect, the violent blockades immediately stopped. This all ended when President Trump took office for his first term, emboldening extremists to resume their attacks,” she said. 

In August 2020, a group of protesters blocked the entrance to Chelian’s Sterling Heights clinics, preventing patients and staff from entering the clinic. 

“Patients were stuck in their cars, including three women who were coming in for abortions following the detection of fatal fetal anomalies,” Chelian said. One of those patients was losing amniotic fluid and needed to get to her appointment for the second day of her procedure, but protesters surrounded her car and chanted at her, her mother and her husband, according to the DOJ. 

Trump’s decision to pardon seven people who invaded her clinic “left us reliving our trauma and feeling abandoned by the government that is supposed to protect us,” Chelian told lawmakers. 

Last month, the Center for Reproductive Rights sued the Trump administration after the government did not respond to Freedom of Information Act requests about “selective enforcement” of the FACE Act and Trump’s pardons of 23 anti-abortion protesters convicted under the law. 

“This is straight out of the anti-abortion movement’s playbook,” said Sara Outterson, the center’s chief federal legislative counsel. “They know they can’t ban abortion outright in a number of states, so they’ll try everything they can to restrict access to care, including allowing criminals to harass people as they try to go in to get care.” 

Barbed wire and fences surround the Charles H. Hickey Jr. School, a juvenile detention center in Maryland. Juvenile justice is one of the focuses of criminal justice legislation nationwide this year, including in Maryland, where lawmakers are considering a bill that would reduce the number of juveniles charged as adults. (Photo by Amanda Watford/Stateline)

Criminal justice has emerged as one of the most wide-ranging and politically charged areas on lawmakers’ agendas in this year’s state legislative sessions. Across the country, legislators are weighing proposals that affect nearly every part of the criminal justice system, including policing, gun policy, solving crimes, sentencing, prison oversight and reentry support.

The breadth of legislation reflects how deeply crime policy intersects with daily life, shaping public safety, civil rights, state spending and the scope of law enforcement. It also comes amid a shifting national conversation about crime itself. While violent crime rose during the pandemic, recent data shows declines in many categories, despite continued public concern.

According to Gallup’s most recent annual crime poll, Americans’ perceptions of crime improved in 2025. Approximately 49% of adults now say crime is an “extremely” or “very” serious problem in the United States, and the same share believe crime has increased in the past year. Both figures are down significantly from 2024 and are at their lowest levels since at least 2018.

Still, crime remains a top political issue, particularly in statehouses where lawmakers may face pressure to respond to high-profile incidents and constituent fears.

Gun policy

Firearm-related legislation has moved quickly in several states, with lawmakers pursuing sharply different approaches that reflect regional politics and partisan control.

In Democratic-led states, lawmakers have advanced proposals aimed at tightening restrictions on firearms.

Virginia House Democrats approved a sweeping package of bills this month that would restrict access to assault-style weapons, tighten firearm storage and transfer rules, limit where guns can be carried in public and expand civil liability for the gun industry. The bills are now being considered in the Senate.

Maryland lawmakers are debating a measure that would prohibit the manufacture, sale, purchase or transfer of certain handguns that can be converted into automatic weapons using an illegal accessory known as a pistol converter.

The bill doesn’t name specific firearm models, but it would effectively ban secondhand sales of some popular discontinued guns. In urging its members to oppose the bill, the National Rifle Association’s legislative arm says on its website, “These conversion devices are already illegal, yet this proposal targets responsible firearm owners rather than criminals who ignore existing law.”

But sponsors noted that the measure would exempt current owners of the affected firearms and argued that it doesn’t punish responsible firearm owners. Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott led a rally last week in favor of the bill, saying it would reduce homicides. And a high school student testified to lawmakers about her fears of a school shooting.

Other states have focused on regulating firearm sales.

New Mexico senators passed legislation restricting certain firearm transactions, while lawmakers in New York and Washington state have proposed measures that would prohibit the production and possession of 3D-printing files used to manufacture gun parts to build so-called ghost guns.

Gun control advocates say 3D-printed guns are becoming more common, especially among young people. Just this week, a ghost gun was recovered after a student was shot inside a Maryland high school. The student’s injuries weren’t life threatening, and a suspect has been charged with attempted murder.

But some gun rights advocates say those measures go too far.

“We believe that making your own firearms, if you have the skills to do it, is an American tradition. It literally dates back to the founding of our country,” said Chris Stone, the director of state and local affairs for Gun Owners of America, one of the country’s largest gun advocacy groups. The group opposes bans on 3D-printing firearms.

Republican-led states are pushing in the opposite direction, removing specific firearm regulations, limiting local regulation, strengthening legal protections for gun shops and dismantling “gun-free” zones, such as areas near schools or inside government buildings.

South Dakota Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden signed a bill into law this week that deregulates gun silencers, or suppressors. These devices will be removed from the state’s definition of a controlled weapon.

In Georgia, lawmakers approved a ban that would keep local governments from adopting gun storage requirements. The bill has not yet been sent to Republican Gov. Brian Kemp for consideration.

In South Carolina, legislators have proposed a measure that would protect gun shops from being held liable in lawsuits when crimes are committed with products they sold, as long as the original sale was lawful. That bill remains in committee.

Florida lawmakers advanced legislation last month to lower the age to purchase long guns to 18. The West Virginia Senate also passed a bill that would allow 18- to 20-year-olds to carry concealed weapons without a permit, removing current training and licensing requirements for that age group.

New Hampshire and Wyoming legislators are considering proposals that would prohibit public colleges and universities from regulating whether students, faculty or visitors are able to carry concealed firearms and nonlethal weapons on campus.

Immigration and policing

Questions about the role of law enforcement — particularly in immigration enforcement — have become a flashpoint in state legislatures, as lawmakers debate how closely local and state agencies should cooperate with federal authorities.

In some states, lawmakers are moving to require or expand cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Bills in Alabama, Arizona, Iowa and Kentucky would encourage or mandate that state or local law enforcement agencies collaborate with ICE or expand officers’ authority to question or detain people over their immigration status. Supporters argue the measures are necessary to enforce federal law and improve public safety.

Other states are taking the opposite approach. In Virginia this month, Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger ended a 287(g) agreement with ICE that allowed state police and corrections officers to assist the agency with certain federal immigration enforcement functions. Spanberger, who has a background in law enforcement, had promised in her campaign to end the agreement, saying she wants policing agencies to focus on their core duties.

The move drew sharp criticism from state Republican leaders, with GOP lawmakers arguing that the decision prioritizes politics over public safety and could expose the state to retaliation from the Trump administration.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, introduced a similar proposal last month that appears to be gaining more support from police and elected officials.

The Maryland House and Senate this month also overwhelmingly approved bills that would prohibit 287(g) agreements between local police and federal immigration agencies. Democratic Gov. Wes Moore is expected to sign them. Several local law enforcement officials across the state have urged the governor to veto the measures, arguing that ending the agreements would lead to more federal immigration enforcement activity and higher crime rates.

Beyond immigration, legislatures also are grappling with broader questions about policing authority and accountability.

In Indiana, lawmakers approved legislation expanding the role of the National Guard’s military police in certain law enforcement functions, giving the governor authority that some Democrats say could be abused.

Iowa lawmakers are considering a proposal that would eliminate affirmative action and anti-bias training requirements for police officers.

A bill in Utah would create the Violent Crime Clearance Rate Fund, which would provide grants to law enforcement agencies to support efforts to improve the rate at which violent crimes are solved.

Sentencing and prison conditions

State legislatures also are revisiting what happens after arrest, with several states considering tougher penalties for certain crimes.

Iowa Republicans have proposed a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence for some repeat offenders.

Alabama lawmakers are considering a bill that would raise the base penalty for fleeing from police from a misdemeanor to a felony, with harsher penalties for repeat offenses and other aggravating factors.

The Kentucky House advanced a bill aimed at cracking down on street racing. It would impose penalties of up to 30 days in jail and $1,000 in fines, and allow vehicles used in the offense to be destroyed or auctioned to support the state’s crime victims compensation fund.

Other states are pursuing more rehabilitative approaches.

Lawmakers in Washington state are considering legislation that would give people serving long sentences a new pathway to release.

Oklahoma lawmakers have proposed a measure that would eliminate the requirement that a prison inmate serve a set amount of time before becoming eligible for good-time credits, which would also allow people awaiting transfer to prison to earn these credits sooner.

Last month, Illinois Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker signed the Clean Slate Act into law, paving the way for an estimated 1.7 million adults with nonviolent criminal records to have them automatically sealed beginning in 2029.

Juvenile justice debates also have been unfolding alongside these efforts.

States including Colorado, Utah, Missouri, Maryland and Kansas are reconsidering when young people can be charged as adults, how long they can be detained and what role rehabilitation should play.

In Kansas, for example, lawmakers are considering expanding judges’ authority to send youths to juvenile prison and increasing detention limits, moves that opponents say would reverse a decade of changes designed to keep low-risk youths out of custody.

In recent years, poor prison conditions and lax oversight have emerged as a bipartisan concern, driven in part by staffing shortages and the rising costs associated with incarceration.

Florida legislators are considering proposals that would create an independent ombudsman to monitor prison conditions. Alabama and Arizona lawmakers have filed measures that would address oversight of food services in prisons and fund the state’s independent prison oversight office, respectively.

Several states are working to expand death penalty options, both for crimes and for execution methods.

Alabama legislators passed a measure this month that would expand the death penalty to include child sex crimes. The bill is now awaiting the signature of Republican Gov. Kay Ivey, who expressed her support for the proposal last month.

In Indiana, lawmakers considered a proposal that would add firing squad and gas as execution methods.

In New Hampshire, lawmakers are considering two Republican-backed bills that would reinstate the death penalty — nearly seven years after the state voted to abolish it. One bill would bring it back for homicide or sexual assault offenses against children under 13, while the other proposal would reinstate it for capital murder, which would combine the murder with aggravating circumstances.

Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte told reporters last fall she would like to see capital punishment restored in the state.

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

A sign protesting Enbridge Line 5 in Michigan. (Laina G. Stebbins | Michigan Advance)

On Friday, an administrative law judge upheld a permit issued by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources last year to allow the Canadian oil company Enbridge to build 41 miles of new pipeline in northern Wisconsin. The current rerouted path for Enbridge’s Line 5 would mean that although the pipeline would avoid the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa reservation, it would still go through the Bad River’s watershed. 

The judge’s decision is likely to be appealed, and the Bad River Band is continuing to challenge the pipeline project in federal court. But the approval of the DNR’s permit came as a blow to environmental advocates working alongside the Band to challenge Line 5. 

Evan Feinauer, an attorney with Clean Wisconsin, said that “despite this ruling, the evidence presented during the hearing remains undeniable: Enbridge’s Line 5 reroute poses significant long-term risks to wetlands, waterways, and treaty-protected resources in northern Wisconsin.” Feinauer said in a statement that “experts testified that the DNR underestimated ecological impacts, relied on an inadequate monitoring plan, and overlooked Enbridge’s troubling history of environmental violations. This decision does not erase those facts.”

John Petroskey, a senior attorney with Earthjustice, also said that the judge’s decision ignored “strong evidence that the DNR broke the law when it approved the Line 5 reroute.” Petroskey added, “Enbridge’s project threatens permanent damage to the Band’s treaty-protected water, plants, and medicines, all for the enrichment of a foreign oil pipeline company. The Band will continue to fight to protect their interests and halt construction.”

Rob Lee, senior staff attorney for Midwest Environmental Advocates, said that while the decision was disappointing, “it does not diminish our resolve or end our responsibility to protect Wisconsin’s waters from the irreversible harm this project threatens to cause.” Lee continued, “the record in this case is clear, and our work is far from over. Based on the significant legal issues presented and the strength of the record, we believe there is a strong basis for appellate review, and we are considering all appropriate next steps.”

