Back during President Donald Trump’s first administration, Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson was known as Trump’s most reliable ally in the U.S. Senate. He led investigations into Hunter Biden, Hillary Clinton and alleged irregularities in the 2020 election that Trump lost. A proponent of conspiracy theories about COVID-19 vaccines and climate science, Johnson is not one of those Republicans who had to overcome principle to get in line behind Trump.
He is completely at ease with the new administration — including the pardons of the Jan. 6 rioters who stormed the Capitol, battered police officers and sought to hang then-Vice President Mike Pence. The blanket pardon for the rioters, including those convicted of violent crimes, was “maybe a little more sweeping than I wanted to see,” he averred during a Politico breakfast this week. But, overall, Johnson said, the Jan. 6 defendants were victims of a “grotesque miscarriage of justice.” So Trump was right to pardon them.
If ever Johnson struggles to go along with Trump’s more out-there ideas, like slapping huge tariffs on imports that could devastate Wisconsin businesses and farms, he just figures he must not truly, deeply understand their wisdom.
“When I don’t necessarily agree with him, I always ask myself, what am I not seeing here?” he told Politico’s Zach Warmbrodt. Like any good enabler, Johnson figures Trump must have some extra-tricky reason for doing harm that actually makes what he’s doing good.
That kind of thinking will come in handy during the next four years. It could prove particularly useful to Trump as he tries to hold together supporters drawn to his promises to lift up the working class — the “forgotten men and women of America” — and tech billionaires including Elon Musk who want to liquidate the safety net, drive down wages and establish a permanent American oligarchy.
Johnson embraces white grievance and the racist, right-wing populist “replacement theory”— suggesting Democrats want more immigrants to cross the southern border and come to the U.S. to “change the makeup of the electorate” — but he is also fully, cheerfully on board with oligarchy.
Nothing suits Johnson better than the Trump administration’s plan to cut taxes for the very rich and slash entitlements to pay for it.
This was the gist of his appearance at the Politico breakfast this week, where he was introduced as someone who will have “a big role” in tax battle, having played “a very important role” in Trump’s 2017 tax cut.
Johnson basked in the glow, recalling how he held up the whole 2017 law until he managed to shoehorn in a big tax cut for “pass-through corporations” Johnson confirmed that he personally benefited from the change in the tax code that he pushed through in 2017. He cast the deciding vote for Trump’s tax code rewrite giving corporations tax cuts worth $1.4 billion — but only after he arm-twisted Trump and Congress into including special benefits for so-called “pass-through” corporations — companies like his own PACUR plastics firm — whose profits are distributed to their owners. A few months later, Johnson began the process of selling his company, reaping the benefits of the tax law change, which increased the value of pass-through companies and made him more money on the sale.
According to Politifact, “Analyses from the Joint Committee on Taxation and the National Bureau of Economic Research have found that ultra-wealthy Americans have received billions in tax savings stemming from that deduction, while those earning less have gotten less of a break.” The news organization cites one study by the National Bureau of Economic Research that found the top 1% of Americans received nearly 60% of the tax savings created by the provision, with most of that amount going to the top 0.1%.
“I made sure all the passthroughs got a tax cut, that was my contribution,” Johnson said.
“Whatever we do, we need to make it permanent,” Johnson said of the individual income and estate tax provisions of the 2017 Trump tax law. That law was heavily skewed to the rich. Households with incomes in the top 1% will receive an average tax cut of more than $60,000 in 2025, compared to an average tax cut of less than $500 for households in the bottom 60%, according to the Tax Policy Center.
Thanks to the law, revenue as a share of GDP has fallen from about 19.5% in the Bush years to just 16.3% in the years immediately following the Trump tax cuts, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. That leaves commitments to Social Security and health care benefits for retirees in jeopardy, the Center concludes.
Nor did the tax cut yield the big benefits Trump projected. New research shows that workers who earned less than about $114,000 on average in 2016 saw “no change in earnings” from the corporate tax rate cut, while top executive salaries increased sharply, the Center reports. “Similarly, rigorous research concluded that the tax law’s 20% pass-through deduction, which was skewed in favor of wealthy business owners, has largely failed to trickle down to workers in those companies who aren’t owners.”
Yet making those tax cuts permanent is among the “top priorities” for Congress and the new administration, Johnson said. His biggest contribution to the next tax debate will be his push to rewrite the tax code and “keep it simple,” and cut spending to pay for more cuts.