Other environmental groups and tribal allies expressed that they remain determined to keep fighting Line 5. “Ultimately, this doesn’t change the fact that Line 5 must be shut down to protect the Great Lakes and our climate,” said Elizabeth Ward, chapter director of the Sierra Club – Wisconsin. Debta Cronmiller, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, said that standing up to Line 5 is in line with the group’s values of protecting sensitive environments, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, advancing renewable energy and supporting tribal rights. 

“Every effort to oppose the construction of new pipeline infrastructure builds power in the broader movement to end our reliance on dirty fossil fuels,” said Emily Park, co-executive director of 350 Wisconsin. “Instead of facilitating more carbon emissions, we should be investing in renewable energy, sustainable transportation, and technologies that will help us transition to a clean energy future.” 

Environmental groups and the Bad River Band are pushing for Line 5 to be shut down, with a court-imposed deadline for their case set in June. The reroute project would involve blasting and horizontal drilling through at least 186 waterways and 101 acres of high-quality wetlands which drain into Lake Superior.

Federal Bureau of Prisons officers on the scene where a federal immigration agent shot a man Wednesday, Jan. 14, 2026, in north Minneapolis. (Photo by Max Nesterak/Minnesota Reformer)

The U.S. Department of Justice, citing evidence inconsistent with its earlier allegations, dropped felony charges against two men accused of assaulting a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent before the agent shot one of the men in the leg.

U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen wrote in a brief Thursday filing that “newly discovered evidence” was found to be “materially inconsistent” with the government’s allegations against Alfredo Aljorna, 26, and Julio Sosa-Celis, 24, about the Jan. 14 shooting in north Minneapolis. The case was dismissed Friday by a district court judge.

Rosen filed a motion for the case to be dismissed with prejudice, meaning that the government will not be able to press the same charges against the men again.

The federal government has significantly shifted the details of what happened since the shooting on Jan. 14. The federal Homeland Security narrative in the immediate aftermath of the shooting incorrectly identified Sosa-Celis as the driver of the car and a subject of a “targeted traffic stop.” The complaint later indicated that the officers mistook Aljorna, who was driving the car, for another Latino man uninvolved in the incident.

At the time of the shooting, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem described the incident as an “attempted murder of federal law enforcement.” Similarly, Noem and other Trump administration officials accused Renee Good and Alex Pretti — also killed by federal officers — as domestic terrorists, though evidence for the allegations never surfaced. Rosen, who was nominated by President Trump to be U.S. attorney in Minnesota, leads an office facing a staff exodus after an ICE officer shot and killed Good last month — at least 14 federal prosecutors have resigned, reportedly in part due to disgust over senior DOJ officials’ handling of the investigation.

Rosen didn’t detail the newly discovered evidence, but noted that the allegations in the complaint were “based on information” presented to FBI agent Timothy G. Schanz, who had said in a sworn affidavit that the ICE agent said that Sosa-Celis and Aljorna repeatedly hit him with a broom and a snow shovel. The ICE agent told the FBI that he then “simultaneously fired” one round towards the men as they began to run toward the house.

Schanz’s affidavit said that law enforcement on the scene were unable to find any bullet holes in the house, though at a hearing, Sosa-Celis’ attorney showed photographs depicting bullet holes through the front door of the duplex and in an interior wall, the Star Tribune reported.

Both men have denied the agent’s account, maintaining that they didn’t attack the ICE agent and that the agent shot Sosa-Celis in the leg through the closed door of their duplex.

The details that have not been disputed by the men or the ICE agent: The agent had shot Sosa-Celis in the leg on Jan. 14 following a car chase and scuffle with Aljorna; ICE agents began the chase when they mistook Aljorna for someone else they were targeting. The shooting happened on the 600 block of 24th Avenue North in north Minneapolis, at a duplex where the two men, both Venezuelan nationals, lived with their partners.

Sosa-Celis’ attorney previously told the Star Tribune that he learned that the officer who shot Sosa-Celis is under investigation for unreasonable use of force.

The two men were released from detention by a judge on Feb. 4 and immediately re-detained by ICE, who took them back to Sherburne County jail, attorney Brian Clark said at the time.

The incident drew over 100 protestors to the scene after the news of the shooting quickly spread. Federal agents deployed tear gas and flash bangs and at least two people were detained by federal agents after someone threw fireworks at the agents; at least two vehicles believed to be used by federal officers were vandalized. At least six people have been arrested and charged for stealing from and vandalizing the federal vehicles, the Star Tribune reported.

A security officer stands outside Immigration and Customs Enforcement headquarters during a protest on Feb. 3, 2026 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Heather Diehl/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The second partial government shutdown in 2026 began at 12:01 a.m. Saturday, after lawmakers left the nation’s capital without reaching a deal on changes to immigration enforcement tactics at the Department of Homeland Security. 

The department’s shutdown is also likely to go on for some time. With Congress out next week for the Presidents Day recess, lawmakers are not expected back on Capitol Hill for votes until Feb. 23. 

A procedural vote to approve funding for the Homeland Security bill for fiscal year 2026 failed Thursday to gain support from Senate Democrats because constraints to immigration enforcement were not included, such as an end to agents wearing face coverings. 

Even with the president’s border czar Tom Homan announcing Thursday  the withdrawal of the thousands of federal immigration officers from Minneapolis, Democrats argued it’s not enough. 

“Without legislation, what Tom Homan says today could be reversed tomorrow on a whim from (President) Donald Trump,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on the Senate floor Thursday.

Asked by the press pool Friday about cutting a deal on the shutdown,  Trump said, “We’ll see what happens. We always have to protect our law enforcement.”

After the Senate vote failed 52-47, members of Congress emptied out of Washington for the recess. Some were off to Munich, Germany for a major security conference. 

ICE still has cash at hand

While the agency Trump tasked with carrying out his mass deportation campaign of immigrants will shut down, enforcement will continue because Congress allocated a separate stream of money, about $75 billion for U.S. Immigration and Enforcement Services. 

During last fall’s government shutdown, which lasted a record-breaking 43 days, immigration enforcement continued.

The other agencies within DHS that will be shut down but continue to operate because they include essential workers include the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Secret Service, the Coast Guard and the Transportation Security Administration, and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, among others.

In general, any employees who focus on national security issues or the protection of life and property would continue to work through a shutdown, while federal workers who don’t are supposed to be furloughed. 

Neither category of employees will receive their paychecks during the funding lapse, though federal law requires they receive back pay once Congress approves some sort of spending bill. 

Democratic mayors call for GOP to accept proposals

Democrats have pushed for policy changes after federal immigration officers killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis, where a deportation drive is set to wind down after the city faced more than two months of aggressive immigration enforcment. 

Renee Good was shot and killed by an immigration officer on Jan. 7, which prompted a bipartisan agreement to enact some guardrails, such as $20 million in funding for immigration agents to wear body cameras. 

But a second killing by federal immigration officers, that of Alex Pretti on Jan. 24, prompted the Senate to decouple the Homeland Security measure from a package of spending bills, as Democrats floated proposals meant to rein in enforcement tactics, and prompted a four-day partial shutdown. A two-week funding patch was set for negotiations and it expires at midnight Friday.

Democratic mayors hailing from the major cities of Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, New Orleans and Portland, Oregon, Friday issued a letter that called on the top Republicans in Congress, Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota and House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana, to accept the proposals before DHS entered a shutdown. 

“When federal agents operate in our streets without identification, without warrants, and without accountability, that trust is shattered,” they wrote. “All of us agree that for so long as the agency exists, new funding for the Department of Homeland Security must be conditioned on the comprehensive 10-point framework released last week.”

Those policy suggestions include requiring immigration officers to not wear masks and identify themselves, which has drawn strong opposition from Republicans and the leaders of ICE and Customs and Border Protection who argue the face coverings prevent their agents from being doxxed. 

Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., sent the proposals over to the White House, but said the Trump administration’s response was “incomplete and insufficient in terms of addressing the concerns Americans have about ICE’s lawless conduct.” 

According to the contingency plan for DHS, the agency expects about 20,000 employees out of 271,000 to be furloughed in the event of a government shutdown.

Tens of thousands of people march in downtown Minneapolis in subzero temperatures to protest the massive presence of ICE agents over the past several weeks Friday, Jan. 23, 2026. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

The winter of 2026 will go down in state history as among our finest hours. 

What happened here will be studied by social scientists and historians as one of the great victories of nonviolent resistance in recent times. Minnesotans showed that brutality and sheer numbers could not overcome communities that were united in their opposition to the usurpers.

People are right to be skeptical about whether the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown here is ending, as announced Thursday by $50,000 man and border czar Tom Homan.

But I’m confident they are leaving for a simple reason: They’re losing.  

What happened and why it happened offer important lessons for our future and for democracy defenders across the country, so let’s focus for a minute before we dance on the grave of the authoritarian attempt: 

The resistance was communitarian. By now it’s almost cliche: Minnesotans — and especially Minneapolitans — were looking out for their neighbors, be they immigrants or the people protecting them. Neighborhoods came together again as they did after the police murder of George Floyd and the chaos that followed, all during a pandemic. The lesson here is to get to know your neighbors.

The sense that we’re all in it together motivates great acts of both charity and courage. 

The resistance was libertarian. When I talked to friends and family around the country, I put it in these terms: Imagine that 3,000 masked, heavily armed outsiders were roaming around your community, routinely racially profiling people, including off-duty police (!); detaining immigrants here legally  — including young children — and shipping them across state lines; smashing the car windows of observers and arresting them before releasing them without charges; and, of course, shooting and killing two American citizens and injuring an immigrant in a case of mistaken identity. When you put it in these terms, Americans around the country got it.  

The resistance was nonviolent. (Mostly.) When authoritarians are employing brutality, armed resistance feels justified. Second Amendment enthusiasts might even say constitutional. But it often leads to a spiraling cycle of violence and repression, e.g., the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

Bullhorns, whistles, chants, shouts, songs, mockery and marches were more effective than violence could ever be.

This is not a new or untested strategy. As the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said during his Nobel Prize acceptance speech: “Nonviolence is not sterile passivity, but a powerful moral force which makes for social transformation.”

The feds’ support, meanwhile, collapsed when they engaged in indiscriminate violence.

The nonviolent resistance helped win the battle for public opinion, which was crucial. An NBC poll showed that two-thirds of Americans believe the Trump administration’s immigration tactics have “gone too far,” with similar numbers in Minnesota, according to another poll.

We too often think of authoritarians as omnipotent, acting with impunity in the face of all resistance. Nothing President Donald Trump says or does seems to matter. But this is not true, and that attitude of despair is precisely what the authoritarian needs. Authoritarians have frequently been defeated in the face of mass resistance, from the Eastern Bloc to Latin America. Once the authoritarian loses popular legitimacy, it’s only a matter of time before the regime collapses.

Our strong institutions were an important bulwark. Outsiders who kept bleating about “paid protesters” have clearly never stuffed themselves with hot dish and baked goods at a Minnesota PTA meeting, caucus, hockey game or church event on a subzero night.

Indeed, as Madison McVan reported this week, churches (and let’s add mosques and synagogues) were crucial to providing material and spiritual support to immigrants and those defending them.

Minnesota ranks highly — 2nd in the nation in one survey — in indices of social capital, i.e., family unity, social support and volunteerism. If you feel like we’ve taken a beating in recent years — the killing of Floyd and unrest and rioting that followed, the looting of our safety net programs, the assassination of former House Speaker Melissa Hortman — you’re right, but our strong institutions have helped us remain resilient.

Our big corporations were not part of that institutional infrastructure. They were silent, and then mealy-mouthed. The days of corporate noblesse oblige are over, especially when the authoritarian demands unquestioning fealty from them. 

The judiciary stood up to the authoritarian attempt. Attorneys for immigrants worked under impossible conditions to defend constitutional rights and due process. 

More than a dozen federal prosecutors quit in disgust.

And, federal judges refused to be cowed. In scorching orders — from appointees of just about every recent president, including a protege of conservative icon Antonin Scalia — many refused to countenance the legal chaos and unconstitutional usurpation the federal government unleashed here. They provided a near daily drumbeat of evidence of the Trump administration’s lawlessness. This severely undercut the administration’s message that Operation Metro Surge was a “law enforcement operation” when anyone could see it was a politically-motivated, performative show of aggression.

During one hearing, Judge Jerry Blackwell — who was the lead prosecutor of Floyd’s killer, Derek Chauvin — reminded the federal government’s lawyers of the seriousness of the executive branch’s insubordination in failing to release detainees, as he’d ordered: “The DOJ, the DHS, and ICE are not above the law. They do wield extraordinary power, and that power has to exist within constitutional limits.”

Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara was a PR bonanza for the resistance, even though many Minneapolis activists loath MPD. I learned from O’Hara’s many local and national media appearances, for instance, that there’d been three homicides in Minneapolis as of late January, and two of them were committed by the feds. Considering the traditional blue wall of silence, you’d expect O’Hara to refrain from criticizing the feds, but he landed punches instead. (No permanent friends, and no permanent enemies: a political maxim worth considering.)

Although this moment was far bigger than party politics, there’s a few things worth mentioning:

Some Republicans provided important bipartisan messaging. I’m sure there are others, but Sens. Jim Abeler, Zach Duckworth, and Julia Coleman and Reps. Marion Rarick and Nolan West gave fellow Republicans and Republican-leaning independents a subtle signal that it was OK to question the constitutionality and effectiveness of Operation Metro Surge.

By contrast, Vichy Republicans, like U.S. Rep. Tom Emmer, turned against fellow Minnesotans and gave aid and comfort to the authoritarian outsiders. Grudges aren’t healthy, but we shouldn’t forget. Now they’ll receive their just deserts because the Democrats will likely win in November.

Which means those Republicans will be just another in the long line of Trump’s marks.

A lot of Democrats paused their endless factional disputes, or as one militant leftist posted on X last month: “Liberals, leftists, moderates, socialists, communists, and f*cking all the rest have an opportunity here to come together and fight fascism. That means, for the moment, FOR THE F*CKING MOMENT, to not be a dumb*ss b*tch about factionalism and old beefs. Just for now. For a bit.”  (I’m sure this very column will bring the requisite calumny from said factions — see item #8 — but that’s all to the good, as it signals a return to normalcy.)

Finally, respect localism. When the feds chased a man at high speeds through my neighborhood Wednesday, which led to a three-car wreck, I found myself in a state of agitation and contempt for the usurpers that was only matched previously by the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. 

It hits different when it’s your own neighborhood. Which, I realize, is morally provincial. After all, other neighborhoods have been dealing with this on a daily basis for two months. (Some communities have suffered under repressive policing for much longer.)

And, for that matter, other nations have been dealing with rulers’ boots on their necks  — including proxies of the United States government — for years, and, in some cases, decades.

So my final takeaway is that we ought to be extremely humble when we seek to impose our will on other people, communities, states, nations. 

Now, let’s spend the weekend toasting and dancing in the streets.

“What I’m hearing right now is the governor and the speaker are still negotiating, and I have not been invited to those negotiations,” Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu said during a WisPolitics luncheon on Thursday afternoon. “I just feel, at this point, if the governor and the speaker are actually serious about accomplishing something, shouldn't they include both houses?” (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) says he is being left out of negotiations on property tax relief between Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester).

Rising property taxes, a quickly approaching self-imposed deadline to wrap up work in the Legislature this year and a projected state budget surplus of over $2.5 billion formed the backdrop to disagreements between leaders of the Senate and Assembly on a potential tax relief package that broke out into the public this week. 

“What I’m hearing right now is the governor and the speaker are still negotiating, and I have not been invited to those negotiations,” LeMahieu said during a WisPolitics luncheon on Thursday afternoon. “I just feel, at this point, if the governor and the speaker are actually serious about accomplishing something, shouldn’t they include both houses?”

In response to LeMahieu saying he wasn’t included, Evers’ spokesperson Britt Cudaback wrote on social media that “actually, yesterday our office suggested that Republican leaders should try talking to each other since they’re clearly not on the same page.”

Vos, speaking at a press conference at the same time LeMahieu appeared at the WisPolitics event, said he texted LeMahieu Thursday morning asking to meet. He told reporters that he is open to any idea, but the public’s biggest concern is rising property taxes.

“There’s no bad cake, and I feel that same way about tax cuts. There are no bad tax cuts… We have not ruled anything out,” Vos said. “But when we have talked to folks, the thing that has most impacted them is the massive property tax increases they saw last December. My own property tax bill went up 24.7%. That’s the highest that I can ever remember being a homeowner.”

Wisconsin property taxpayers recently absorbed the highest tax hike since 2018 — an increase caused by a state budget that raised school revenue limits while keeping state general aid flat, pushing costs onto local property taxpayers, some of whom also voted to approve additional school district referendum requests.

LeMahieu said the projected $2.5 billion budget surplus led to conversations in his caucus about what to do to provide relief to Wisconsinites as well as a Zoom call between the Republican legislative leaders and Gov. Tony Evers a little over a week ago.

“It’s not just property taxes. People are struggling buying groceries… their utility bills,” LeMahieu said.

The Senate Republican caucus discussions led to the introduction of a pair of bills this week that would use about $1.5 billion in state funds to provide one-time tax rebates of $1,000 to married joint filers and $500 to individual filers. Under SB 1 and SB 995, the Department of Administration would need to send the rebates by Sept. 1. 

LeMahieu said his caucus thought the rebates were “the best way to use this surplus” and $1.5 billion, the cost for the rebates, is a “responsible number.”

The package announcement came just a day after Vos said he was in negotiations with Evers. According to emails, Evers had proposed to the Republican lawmakers a $1.3 billion package that would provide $200 million, including $80 million to bring the special education reimbursement rate to 42% in 2026 and $120 million to bring it to 45% in 2027, as well as $450 million in 2027 in general school aids to buy out the projected statewide school property tax levy. In exchange, Republicans would get $550 million for the school levy tax credit to help with property tax relief and $97.3 million in 2027 for tax-exempt cash tips. 

Cudaback has said that any compromise on property taxes needs to include “investments to ensure our K-12 schools receive the resources they need and were promised in the state budget.”

Vos said he thinks Evers “sincerely” wants to do something about property taxes.

“There have been plenty of times in the last eight years where we have had a disagreement and we had a public argument with Gov. Evers, but on this one… we feel the same,” Vos said. “I don’t know why we wouldn’t negotiate in good faith to try to find something that can actually get across the finish line.”

Vos said Evers’ point about special education funding is a “legitimate” one, noting that leaders said during the state budget that they would fund it at 42% and 45% but the available revenue will not cover those amounts. 

Senate Republicans, however, are not happy with Evers’ suggestions. 

LeMahieu called the proposal “ridiculous” and said it was only a “BandAid” on the issue that would “saddle the next Legislature with a huge ongoing commitment.” He is referring to the 400-year partial veto exercised by Evers on the 2023-24 budget that has allowed school districts to continue an  annual $325 per pupil increase. 

“Your property taxes are still going to go up because the 400-year veto is still there?” LeMahieu said incredulously.

LeMahieu said he thought the negotiation “seems like a purely political stunt” or an effort to get something through the Assembly, adjourn and put pressure on the Senate to pass it. He noted that the Assembly is less than a week away from its planned final adjournment for the year. 

Vos has said the Assembly plans to be done Feb. 19. The Senate could still pass bills after then, but the same bills must pass the Assembly to make it to Evers’ desk. 

“There is no vehicle for whatever plan they come up with… What’s the time frame for all of this to get done?” LeMahieu asked, referring to the process by which a bill must be introduced, have a public hearing and get a vote on the floor of the both Assembly and the Senate.

LeMahieu pointed out that his bill has support from 16 out of 18 Senate Republican caucus members. He added that several Assembly members have reached out with support for the proposal and said the Senate plan “actually makes sense.”

“There has been no communication between offices… Hopefully we are here past next week,” LeMahieu said, adding that there are session days scheduled for March, when the Senate plans to meet, and lawmakers could also work in April.

No action would likely leave decisions about the budget surplus until after the November elections when the makeup of the next Legislature could look quite different with control up for grabs and the next governor, could be either a Republican or a Democrat and will be new to the office.

Vos said rebates are “less easy” and “more expensive,” but he said his caucus believes that negotiating “to find an answer that gets across the finish line is the best answer for Wisconsinites” and he thinks they need to sit down to do so.

“I don’t think [Evers’] idea is a bad one, but I would say it has to be paired with some reductions,” Vos said. “Based on where the Senate is, it looks like they want to have something that’s way bigger than what we were looking at. Bigger is not necessarily better, but it’s not necessarily worse, so I think that’s part of sitting down and understanding what the perspectives are, and finding something that, again, can pass the Assembly, pass the Senate, and get signed by the governor and not just have an argument.”

The Senate bills received a public hearing in the afternoon. Democratic lawmakers questioned whether the rebates would place the state in a precarious position in the future.

After the state budget was completed in July, but before the recent projections, the Wisconsin Policy Forum warned that Wisconsin is spending more than it brings in through taxes which creates a projected structural deficit.

“Why wouldn’t we just put this money in the bank to help us cover the structural deficit?” Sen. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit) asked.

“I think we’ll be fine,” LeMahieu said.

Under the bill, the rebate checks would need to be delivered to Wisconsinites by Sept. 15, 2026.

Spreitzer said he thought the proposal could place the state budget in a “bad situation” going into future budgets and suggested that the timing of the rebate payments are suspicious, coming just ahead of the November election. 

Wisconsin’s fall elections take place Nov. 3, and many legislators are eager to return to their districts to start campaigning.

LeMahieu on WisconsinEye and other issues

A tax relief package is among several bills Wisconsin lawmakers are trying to get across the finish line. LeMahieu spoke to the chances for action on several issues. He said the issue that is the closest to getting done is a bill that would extend the state’s stewardship program. 

State funds will run out for the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship program on June 30, 2026, without action. A bill that the Assembly passed and that recently received a public hearing in the  Senate would extend the program, but drastically cut the land acquisition portions of the program. 

“We don’t want to give a blank check to our bureaucrats to go buy a bunch of land across the state of Wisconsin, however, we do own a lot of land in Wisconsin and our caucus feels it’s very important to maintain that,” LeMahieu said. 

Another issue that has received a lot of attention in the Capitol is the livestreaming of government proceedings. LeMahieu said he thought there has been mismanagement at WisconsinEye, the state’s version of C-SPAN, and his caucus wants to see other alternatives  before providing funding for WisconsinEye. 

“Is there some other company out there? Do we need five full-time employees when we aren’t doing a whole lot of work after Feb. 17 in the Assembly and March… outside of interviews of candidates who are running for office? We’re using taxpayer money for that?” LeMahieu said. 

A Senate bill to solicit bids for livestreaming received a public hearing Thursday, though LeMahieu said he thinks lawmakers could also start the process through a vote on the Joint Committee on Legislative Organization.

LeMahieu said Senate Republicans have not spent a lot of time discussing efforts to legalize online sports betting and he wasn’t sure if that proposal would get through the Senate or Assembly by the end of session. He said he thought that “from a policy standpoint it makes sense.”

The Assembly delayed a vote on a bill to legalize online sports betting at the end of last year. 

Sports betting has been allowed in Wisconsin since 2021, but bets have to be made in person at tribal casinos. Lawmakers are seeking to legalize online sports betting by implementing a “hub and spoke” model that would allow servers running betting websites and apps to be housed on tribal land. The state Constitution requires gambling to be managed by the state’s federally recognized Native American tribes.

LeMahieu said he hopes the Legislature takes some action on data centers, though he said he hadn’t looked closely at the bill that passed the Assembly in January. He said he thought data centers are good for local communities, though there are some concerns about ensuring that ratepayers don’t see their utility bills go up. 