“We have to return spending levels to some reasonable pre-pandemic levels,” he told the audience at the Politico breakfast. Building Trump’s border wall and keeping low taxes that benefit the very rich are the top two priorities for government, Johnson said.
Everyone would be able to see the wisdom of that program, as long you “keep it simple,” he added. The formula he laid out was “eliminate expenditures” and then you can dramatically cut rates.
He wants to “free corporations from all this complexity in the tax code,” he said, adding he favors “a corporate tax rate of zero.”
Health care and Social Security, though? Not so much.“Stop trying to socially and economically engineer through the tax system,” Johnson advised.
Let the rich keep their money. Slash the safety net. It’s simple.
A 'now hiring' sign. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Employment in Wisconsin once again reached a new record in December, with a federal survey of households projecting that 3,076,000 people were working during the last month of 2024 — an increase of nearly 32,000 from December 2023, the state labor department reported Thursday.
The state’s unemployment rate for December, measuring people who aren’t working but are actively seeking work, ticked up slightly to 3% from November’s 2.9%, according to the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development (DWD).
The unemployment rate is based on the household survey, which asks people if they’re working, actively seeking work and other related questions.
The same survey projects that 65.9% of Wisconsinites age 16 or older are working or looking for work — the labor force participation rate.
Compared with Wisconsin, for the U.S. as a whole labor force participation is lower (62.5%) and the unemployment rate is higher (4.1%), DWD reported — both continuing what has been a long-term trend.
From a separate federal survey of employers, there were a projected 3,042,100 nonfarm jobs in the state in December, also near a record. That’s an increase of 20,300 from December 2023, although a slight dip from November 2024.
In addition to being projections, all of the numbers and rates are seasonally adjusted, to smooth out increases or decreases that result from change-of-season fluctuations such as high tourism employment in the summer or high retail employment during the last couple months of the year.
President Donald Trump holds up an executive order after signing it during an indoor inauguration parade at Capital One Arena on Jan. 20, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
A federal judge in Seattle on Thursday temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship.
Coughenour called the order “blatantly unconstitutional.”
“I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order,” the judge told the Trump administration’s attorney. “It boggles my mind.”
Coughenour’s decision came after 25 minutes of arguments between attorneys for Washington state and the Department of Justice.
On Tuesday, Attorney General Nick Brown, along with peers in Oregon, Arizona and Illinois, sued the Trump administration over the order. Shortly after filing the lawsuit, the states asked Coughenour to grant a 14-day temporary restraining order stopping the executive action from taking effect nationwide.
Eighteen other states filed a similar lawsuit in federal court in Massachusetts. Those states haven’t requested a temporary restraining order.
Trump signed the executive order shortly after he was sworn into office on Monday. It would end birthright citizenship for babies born to a mother and father who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.
Brett Shumate, of the Department of Justice, argued the rush for an emergency pause is unwarranted because the order doesn’t go into effect until Feb. 19. He called the state’s motion “extraordinary.”
Attorneys for the state acknowledged the temporary restraining order is extraordinary, but warranted. Washington would lose federal dollars used to provide services to citizens and officials would be forced to modify those service systems.
The order is “causing immediate widespread and severe harm,” said Lane Polozola, of the Washington attorney general’s office. “Citizens are being stripped of their most foundational right, which is the right to have rights.”
Addressing reporters after the hearing, Brown said while the executive order doesn’t go into effect for nearly a month, it forces states to start preparing now for the change.
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution codified birthright citizenship in 1868. It begins: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The executive order focuses on the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” phrase.
“The Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States,” Trump’s order reads. “The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’”
Polozola called this interpretation “absurd,” saying children without legal immigration status are still subject to U.S. law. He added birthright citizenship is a right that is “off limits.”
Legal precedent has long backed up birthright citizenship. In 1898, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the concept when justices ruled Wong Kim Ark, a man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents, was a U.S. citizen.
In 2022, about 153,000 babies were born to two parents without legal immigration status across the country, including 4,000 in Washington state, according to the lawsuit filed this week.
Coughenour has been a federal judge for decades. Republican President Ronald Reagan nominated him for the bench in 1981.
Brown called Thursday’s hearing “step one.”
“But to hear the judge from the bench say that in his 40 years as a judge, he has never seen something so ‘blatantly unconstitutional’ sets the tone for the seriousness of this effort,” Brown said.