“Hopefully we can take action and provide some framework around it. I don’t know if the bill that the Assembly passed needs to be amended,” LeMahieu said.

Assembly chambers. (Baylor Spears | Wisconsin Examiner)

The Wisconsin Assembly advanced proposals that would restrict executive rulemaking powers and eliminate “race-based” programs in higher education Thursday. 

Wisconsin Republicans have been looking for ways to limit agencies’ administrative rulemaking abilities and exercise additional control over the process in the aftermath of several state Supreme Court rulings. 

One of those rulings, the Evers v. Marklein II decision issued on July 8, 2025, found unconstitutional statutes that allowed the 10-member Joint Committee on the Review of Administrative Rules’ to review and suspend administrative rules.

AJR 133 would allow state lawmakers to suspend indefinitely or temporarily administrative rules that are promulgated by state agencies with a vote of the full Senate and Assembly. The proposal passed 52-45 along party lines. 

“No body of our state government is more accountable to the people of our state than the Legislature, and these bills will restore our ability to represent our constituents and provide them with the regulatory accountability and predictability they need to prosper,” Rep. Brent Jacobson (R-Mosinee) said during the floor debate. 

Constitutional amendment proposals must pass two consecutive sessions of the Legislature and be approved by a majority of voters before becoming law. This is the proposal’s first consideration. It still needs to pass the Senate to advance to a second consideration. 

The Assembly also concurred in four bills related to administrative rulemaking that were part of a package titled the “red tape reset,” which was introduced in May with the support of the conservative legal group Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL). 

One bill SB 277 would have all administrative rules sunset after seven years unless a rule is adopted again through an agency process. The Assembly amended the bill, so it will go back to the Senate. 

Three of the bills will now go to Evers for consideration. Those include SB 276, which would allow those who have challenged the validity of an administrative rule to receive attorney fees and costs if a court declares a rule invalid; SB 275, which would limit the use of scope statements to one proposed rule; and SB 289, which would require agencies to make cuts to offset the cost associated with new regulations.

The constitutional amendment as well as several other bills are the result of a task force organized by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) and chaired by Jacobson.

AB 910, which passed on a voice vote, would establish a process to review fees every 6 years. 

AB 955, which passed on a voice vote, would repeal the current language in state law that allows agencies to promulgate rules interpreting the provisions of any statute enforced or administered by the agency if it is necessary to enforce the statute. The bill would replace the language, prohibiting agencies from promulgating rules interpreting the provisions of any statute without explicit and specific statutory authority. 

AB 994, which passed on a voice vote, would restrict agencies from promulgating rules if they are delinquent in complying with the reporting requirement and expand the process for repealing certain rules. 

AB 995, which passed on a voice vote, would change the default effective date for permanent administrative rules to the first day of the seventh month after the date of final publication.

Democratic lawmakers sought to get votes on the floor on several issues, introducing an array of amendments to Republican bills. Some of those included protecting access to contraception and abortion in Wisconsin, requiring former lawmakers to be at least a year out of the Legislature before they can become lobbyists and clarifying the residency requirements for lawmakers. However, none received votes as Republicans took procedural steps to avoid bringing them up. 

“These are going to keep coming forward,” Rep. Lisa Subeck (D-Madison) warned her Republican colleagues as she criticized them for not voting on the bills. “Democrats aren’t giving up on fighting for our constituents, whether we’re talking about the government, whether we’re talking about reproductive freedom or frankly, whether we’re talking about things that would reduce the cost of living for folks in the state. The Republicans time and time again, refused to take a vote.” 

The Assembly also approved several bills that will now head to Evers’ desk. 

The Assembly passed SB 652 which seeks to eliminate “race-based” programs offered through the state’s higher education system, including the minority teacher loan program and minority undergraduate grants. Under the bill, it would instead require the programs to focus on “disadvantaged” students, meaning those who have “experienced any unfavorable economic, familial, geographic, physical or other personal hardship.” It passed 53-45 along party lines and will now go to Evers for consideration. 

SB 498, which passed, would place a number of restrictions in state statute that Republican lawmakers argue would help protect free speech. Those include barring UW institutions from restricting speech from a speaker, creating “free speech” zones, charging security fees as a part of a permit application and sanctioning people for discriminatory harassment unless the speech “targets its victim on the basis of a protected class under law, and is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars a student from receiving equal access to educational opportunities or benefits.” 

SB 405, which would create a civil cause of action against health care providers who perform gender transition procedures on someone under the age of 18 if the patient claims to be injured, passed along party lines. It will now go to Evers, who is likely to veto it.

Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem at a roundtable discussion with local ranchers and employees from U.S. Customs and Border Protection on Jan. 7, 2026 in Brownsville, Texas. (Photo by Michael Gonzalez/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Members of Congress on Thursday sought a ruling from a federal judge to block yet another Department of Homeland Security policy that required a notice for lawmakers to conduct oversight visits to immigration detention facilities.

The policy is the third from DHS Secretary Kristi Noem on the subject, and it is nearly identical to the previous two. 

Noem’s policies put in place a new requirement that members of Congress must give DHS seven days notice before conducting an oversight visit at a facility that holds immigrants, despite a 2019 appropriations law that allows for unannounced visits by lawmakers. 

On Feb. 2, U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb blocked a seven-day notification policy ordered by Noem one day after the deadly shooting of Renee Good by a federal immigration officer in Minneapolis on Jan. 7. 

On the same day as Cobb’s ruling, Noem issued a nearly identical policy, after Democrats said they would refuse to approve new DHS funding unless changes in enforcement tactics were made following a second deadly shooting of Alex Pretti by two Customs and Border Protection officers.

With disagreement between both parties, and Thursday’s failed vote to move forward on funding the Homeland Security bill for fiscal year 2026, the agency will be shut down beginning early Saturday. 

However, even if DHS is shut down, Immigration and Customs Enforcement still has $75 billion in funding due to the tax cuts and spending package signed into law last year.

Agency shutting down

Department of Justice attorneys on Thursday argued because DHS will be shut down, the appropriations law will expire by the end of the week and therefore the unannounced oversight provision for members of Congress will no longer be in effect.

An attorney for the members of Congress, Christine L. Coogle, rejected that argument and said just because the funds expire does not mean the law, which is a rider in the Homeland Security funding bill, does as well. 

“The law itself does not expire,” she said. “And so the oversight rider remains on the books.” 

Cobb said she would extend her temporary restraining order until March 2, or until she rules, whichever comes first.

Visits denied

Under a 2019 appropriations law, any member of Congress can carry out an unannounced visit to a federal facility that holds immigrants, referred to as Section 527. But in June, multiple Democrats were denied visits to ICE facilities, so they sued. 

“What we’re really seeking here is a return to the status quo,” Coogle said in court Thursday. 

In December, Cobb granted the request to stay Noem’s policy, finding it violated the 2019 law. 

But in the second policy Noem issued on Jan. 8, she argued because the ICE facilities are using funds through the Republican spending and tax cuts law, known as the “One, Big Beautiful Bill,” and not the DHS appropriations bill, those facilities are therefore exempt from unannounced oversight visits by members of Congress. 

Cobb earlier this month, rejected that argument from the Trump administration and temporarily blocked the policy for the plaintiffs in the case. 

The House Democrats who sued include Joe Neguse of Colorado, Adriano Espaillat of New York, Kelly Morrison of Minnesota, Jamie Raskin of Maryland, Robert Garcia of California, J. Luis Correa of California, Jason Crow of Colorado, Veronica Escobar of Texas, Dan Goldman of New York, Jimmy Gomez of California, Raul Ruiz of California, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi and Norma Torres of California.

Attendees at a Feb. 12 protest called for a pause on data center construction in Wisconsin. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

A group of Democratic state lawmakers on Thursday announced a proposal to put a moratorium on data center construction in Wisconsin as communities across the state grapple with local resistance to the development of hyperscale AI data centers. 

Debates around data centers have become increasingly tense in recent months as residents of communities including Mount Pleasant, Mount Horeb, Beaver Dam, Port Washington and Janesville have rallied opposition to  the approval of data centers by local officials. 

While officials in these communities are often tempted by the promise of increased property tax revenue from the facilities, residents have raised objections to their local representatives ceding local land to multibillion-dollar tech companies, the massive amounts of energy and water needed to operate the large data centers and the related effects on local utility rates and the environment to produce all the power.

Several pieces of legislation to regulate data center construction have already been proposed in the Legislature. In January, Assembly Republicans passed a bill that would establish some regulations, but Democrats said it didn’t do enough to prevent electricity costs from being passed on to regular consumers and included a provision that would stymie renewable energy development in the state. 

With just days left before the Legislature ends its work for the session next week, a group of Democratic lawmakers rolled out a proposal that would pause data center construction until “all of the questions that you have, that you have been asking your local mayors, you have been asking your local legislators, you have been asking these data centers, that all of those are actually answered,” Sen. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee) said at a press conference Thursday afternoon with local data center activists. 

The bill defines a data center as “a facility having a primary purpose of storing, managing, and processing digital data and that has at least 5,000 servers, occupies at least 10,000 square feet, or has an electricity demand of at least 100 megawatts.”

The bill wouldn’t allow the construction of any data centers in the state until the state establishes a data center planning authority; prohibits energy and water costs from being shifted to residential utility customers; creates a “land and community funding mechanism”; eliminates state and local financial subsidies for data centers; mandates public reporting of data center energy and water use; creates data center-specific pollution regulations; requires that 100% of the energy produced for data centers be renewable; requires that data center construction projects pay prevailing or collectively bargained wages; restores planning authority to the Public Service Commission; prohibits non-disclosure agreements between data centers and government entities and creates an enforcement and penalty structure for data centers that violate regulations. 

“The intent is not to permanently prohibit data centers, but to ensure that any future development is responsible, transparent, and does not impose additional financial burdens on Wisconsin households,” a co-sponsorship memo on the proposal states. “Wisconsinites should not be asked to shoulder higher utility costs while large new energy users operate without clear rules, accountability, or public oversight. This bill provides the Legislature with the time and authority necessary to establish a fair and comprehensive framework that protects ratepayers, workers, and local communities before large-scale data centers are allowed to move forward.”

On Thursday, a few dozen people gathered outside the state Capitol to protest against data center construction before meeting in a hearing room for a news conference and panel discussion. Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison), one of the several Democrats running in the primary for governor, said at the press conference that the data center proposals have galvanized anti-corporate views in communities of all political stripes. 

“This is about community power and returning community control to folks all across the state,” Hong said. “I am so incredibly grateful because I have not seen this type of bipartisan opposition to corporate control. I have not seen this type of bipartisan support for ensuring that we protect our natural resources. Our natural resources are not for sale. Our health is not for sale. Our shared future depends on all of us fighting right now to ensure that we are holding AI data centers accountable.”

Marathon Petroleum Company’s Salt Lake City Refinery in Salt Lake City on Wednesday, Jan. 3, 2024. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump and his top environmental policy officer finalized a move Thursday to undo an Environmental Protection Agency regulation that laid the foundation for federal rules governing emissions of the greenhouse gases that cause climate change.

At a White House event, Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said they were officially rolling back the “endangerment finding” that labeled greenhouse gases a threat to public health and provided a framework for the EPA to regulate emissions. 

The 2009 finding, established under President Barack Obama, called climate change a danger to human health and therefore gave the EPA power to regulate greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide from cars and trucks. 

Such regulations created a challenge for automakers and other industries, which dragged down the entire economy, according to Trump, administration officials and allies in Congress. 

Democrats and their allies in environmental and climate activism, though, consider the measure a crucial tool to address climate change and protect human health.

Undoing the finding will remove the economy-wide uncertainty, Trump argued. 

“That is why, effective immediately, we are repealing the ridiculous endangerment finding and terminating all additional green emission standards imposed unnecessarily on vehicle models and engines between 2012 and 2027 and beyond,” he said Thursday. 

Affordability argument

In its initial notice last year that it would repeal the endangerment finding, the EPA said it did not have the authority to regulate vehicle emissions.

With household costs, including transportation, expected to be a major theme in the fall’s midterm campaigns to determine control of Congress, members of both parties have framed it as an economic issue.

“This will be the largest deregulatory action in American history, and it will save the American people $1.3 trillion in crushing regulations,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said at Tuesday’s press briefing.

Some Democrats and climate activists argue the rollback will hurt the country’s nascent renewable energy sector, driving up the cost of home heating, electricity and other common expenses.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., issued a lengthy joint statement slamming the announcement.

“The Trump EPA has fully abandoned its duty to protect the American people from greenhouse gas pollution and climate change.  This shameful abdication — an economic, moral, and political failure — will harm Americans’ health, homes, and economic well-being. It ignores scientific fact and common-sense observations to serve big political donors,” the senators said.

“This sham decision initially relied on a now thoroughly disgraced and abandoned ‘report’ by known climate deniers. Zeldin stuck to this charade anyway, undaunted by half a century of actual evidence, showing the fix was in from the beginning,” they continued.

Money and fossil fuels

The move outraged Democrats and climate activists when Zeldin first proposed it last summer. Climate activists say undoing the finding undercuts the federal government’s ability to address an issue critical to the United States and the entire world.

In a Tuesday floor speech, Schumer blasted the rollback as a giveaway to fossil fuel companies, leaders of which contributed to Trump’s 2024 campaign.

“Remember: In the spring of 2024, Donald Trump invited top oil executives to Mar-a-Lago and told them, if you raise me a billion dollars to get me elected, I will cut regulations so you can make more money,” Schumer said. “That devil’s bargain is now coming true. I never thought it would be this way in America, in this bald disgusting way that so hurts people’s health, but there it is.”

Democratic attorneys general and environmental groups are likely to sue over the rollback.

At least one lawsuit, from the Environmental Defense Fund, was promised Thursday afternoon.

“EDF will challenge this decision in court, where evidence matters, and keep working with everyone who wants to build a better, safer and more prosperous future,” Fred Krupp, EDF president, said in a statement Thursday. 

Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown, a Democrat, said last year he would “consider all options if EPA continues down this cynical path.”

Ashley Murray contributed to this report.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., speaks with reporters on Capitol Hill on Friday, Sept. 19, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The Department of Homeland Security is headed for a shutdown as lawmakers on Capitol Hill remained stuck Thursday over bans on face masks and other immigration tactics. 

The department’s funding expires Friday night.

A procedural vote to advance a funding bill failed in the Senate, 52-47, with Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., the only Democrat to join Republicans on the measure. Senate Majority Leader John Thune changed his vote in a maneuver to recommit the bill and bring it up again later. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., did not vote.

The Senate then left for a scheduled recess over the Presidents Day holiday, and will not return for votes until Feb. 23.

Democrats have so far rebuffed counter proposals from the White House and a Republican offer to further extend temporary DHS funding while negotiations continue. 

The vote came just hours after President Donald Trump’s border czar Tom Homan announced immigration officers will retreat from Minneapolis, which has become ground zero for the administration’s aggressive and deadly escalations that sparked mass protests and sinking approval numbers for the president.

Thune said the administration’s exit from Minneapolis is “certainly a demonstration of good faith.”

Demands for warrants and more

The fatal shootings in Minneapolis by federal agents of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, both U.S. citizens, has prompted Democrats to demand immigration officers obtain judicial warrants to forcibly enter homes, wear and actively use body cameras, remove face masks, wear identification and undergo additional training.

The department, which houses Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, is the remaining part of the government for which Congress has not passed full-year funding. In addition to ICE and Customs and Border Protection, the department also includes the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, the Coast Guard and the Transportation Security Administration, otherwise known as TSA.

Short-term stopgap funds for the department expire Friday at midnight, though ICE will likely continue operations on an influx of cash earmarked for the agency in Republicans’ massive tax and spending cuts law enacted in July.

TSA agents, Coast Guard personnel and other essential government workers will continue their duties without pay until lawmakers strike a deal. Others will be sent home, also without pay, though all will receive back pay once the shutdown ends.

Red lines

Thune said Democrats “don’t seem to want to play ball” and consider his party’s “reasonable efforts and requests.”

“There’s some obviously red lines that Democrats have and that the White House has. I think Republicans, as I told you before, are very interested in making sure that law enforcement officials continue to be able to do their jobs in a way that is safe and that we aren’t in any way enabling, you know, dangerous illegal aliens, or disallowing them being detained and deported from the country,” the South Dakota Republican said following the failed vote.

Thune said the White House is “giving more and more ground on some of these key issues” but declined to provide further detail on the administration’s proposal.

He added he did not plan to cancel the Senate’s planned recess next week but has let members know they’ll need to be available if a deal emerges.

“I’m encouraged to hear that they’re actually going to put together another counterproposal. I think if people are operating in good faith and actually want a solution … this can get done,” he said.

Following the failed vote for full-year funding, Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., asked for unanimous consent to keep Homeland Security open with another stop-gap measure.

“Let’s keep talking, let’s keep working. Don’t let anyone miss a paycheck,” Britt, the chair of the Homeland Security appropriations subcommittee, said.

Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the Homeland Security appropriations subcommittee, objected, saying the Democrats want “to rein in  ICE’s lawlessness.” 

Democrats want GOP to get ‘serious’

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer doubled down on Democrats’ demands following the failed procedural vote. 

“This vote today asked a simple question: Will you rein in ICE’s abuses, or will you vote to extend the chaos?” he said. “Republicans chose chaos and the Democrats, we refused — Republicans chose to put a bill on the floor that ignored the abuses, ignored the outrage, ignored what the American people want, overwhelmingly, and they failed to get the votes to avoid a shutdown at DHS.” 

The New York Democrat called on Republicans to get “serious” if they want to keep DHS funded. 

“They need to sit down, they need to negotiate in good faith, produce legislation that actually reins in ICE and stops the violence,” Schumer said. 

Both sides have complained that the other did not work fast enough during the past two weeks to find a deal.

“I wish our Republican colleagues in the White House had shown more seriousness from the start, but Senate Democrats have been clear that we have all taken an oath, an oath to uphold the law of the country and this Department of Homeland Security, this ICE, is out of control. They are tear gassing our children’s schools. They are killing American citizens. They are disappearing legal migrants,” Murphy said. 

Ahead of Thursday’s vote, Murphy said Democrats would not fund the department until an agreement is reached with the White House to “reform abusive practices of ICE.” 

Murphy told reporters the White House is “obviously trying to get us to fund the department,” pointing to the announcement of immigration officers soon leaving Minneapolis. 

“If we fund ICE, because we believe that the drawdown is meaningful, they’ll just pocket that money and show up in another city two weeks from now,” he said. “We need statutory changes to stop them from the abuse, or they will be quiet for a couple of weeks and show up in Philadelphia on April 1.” 

Thune said “the ball is in Democrats’ court,” during remarks on the Senate floor Thursday morning. 

“Are they going to shut down the Department of Homeland Security — which would be their second shutdown this fiscal year — or are they going to allow for the time to negotiate with the White House and get agreement on a final bill?” he said.

A masked U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent knocks on a car window in Minnesota on Jan. 12, 2026. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

After White House officials announced Thursday they will be ending the federal immigration enforcement surge in the Twin Cities, U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin said she would not vote for a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security, saying she hopes to prevent some other community from being victimized next.

On Thursday afternoon, Senate Democrats blocked the DHS funding measure. A procedural vote to advance the funding bill failed in the Senate, 52-47. Baldwin joined with all Senate Democrats except Sen. John Fetterman in voting against the measure. 

Baldwin said at a virtual news conference Thursday that her office has received more than 40,000 phone calls demanding that Immigration and Customs Enforcement be reined in. 

“The Trump administration claimed that they are winding down their invasion of Minneapolis, but I’ll believe it when I see it, and the truth is that is not even close to enough,” she said. “What is stopping them from just going to another American city and causing the same chaos? We need to put in law some serious guardrails and rein in ICE, and that’s exactly what I’m fighting for.”

Baldwin said she wants ICE to be held to the same standards as local police officers, which includes not wearing masks, carrying identification and wearing body cameras. She also said she wants to stop “chaotic, roving bands of federal agents” storming across communities as they have  done in the Twin Cities and to make sure the investigations into the shooting deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, the two U.S. citizens killed by federal agents in Minneapolis, are conducted independently and transparently. 

But Baldwin said congressional Republicans and President Trump have been unwilling to work with Democrats to put up “common sense” guardrails for ICE operations.

“I am still hopeful that we can find compromise, but negotiations are a two-way street,” she said. “Democrats have put forward some common sense measures that Americans overwhelmingly support, and so it’s up to my Republican colleagues if they want to get serious about negotiating with us. I’ve been clear for weeks that unless serious measures are added to this legislation that serve to rein in ICE, I am not going to be a signatory to a blank check for this administration to wreak havoc on communities and endanger our neighbors.”

A growing memorial stands Wednesday, Jan. 28, 2026 where Alex Pretti, 37, was shot and killed by Border Patrol agents days before at Nicollet Avenue and 26th Street in Minneapolis. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

WASHINGTON — The top leaders of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee showed a play-by-play video leading up to the fatal shooting in Minneapolis of Alex Pretti by Customs and Border Protection officers, as they grilled the heads of two federal immigration agencies about the incident during an oversight hearing Thursday.

Chairman Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, said there needs to be accountability following the deaths of Pretti, an intensive care unit nurse and Renee Good, a mother of three and poet, in January at the hands of immigration agents.

“The thousands of people in the streets in Minneapolis and in Minnesota and the millions of viewers who witnessed the recent deaths, it’s clearly evident that the public trust has been lost,” Paul said. “To restore trust in (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and Border Patrol, they must admit their mistakes, be honest and forthright with their rules of engagement and pledge to reform.”

Paul and Michigan Sen. Gary Peters, the top Democrat on the panel, questioned ICE acting Director Todd Lyons and CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott about immigration officers’ use of force tactics and whether the agents followed de-escalation procedures. 

“You have to look at what your rules are for drawing weapons, because it appears to me they’re not using the same standards as the police,” Paul said of immigration agents.

It was the second congressional oversight hearing for Scott and Lyons this week. Democrats and Republicans are at a stalemate over funding for the agency for fiscal year 2026, with Democrats demanding changes in immigration enforcement tactics after the deadly encounters in Minneapolis.

The shutdown will not stop President Donald Trump’s mass deportation push, however. Even if an agreement to fund DHS is not reached by Friday and the agency is closed, ICE still has $75 billion in funding from the tax and spending package from last year.

Minutes into Thursday’s hearing, border czar Tom Homan announced that immigration enforcement operations would end in Minneapolis after two months. 

Pretti pepper sprayed, held down

Paul and Peters showed the leaders of CBP and ICE a New York Times video analysis leading up to the shooting of Pretti, who was pepper sprayed and tackled to the ground by multiple immigration officers. He was held down and at least 10 shots can be heard on video.

Lyons and Scott declined to comment on the clips shown, saying there are multiple ongoing investigations. Scott said the FBI, CBP and ICE were conducting their own investigations.

Paul expressed his frustration with that answer and pointed to the lead-up to Pretti’s encounters with federal officers. The video shows a woman yelling at a federal immigration officer. She is shoved to the ground and Pretti goes to help her up.

“No one in America believes shoving that woman’s head, in the face, in the snow, was de-escalation,” Paul said. 

Paul asked if an appropriate response to someone yelling is to shove them to the ground. 

Scott said it was not, but that he couldn’t comment on the specific video. 

Paul said that in the video it’s clear that Pretti is using his hand to protect his face from pepper spray.

“He is retreating at every moment,” Paul said. “He’s trying to get away, and he’s being sprayed in the face. I don’t think that’s de-escalatory. That’s an escalatory thing.”

Paul said an investigation needs to be done quickly. 

Scott said there is body camera footage from the officers involved in Pretti’s shooting that will be released to the public.

“I don’t think this should take months and months and years and years,” Paul said. “There needs to be a conclusion.”

Peters pointed to how immigration officers are seen beating Pretti with a pepper spray canister. He asked Scott if that was an appropriate response. 

“What I’m seeing is a subject that’s also not complying, he’s not following any guidance. He’s fighting back nonstop,” Scott said, adding that he couldn’t answer Peters’ question because the investigation was ongoing.

Peters then questioned Scott and Lyons on why DHS Secretary Kristi Noem quickly labeled Good and Pretti as “domestic terrorists.” He asked the men if they had given her any briefing or additional information for her to have drawn that conclusion.

Both said they had not. 

Michigan Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin also told Lyons that she was concerned about statements made by Trump about sending immigration agents to polling locations ahead of the midterm elections. 

“There’s no reason for us to deploy to a polling facility,” he said. 

Minnesota withdrawal

Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford informed the first panel, which brought Minnesota leaders to the nation’s capital, of Homan’s announcement that the surge would be ending in Minneapolis.

The first panel included GOP Rep. Tom Emmer of Minnesota; Minnesota House Republican Floor Leader Harry Niska; Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, a Democrat; and the commissioner of the Department of Corrections for the state of Minnesota, Paul Schnell.  

Lankford said there needs to be better coordination between local and federal law enforcement, such as 287(g) agreements. In those partnerships, which are voluntary, local law enforcement will notify ICE if they arrest someone who is in the country unlawfully and hold that person until federal immigration officers can arrive.

“So the position that my office has taken is that, if you are a sheriff who wants to pursue 287(g), you must have the support of your county board,” Ellison said, adding that seven counties have such agreements.  

One Republican, Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, blamed the deaths of Pretti and Good not on the immigration agents who killed them. He said they occurred because Ellison urged Minnesotans to exercise their First Amendment rights.

“Two people are dead because you encouraged them to put themselves into harm’s way,” Johnson said to Ellison. “And now you are exploiting those two martyrs. You ought to feel damn guilty about it.”

In response, Ellison said, “It was a nice theatrical performance but it was all lies.”

‘Occupied by the federal government’

New Jersey Democratic Sen. Andy Kim noted that the number of ICE agents, about 3,000, initially sent to Minneapolis, significantly dwarfed the local police, which is roughly under 600. He asked Ellison how it felt in Minneapolis to have that many federal immigration agents in the city. 

“It felt like we were being occupied by the federal government,” Ellison said. 

During the second panel, Kim asked Lyons if ICE is planning to conduct a similar operation in other cities.   

Lyons said the agency would, and said he learned lessons from the deportation drive in Minneapolis. 

“We look at lessons learned,” Lyons said. “The problem, I believe, is the … agitators and the coordination on the protest side. People can go out there and protest, but why are we going to encourage individuals to go out there and impede and put themselves in harm’s way? I think that’s the lesson learned from this.”

Henry Garnica, the owner of CentroMex Supermercado in East St. Paul, spoke to reporters at the Capitol Thursday Feb. 12, 2026. (Photo by Alyssa Chen/Minnesota Reformer)

Gov. Tim Walz proposed $10 million in forgivable loans for Minnesota businesses affected by the surge in federal immigration activity starting in December.

The incursion of around 3,000 federal immigration agents in Minnesota in what the Trump administration called “Operation Metro Surge” led to revenue losses for businesses, especially those in major immigrant corridors, as employees and customers stayed home out of fear of being detained by federal immigration agents.

The one-time forgivable loan proposal was announced Thursday at a Capitol press briefing, moments after U.S. border czar Tom Homan announced the end of the surge and claimed success in making the Twin Cities and Minnesota “safer.” The unprecedented federal incursion ignited massive resistance and resulted in two killings of American citizens, among other high-profile incidents.

The damage from Operation Metro Surge is still being assessed, Walz said. Minneapolis businesses are estimated to have lost $10 to $20 million a week in sales, the Star Tribune previously reported.

The relief package would apply to businesses that can demonstrate substantial revenue loss tied to the surge with revenues between $200,000 and $4 million annually. The loans would be between $2,500 to $25,000, with an opportunity to apply for 50% forgiveness after a year.

Walz acknowledged that the $10 million relief proposal is “a very small piece of” the recovery. He said that the upcoming legislative session, which starts Feb. 17, “needs to be about recovery of the damage that’s been done to us.” The prospects at the Legislature aren’t great, however: Republican House Speaker Lisa Demuth, who is also a frontrunner for the GOP nomination for governor, is likely disinclined to support anything that could even implicitly be viewed as a criticism of the Trump administration’s immigration agenda.

Henry Garnica, the owner of CentroMex Supermercado in St. Paul’s East Side, a grocery store that caters to the Hispanic community, spoke at the briefing. Federal agents visited CentroMex without a judicial warrant in December, where they faced off with residents who quickly arrived at the scene and formed a chain outside the entrance. The incident ended in the federal agents leaving.

Garnica, who immigrated from Colombia over 20 years ago and is a U.S. citizen, said that his sales have been down 30 to 40% during the federal immigration enforcement surge. He spoke wearing a whistle and showed reporters his passport that he’s been carrying: “Hopefully we don’t have to do this anymore.”

Garnica said he expects that recovering from the loss in sales will take at least three to six months.

Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly outside the District of Columbia federal courthouse where his lawsuit against the Department of Defense was heard on Feb. 3, 2026. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction Thursday, blocking the Department of Defense from downgrading Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly’s rank as a retired Navy captain for appearing in a video where he and other lawmakers reminded members of the military they aren’t required to follow illegal orders. 

Senior Judge Richard J. Leon of the District of Columbia District Court wrote in the 29-page ruling that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and others named in the lawsuit have “trampled on Senator Kelly’s First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees.”

In his scathing opinion loaded with emphasis and exclamation points, Leon wrote, “After all, as Bob Dylan famously said, ‘You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.’ To say the least, our retired veterans deserve more respect from their Government, and our Constitution demands they receive it!” 

The senior judge ruled that Kelly is likely to succeed on the merits of his case. The preliminary injunction will block Pentagon action while the case proceeds through the courts.

Leon conceded that while active military personnel are subject to “well-established doctrine” limiting First Amendment rights, “(u)fortunately for Secretary Hegseth, no court has ever extended those principles to retired servicemembers, much less a retired servicemember serving in Congress and exercising oversight responsibility over the military.” 

“This Court will not be the first to do so!”

Leon was nominated by former President George W. Bush.

Leon concluded the ruling with a biting passage suggesting that “Rather than trying to shrink the First Amendment liberties of retired servicemembers, Secretary Hegseth and his fellow Defendants might reflect and be grateful for the wisdom and expertise that retired servicemembers have brought to public discussions and debate on military matters in our Nation over the past 250 years.” 

“If so, they will more fully appreciate why the Founding Fathers made free speech the first Amendment in the Bill of Rights! Hopefully this injunction will in some small way help bring about a course correction in the Defense Department’s approach to these issues,” Leon wrote.

‘This case was never just about me’

Kelly said in a lengthy statement following the ruling that the federal court “made clear that Pete Hegseth violated the constitution when he tried to punish me for something I said.” 

“But this case was never just about me. This administration was sending a message to millions of retired veterans that they too can be censured or demoted just for speaking out. That’s why I couldn’t let it stand,” Kelly said.

Kelly said the nation is at a “critical moment” to defend free speech.

“The First Amendment is a foundation of our democracy. It’s how we demand better of presidents like Donald Trump – whether they are jacking up the cost of groceries with tariffs or sending masked immigration agents to intimidate American communities.  

  “But Donald Trump and his administration don’t like accountability. They don’t like when journalists report on the consequences of their policies. They don’t like when retired veterans question them. And they don’t like when millions of everyday Americans peacefully protest. That’s why they are cracking down on our rights and trying to make examples out of anyone they can.”

The Department of Defense pointed to Hegseth’s X account as official comment on the matter.

The secretary wrote about the case: “This will be immediately appealed. Sedition is sedition, ‘Captain.’”

DOD investigation

Kelly, Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, Colorado Rep. Jason Crow, Pennsylvania Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan and New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander, all Democrats with backgrounds in the military or national security, posted the video on Nov. 18

President Donald Trump reacted on social media a few days later, falsely claiming the video represented “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

The Defense Department announced on Nov. 24 that it had opened an investigation into “serious allegations of misconduct” against Kelly. Officials wrote the senator could face “recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures.” 

Hegseth wrote in a social media post on Jan. 5 that he had started the process to downgrade Kelly’s retirement rank as a Navy captain and his pay. 

Hegseth wrote Kelly’s “status as a sitting United States Senator does not exempt him from accountability, and further violations could result in further action.”

Kelly filed a lawsuit against the Department of Defense and Hegseth on Jan. 12, asking a federal judge to declare the effort “unlawful and unconstitutional.”

“Pete Hegseth is coming after what I earned through my twenty-five years of military service, in violation of my rights as an American, as a retired veteran, and as a United States Senator whose job is to hold him—and this or any administration—accountable,” Kelly wrote in a statement at the time. “His unconstitutional crusade against me sends a chilling message to every retired member of the military: if you speak out and say something that the President or Secretary of Defense doesn’t like, you will be censured, threatened with demotion, or even prosecuted.”

Court hearing

Leon held a hearing on Kelly’s request for a preliminary injunction on Feb. 3, where he asked the attorney representing the Department of Defense how any retired member of the military who is later elected as a member of Congress, especially one that sits on the Armed Services Committee, like Kelly does, could challenge any actions taken by the Defense Department. 

John Bailey, the Justice Department attorney, contended that Congress has determined that certain retired military members are still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

Benjamin Mizer, one of the lawyers on Kelly’s team, told the judge the Defense Department’s actions represented a “clear First Amendment violation.” 

Grand jury non-indictment

The other Democratic lawmakers in the video aren’t subject to the military’s judicial system but rebuked the Justice Department Wednesday for seeking a grand jury indictment against them for publishing the video, where they told Americans in the military and intelligence communities they “can” and “must refuse illegal orders.”

“No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. We know this is hard and that it’s a difficult time to be a public servant,” they said. “But whether you’re serving in the CIA, in the Army, or Navy, or the Air Force, your vigilance is critical.”

Slotkin, a former CIA officer, posted a video on Feb. 5, saying she had informed U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro that she wouldn’t be sitting for an interview. 

Slotkin said her letter to Bondi and Pirro also told them “to retain their records on this case in case I decide to sue for infringement of my constitutional rights.”

“To be honest, many lawyers told me to just be quiet, keep my head down and hopefully this will all just go away. But that’s exactly what the Trump administration and Jeanine Pirro want,” Slotkin said. “They are purposely using physical and legal intimidation to get me to shut up. But more importantly they’re using that intimidation to deter others from speaking out against their administration.

“The intimidation is the point and I’m not going to go along with that.”

House members 

Houlahan released her own video the same day saying she would not sit for an FBI interview and that the Democrats’ video “told the truth, it stated facts, it reiterated the law and it exercised speech explicitly protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.” 

“Free speech is not a favor that the government can revoke,” Houlahan said. “It is a right and I will not surrender it, for myself or for anyone else.” 

Deluzio wrote in a social media post the following day that he would “not be intimidated by any harassment campaign” and does “not intend to sit down for a voluntary interview with DOJ or FBI officials sent to interfere with the important work I’m doing for my constituents.”

Goodlander wrote in a statement that the “Justice Department is targeting us for doing our jobs, and the aim here is clear: to intimidate, coerce, and silence us. It will not work. I will not bend the knee in the face of lawless threats and rank weaponization — I will keep doing my job and upholding my oath to our Constitution.”

Crow told CNN’s Pamela Brown last week that he was treating the FBI’s investigation as “an attempt to try to threaten, harass and intimidate political opponents.”

“(Trump’s) trying to make an example out of me and Mark Kelly and others because if he can make an example out of a member of Congress or a senator then why would everyday Americans stand up and protest and dissent? But he has chosen the wrong people.”

ICE agents search the passenger of a truck as they arrest both him and the driver during a traffic stop Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2026 on Bottineau Blvd. in Robbinsdale. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

President Donald Trump’s border czar announced on Thursday an imminent end to Operation Metro Surge, claiming success from the unprecedented federal incursion that brought thousands of immigration officers to Minnesota, ignited massive resistance and resulted in two killings of American citizens.

“The Twin Cities, and Minnesota in general, are and will continue to be much safer for the communities here because of what we have accomplished under President Trump’s leadership,” Border Czar Tom Homan said during a morning news conference.

He said a “small footprint of personnel” will remain for “a period of time” to wind down the operation. Within the next week, agents sent here from other states will be sent home or deployed elsewhere, he said. Homan, who reportedly was investigated for receiving $50,000 in cash from an undercover FBI agent in 2024 in an alleged bribery scheme, said the personnel here for fraud investigations will remain.

The announcement comes a little over two weeks after Homan arrived in the state, taking over control of an operation that had, by any measure, spun out of control.

Since the beginning of the year, immigration agents have shot three people, killing two; racially profiled people, asking them to produce proof of legal residency; detained legal immigrants and shipped them across state lines, including young children; caused numerous car crashes; deployed chemical irritants on public school property; smashed the car windows of observers and arrested them before releasing them without charges; charged journalists and activists while stymieing investigations of federal agents, leading to an exodus of prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, among other high-profile incidents.

The surge was deeply unpopular in Minnesota and across the country. Nearly two-thirds of people in Minnesota disapprove of how ICE is handling its job, according to a recent poll by NBC News Decision Desk, KARE 11 and Minnesota Star Tribune.

“President Trump didn’t send me here because the operations were being run and conducted perfectly,” Homan acknowledged.

Homan took over control from Border Commander Gregory Bovino, who spent many days out in the field with his “troops,” as he referred to them, asking Somali Uber drivers for their passports and throwing gas at protesters.

Just three weeks ago, Bovino would not say when the operation would end, and said that it would be “ongoing until there are no more of those criminal illegal aliens roaming the streets.”

Homan’s arrival – and Bovino’s termination – brought a swift reversal. Homan announced the beginning of a drawdown last week, pulling 700 immigration agents from Minnesota. Gov. Tim Walz said earlier this week, after speaking with Trump’s Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, that he believed a full end to the surge was days away.

“They knew they needed to get out here but, in very Trumpian fashion, they needed to save face,” Walz said at a Thursday news conference.

Walz said the state must now begin efforts to recover from the massive disruption the operation brought to schools and businesses.

U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar said ending the operation is not enough.

“We need justice and accountability. That starts with independent investigations into the murders of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, economic restitution for businesses impacted, abolishing ICE, and the impeachment of Kristi Noem,” Omar posted to social media.

Other Democratic leaders welcomed the news of the draw down but expressed skepticism that the Trump administration would follow through.

“Any announcement of a drawdown or end to Operation Metro Surge must be followed by real action. Last week, we were told ICE would be reducing its presence in Minnesota. Yet yesterday, we witnessed a reckless high-speed chase in a densely populated, heavily visited part of our city,” St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her said in a statement.

A group of Minnesotans who traveled to Washington, D.C. said on Thursday that Congress must still deny a funding increase to Homeland Security; an ongoing stalemate over the issue appears likely to lead to a partial government shutdown on Friday.

“We need real investigations, real oversight, real consequences when lives are lost,” Rochester Imam Salah Mohamed said, standing in front of the U.S. Capitol.

The Trump administration began sending federal agents to the state late last year, and their ranks swelled to 3,000 in what the Department of Homeland Security called its largest operation ever.

The operation catalyzed fierce resistance from residents across the Twin Cities metro, who created sophisticated anonymous networks to monitor and document ICE activities and deliver food and other necessities to immigrants too afraid to leave their homes.

Opposition to the operation, that by most accounts looked and felt like a military siege, grew even larger following the killing of a Minneapolis ICE observer, Renee Good, in her car on Jan. 7. Just over two weeks later, Border Patrol agents killed a second person, Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center.

Walz along with other Democratic leaders have for weeks called on the Trump administration to end the operation, saying it has only endangered residents rather than increasing public safety.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison along with the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul sued the Trump administration in hopes of forcing an end to the surge, pointing to widespread accounts of racial discrimination, violence against bystanders and protesters and enforcement actions at schools, churches and hospitals.

Homan touted the many arrests federal agents made of undocumented immigrants with criminal records, including murderers, sex offenders and other violent criminals.

Yet of the roughly 4,000 arrests made since the beginning of Operation Metro Surge last December, Homan could not say how many were targeted arrests of people deemed a safety threat.

Homeland Security has not released the names of the people it arrested. Instead, the agency has released curated lists of people they call the “worst of the worst” who they claim to have taken off the streets. But many of those people were actually in state prisons already and were simply transferred to federal custody, following standard practice that started long before the operation.

Homan said they’ve earned significant collaboration with local law enforcement and seen a reduction in “agitator behavior” interrupting immigration operations, two key conditions he made at a news conference last week for a full draw down.

“We have obtained an unprecedented level of coordination from law enforcement officials that is focused on promoting public safety across the entire state,” Homan said.

He boasted that local sheriffs offices will notify ICE when people of interest are released from jails, which has been common practice for county sheriffs for years. Homan reiterated he will not ask sheriffs to detain people beyond their scheduled release, which violates Minnesota law according to an opinion issued by Ellison last year.

Homan thanked Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara, Hennepin County Sheriff Dawanna Witt and other law enforcement leaders “for their responsiveness and efforts to maintain law and order in the streets.”

He also thanked Walz for his “messages focusing on peace” and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey for directing police to take down community barricades in the street.

Walz said he didn’t give up anything as part of a deal to end the operation.

“Nothing has changed. The final agreement was that Minnesota would continue to do what we do,” Walz said.

Madison McVan contributed reporting. 

A produce cooler at Willy Street Co-op in Madison, Wisconsin. The Evers administration and a large group of advocates are calling on the Legislature to put $69 million more into the Wisconsin FoodShare program to cover new administrative expenses. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

Advocates are urging state lawmakers to help Wisconsin absorb new administrative costs as a result of federal changes to the nation’s primary food assistance program.

Changes made to Supplemental Nutrition Aid Program (SNAP) benefits in the mega bill signed by President Donald Trump last year will add $69.2 million to the cost of Wisconsin’s FoodShare program in the current two-year budget, according to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services. The agency administers the FoodShare program.

The federal mega bill, which Trump signed on July 4, cut taxes along with spending on some federal programs, including SNAP.

A letter from 165 participating groups asks legislators “to take immediate action to provide funding for these changes. Additional delays in providing this funding will put Wisconsin taxpayers at risk of paying for increased costs and will negatively impact communities, businesses, and SNAP recipients across Wisconsin.”

The coalition of social service, food industry and advocacy organizations held a press conference Wednesday to call for the added state support.

“At an average of $6 per person per day, SNAP supports nearly 700,000 Wisconsinites, and also supports local economies with each dollar in SNAP benefits, generating between $1.50 and $1.80 in economic activity,” said Jackie Anderson, executive director of Feeding Wisconsin.

The press conference coincided with a lobbying day for the Wisconsin Cheesemakers Association, one of the coalition members

“FoodShare brings more than a billion dollars of spending power into our state every year, and a large share of that is returned to Wisconsin producers, and in particular, dairy producers, that flows not only through grocery stores, but back through cheese plants and into dairy farms like the one my family owns,” said Andy Hatch, the owner of Uplands Cheese in Dodgeville and the cheesemakers’ association’s policy chair.

“This is a bipartisan issue” — one that the association’s members, Republicans and Democrats alike, “have all agreed on,” Hatch added. “Our core mission is to feed people and to support our communities, rural and urban, and is why we’ve come together with people across the state to ask our lawmakers to fund the requested $69 million and make sure that there is not a disruption to FoodShare.”

The request includes funding to add administrative staff to avoid errors in the state’s operation of the program. Among the changes to SNAP is a penalty that would require states to pick up some of the benefit costs if their errors exceed 6%. State officials have said that could cost Wisconsin up to $205 million.

The $69 million that the state has estimated it will require to implement those changes was not included in the 2025-27 state budget. Gov. Tony Evers’s office said he had told lawmakers about the need last August, and Evers highlighted the coalition’s call in a statement Thursday.

“Because of President Trump’s so-called ‘Big Beautiful Bill,’ Wisconsin taxpayers will already be on the hook for over a quarter of a billion dollars in new costs in future budgets,” Evers said.

“And if we don’t get the resources we’ve been asking for in order to keep our FoodShare error rate low, Wisconsinites could have to pay hundreds of millions even more in penalty fees each year,” he added. “That just cannot happen—it will cripple future state budgets. This funding is critical, and the Legislature must get this done.” 

The request includes $16.1 million to add staff in order to ensure that FoodShare is administered accurately. The new federal law requires states with SNAP error rates exceeding 6% to cover from 5% to 15% of the benefit costs starting in October 2027.

Wisconsin’s error rate in 2024 was 4.47%, the state health department said in a news release in August. The error rate flags instances when recipients get too much or too little SNAP aid or the state makes other mistakes in the program.

“However, rates naturally fluctuate, and even more so when the federal government changes program policies and standards with virtually no notice and is inconsistent with its definition of an error,” the health department release stated.

If the error rate rises and requires Wisconsin to start paying some of the benefit costs, that could cost the state up to $205 million a year, according to the Wisconsin DHS.

To hold down the state’s “historically low error rate while implementing the other provisions” in the federal law and to maintain quality control in administering FoodShare, the state and Wisconsin counties combined will need to add 56 employees, according to the health department.

The new federal law also increases the state’s share of administrative costs for SNAP from 50% to 75%, starting Oct. 1, 2026. That will cost the state an additional $32.4 million.

In addition, the law expanded work requirements for people who receive SNAP, which the Wisconsin DHS estimates would affect about 43,700 Wisconsin FoodShare recipients.

The new requirements affect anyone ages 18 to 64 without a child under 14 at home, including parents with children ages 14 to 17, who were previously exempt from work requirements. Previously work requirements applied to adults age 54 or younger without any children under 18 at home.

The state has estimated it would need an additional $20.7 million to increase participation in the FoodShare employment and training program for recipients who have work requirements and aren’t working already.

Reno Wright, public policy and advocacy director at the Hunger Task Force in Milwaukee, said more than 40% of FoodShare recipients are children, with about one in four Wisconsin children living in a household that uses FoodShare sometime during the year.

“Research shows that SNAP reduces child poverty by nearly 30% and is linked to long-term health and educational outcomes, but those outcomes depend on a system that functions efficiently,” Wright said. The funding sought for the program “ensures that the department has the staffing and the infrastructure needed to prevent delays and disruptions as new federal requirements take effect.”

There is not a stand-alone bill in the Legislature currently for the additional funding, but advocates hope an amendment could be added to another piece of  legislation that would fund SNAP.

Faith leaders and community members gather Thursday, Jan. 8, 2026 at the site where an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Good, 37, in south Minneapolis the previous day. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

Before Operation Metro Surge sent thousands of armed federal agents into Minneapolis, terrorizing families and spreading chaos and violence in formerly peaceful residential neighborhoods, local parent organizations were already setting up networks to provide mutual aid and safely transport children of immigrants to and from school.

“My school group of friends formed our first network of communication in October, after we saw what had happened in Chicago,” the mother of an elementary school student in South Minneapolis named Elizabeth told me in a phone interview Wednesday. She asked that her last name not be published, because of the danger of reprisals. 

The encrypted neighborhood chat started chiming for the first time on Tuesday, Dec. 9, she recalls, when “there were two people abducted early in the morning within blocks of my kid’s school.” When her child asked what was going on, “I said, you know, people are concerned about the safety of coming to school today,” Elizabeth recalls. “And like a good Minnesotan, my child realized that it was foggy outside and said, ‘Well, fog creates ice, and so the roads are probably slippery …’ And I said, yeah, they’re worried about ice on the roads. And I really had hope in that moment of naivety that that would be the last time we’d have to have that conversation. But it wasn’t.”

Since December, when Operation Metro Surge began, Elizabeth said her child’s class has shrunk from 25 students to just five. The school district has offered a remote learning option to immigrant families who are afraid to let their children leave the house. Meanwhile, the neighborhood chat group, which began with five families whose children played soccer together, has connected with hundreds of volunteers, many of whom don’t have kids in the school.

Because most of the families at the school are people of color, “we really had to start relying on our neighbors around us to help us, because we don’t have enough families that are not in danger,” Elizabeth said. Residents of nearby neighborhoods joined to form a group of 200 people who patrol the playground in the morning and afternoon and during recess, guard the nearby bus stops, and drive children from home to school and back again. 

In addition, volunteers pick up laundry every other week from families that are shut inside, and bring groceries, shopping for food at local Hispanic markets, which have taken a heavy hit after losing employees and customers during the immigration enforcement surge. 

There are many similar mutual aid groups throughout the area, each doing things in different ways. “There are a lot of micro projects happening everywhere,” Elizabeth said. And things are constantly changing. “It’s a living process,” she said. “No two days are the same.” 

While she tries to avoid contact with federal agents, ICE is everywhere in their neighborhood, Elizabeth said. She no longer allows her child to walk to the corner store alone. 

“ICE is constantly driving through our neighborhoods. They’re not obeying traffic signals. They’re not obeying traffic laws. They’re running through stop signs. They’re going the wrong way on one-ways,” Elizabeth said. While she isn’t afraid that her child, who is white, will be snatched and sent to immigration detention, she worries about the possibility of her child stumbling upon a violent action, “or they could get tear-gassed, very easily.”

The Department of Homeland Security’s rationale for the federal immigration enforcement surge is to enhance public safety. But it’s very clear from talking to people in Minneapolis that armed agents speeding through neighborhoods, smashing car windows and dragging people out of their homes has shattered the sense of safety residents used to have. 

Elizabeth does not claim that her neighborhood group can overcome that, or effectively deter ICE. Instead, she describes its purpose as offering comfort to immigrant parents. And for the children, she says, “I really make sure that I’m there every day so they can see the same faces, so there’s some stability in their day.”

“We’ve got families that have been in hiding for nine weeks now,” she adds. “… I want them to know that we were here for them.”

As for her own child, “I have to be really honest,” she said. She’s had to give up her hope, before the surge, not to have to talk about the sickening danger all around them. “They live in a community, and they need to be part of their community,” she said. “Right now, their community is under attack, and so I think it is my responsibility as a parent to make sure that they see that, and that they understand that this is not how you treat your neighbors. That, like I said, our community needs love, help and support right now. And so we have lots of conversations about it.”

Her child misses the friends who aren’t coming to school, and makes an effort to stay in touch and fill them in on what is happening. And there are the daily car rides with the handful of kids Elizabeth drives to school and home again. 

Those car rides are important, she said. She has a bag of snacks and a playlist the kids get to curate. “We’ve listened to a lot of K-pop,” she said. “We try to have as much joy and fun as we can for them, and to create those safe spaces and make sure that there’s laughter.”

As Wisconsinites worry about whether we will be next, I asked Elizabeth about the reluctance of some public officials to make concrete community defense plans, for fear it might put a target on our so-called sanctuary communities, and draw the very ICE surge they dread. 

“It comes back to being a good neighbor,” she said. “I’m not sure that any organizing that we’ve done or did or will do is necessarily a flag calling attention to us. It’s just we’ve got neighbors that are hungry. How are we going to feed our neighbors? We have neighbors that can’t pay their bills. How are we going to help? … To some degree it’s somewhat selfish, right? Like, I need, in order for my child to succeed in school, there needs to be continuity … I care about my community.”

“I would recommend people not be scared and not think of it as organizing against the government, but organizing for the people in your neighborhood,” she added. “And if it’s not your neighborhood, if it’s a neighborhood next to you, know where those neighborhoods are that might be impacted, and find ways that you can support that neighborhood.”

Sen. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit) said the bills are part of a larger effort to "legislate trans people out of public life.” (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

The Wisconsin State Senate passed bills that would restrict administrative rulemaking and that would place restrictions on health care for transgender youth. The bills are likely to be vetoed by Gov. Tony Evers.

Bills to restrict transgender youth headed to Evers

Democrats slammed five bills passed by Republicans that would restrict transgender children from receiving gender affirming care, from choosing the names and pronouns used for them in school and from participating on sports teams that align with their gender identity. Republicans said the bills are meant to protect children. Each bill passed 18-15 along party lines.

Sen. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit) said the bills are part of a larger effort to “legislate trans people out of public life.” He noted the Legislature’s emphasis on bills related to transgender people and said he felt a responsibility as a gay man to speak against them.

“Why are gay people and transgender people often lumped together politically? Why do we stand with each other? In large part because it is the same stereotypes. It is the same bias… and rigid ideas of male and female that have led to discrimination against gay people,” Spreitzer said.

Spreitzer said that even bringing the bills forward would do harm to transgender youth.

“It does harm to the mental health of our youth,” Spreitzer said. A 2024 survey by The Trevor Project found that 91% of LGBTQ+ young people in Wisconsin reported that recent politics negatively impacted their well-being. “What do they mean by recent politics? They mean bills like these as well as similar things coming down from the Trump administration.”

He added that he asked lawmakers to stop moving the bills forward during the committee process. “Yet forward they move, despite the Republican majority knowing full well that Gov. Evers will veto all five of these bills. They will not become law this session.”

Evers has vetoed similar bills several times over his seven years in office. Each time, he has promised to veto “any bill that makes Wisconsin a less safe, less inclusive, and less welcoming place for LGBTQ people and kids.”

Spreitzer said Senate and Assembly Democrats would sustain those vetoes if necessary.

One bill passed by the Senate is SB 405, which would create a civil cause of action against health care providers who perform gender transition procedures on someone under the age of 18 if they claim to be injured.

Spreitzer said SB 405 is a “blatant effort to threaten health care professionals with privileged litigation in the hopes that it will create a chilling effect and that they will stop providing gender affirming care.”

Sen. Melissa Ratcliff (D-Cottage Grove) made personal pleas, speaking to her own experience as the mother of a transgender child during the floor session. She said it would make life harder for transgender children and their families.

“It’s not about protecting children, it’s about controlling them,” Ratcliff said, adding that decisions about gender affirming care are deeply private and should only be made by families and doctors.

“Why are we not helping families instead of burdening them? Why are we attacking children instead of protecting them? Why are we prioritizing culture wars over real problems?” Ratcliff said. “It’s really pretty obvious you want to use kids as pawns in a cynical political crusade. It’s not your kids that you’re using. It’s my kid and other people’s kids being used as pawns. It’s really shameful.”

“Stop bullying trans kids, and stop bullying their families,” Ratcliff said. 

The Senate also concurred in AB 100 and AB 102, which would prohibit transgender students from being able to participate on sports teams that align with their gender identity at Wisconsin K-12 public and choice schools, University of Wisconsin campuses and technical colleges.

Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield), the lead author of the sports and the civil action bills, said he has met with the “transgender community” while working on the legislation and added that it “doesn’t matter who that is, doesn’t matter what their name is, but all that matters is I’ve been able to reach out.”

Hutton said his bills would help “protect fairness, safety and privacy” in girls’ and women’s sports. He said SB 405 would ensure that there is the “same level of support for those who realize now that the issue that they’re physically dealing with and mentally dealing with, that they were wronged and they believe there should be some accountability to the health care professional.”

The Senate also concurred in AB 103, which would require that school districts adopt policies to inform and get permission from parents before a student would be allowed to use names and pronouns that differ from their legal ones, and AB 104, which would prohibit health care professionals from providing medical gender affirming care for those under 18.

Ratcliff said the bills are part of a political strategy for Republican lawmakers.

“Last year, you weaponized trans kids for campaign points and you’re doing it again,” Ratcliff said. “In both cases, the cost is the same. Real children are being harmed. It didn’t work last year and it’s not going to work this year.”

Wisconsin has a slate of elections coming up this year including a state Supreme Court race in April as well as an open governor’s race and state legislative races that will determine control of the Senate and Assembly.

The only Republican gubernatorial candidate, U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, kicked off his campaign by playing up culture war issues including promising to keep transgender girls off of girls’ sports teams. He has also recently released a campaign statement calling on the New Richmond School District to reverse its current policy and bar transgender girls from being able to use the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity.

Sen. Cory Tomczyk (R-Mosinee) accused Democratic lawmakers of  engaging in “political theater” and said anyone who allowed a minor to “make irreversible decisions is a catastrophic failure of parenting and society in general.”

All of the bills except SB 405 will now go to Evers for consideration.

GOP seeks to restrict administrative rules

Republican lawmakers introduced bills — packaged together as the “red tape reset” and supported by the conservative legal group Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) in May. The bills would increase legislative control over decisions made by executive agencies. Republicans have increased their efforts to limit and restrict agency rulemaking powers in the aftermath of state Supreme Court rulings that limited their ability to block rules.

SB 275 would limit scope statements, which are the first step in the rulemaking process, so they could only be used for one proposed rule. 

SB 276 would allow those who have challenged the validity of administrative rule to receive attorney fees and costs if a court declares a rule invalid. 

SB 277 would have all administrative rules sunset after seven years unless a rule is adopted again through an agency process.

SB 289 would require agencies to make cuts to offset the cost associated with new regulations.

Each bill passed 18-15 along party-lines. They will now go to the Assembly for consideration.

Democratic lawmakers did not speak on the bills during the floor session.

Megan Novak, the Americans For Prosperity Wisconsin state director, said in a statement that Wisconsin has been overregulated and that has restricted its economic growth.

“Between our excessive regulations and the misguided decision by our partisan Supreme Court that removed a necessary legislative check on the governor in the rulemaking process, Wisconsin businesses and families deserve regulatory relief,” Novak said. “These bills are a welcome step to get Wisconsin back on the right track.”

Grooming bill heads to Evers

The Senate concurred in a bill that would make “grooming” a felony crime in Wisconsin. 

The bill was introduced after a report from the CapTimes that found there were over 200 investigations into teacher licenses stemming from allegations of sexual misconduct or grooming from 2018 to 2023, though authors of the proposal say they have been working on the legislation for longer.

Sen. Jesse James (R-Thorp) told reporters ahead of the floor session that the bill would protect “our vulnerable population from supposed trusted adults who would do our kids harm.”

“I can’t bear to think of the many dangers my grandkids will face, however, with this bill, I can sleep just a little bit better,” James said, adding that the bill would act as a deterrent to tell people that “our kids are not targets.”

The bill would define grooming as “a course of conduct, pattern of behavior, or series of acts with the intention to condition, seduce, solicit, lure, or entice a child for the purpose of producing, distributing or possessing depictions of the child engaged in sexually explicit conduct.”

Under the bill, a person convicted of a grooming charge would be guilty of a Class G felony. The charge would increase to a Class F felony if the person is in a position of trust or authority, and to a Class E felony if the child has a disability and to a Class D felony if the violation involves two or more children. A convicted person would need to register as a sex offender.

The bill, which passed the Assembly 93-6 last month, will now go to Evers for consideration. 

Another bill that was introduced following the CapTimes report passed on a voice vote. SB 785 would require the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) to maintain an online licensing portal that is searchable by the public at no cost. The portal would need to include information on license holders under investigation and the name of individuals who have had their licenses revoked.