Video and audio recording were not allowed in the courtroom Thursday.
Looking forward, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals would have jurisdiction over the case. Democratic presidents appointed a majority of the circuit court’s judges. Appeals could eventually land the dispute before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Shumate said the case will almost certainly end up there. But Brown said he’s taking it “one step at a time.”
“I see no reason why in a court of appeals, or even the United States Supreme Court, would reach a different decision than was reached today,” Brown told reporters.
A court hearing on a preliminary injunction to pause the executive order while litigation is ongoing is set for Feb. 6.
In court filings this week, state officials, academics and nonprofit leaders explained how the order could have detrimental effects on Washington, including losing federal reimbursements for a variety of social programs.
Tom Wong, an assistant professor at University of California, San Diego, retained by the state, wrote the order will create a “permanent underclass of people who are excluded from U.S. citizenship and are thus not able to realize their full potential.”
Congressional Republicans on Thursday introduced legislation to restrict birthright citizenship. The bill would amend federal immigration law to only allow children to be U.S. citizens if one of their parents is a citizen, a green card holder or a legal immigrant serving in the military.
The U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)
WASHINGTON — The U.S. House Wednesday passed legislation that greatly expands mandatory detention requirements of immigrants charged and arrested on petty crimes, among other crimes.
In a 263-156 vote, 46 House Democrats voted with Republicans to send the bill, S. 5, to President Donald Trump’s desk to be signed into law. The passage of the measure gave Trump — who campaigned on an immigration crackdown and promised mass deportations — an early victory for a president not even a full week into his second term.
The GOP-led bill is named after 22-year-old Georgia nursing student Laken Riley. The man convicted in her murder was said by immigration officials to have entered the country without proper authorization and was later charged in the United States with shoplifting.
“I am proud the Laken Riley Act will be the very first landmark bill President Trump signs into law, and it is proof that President Trump and the Republican Senate Majority stand ready to come turn promises made into promises kept,” Alabama GOP Sen. Katie Britt, who led the bill, said in a statement.
Many immigration attorneys and advocates have argued the passage of the bill will help fuel Trump’s promise of mass deportations, because it would require mandatory detention of immigrants without the ability for an immigration judge to grant bond.
Additionally, there is no carve-out for immigrant children in the bill, meaning if they are accused or charged with shoplifting, the bill would require them to be detained.
And while the bill aims to target immigrants who are in the country without proper legal authorization, immigration attorneys have argued that some immigrants with legal status could be ensnared as well.
Another concerning provision pointed to by some Democrats and immigration attorneys is the broad legal standing the bill gives state attorneys general to challenge federal immigration policy and the bond decisions from immigration judges.
That same authority could also force the secretary of state to halt the issuing of visas on the international stage.
There’s also the issue of resources. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement estimated the cost of enforcing the law would be at least $26.9 billion in its first year, according to NPR. The budget for ICE for fiscal year 2024 is about $9 billion.
Twelve Senate Democrats joined with Republicans to pass the bill out of the upper chamber on Monday. The House already passed the bill earlier this month, but because amendments were added to the measure in the Senate, it went back to the House for final passage.
Those Senate Democrats included Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly of Arizona, Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock of Georgia, Gary Peters and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, Jacky Rosen of Nevada and Mark Warner of Virginia.
A majority of those Senate Democrats are up for reelection in 2026 or hail from a battleground state that Trump won in November.
Senators also agreed to attach two amendments to the bill that expand the mandatory detention requirements even further.
One amendment by Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn requires mandatory detention for assault of a law enforcement officer. Another from Republican Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa includes mandatory detention requirements to apply to the serious harm or death of a person.
Gov. Tony Evers delivers his seventh State of the State address while standing in front of Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Senate President Mary Felzkowski. Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner
In his seventh State of the State address Wednesday night, Gov. Tony Evers started to outline his budget priorities — declaring 2025 the “Year of the Kid” and laying out investments and policies to support children and their families.
The address came at the start of a legislative session in which Republicans continue to hold majorities in the state Senate and Assembly, though with smaller margins than last session, and a $4.5 billion budget surplus remains unspent. Wisconsin also has about $1.9 billion in the state’s rainy day fund.
“We begin the new year with a new Legislature elected under new, fair maps,” Evers said in his address. “For the first time in a generation, this Legislature was not elected under some of the most gerrymandered maps in America. I am hopeful this will mean more collaboration, more partnership, a little less rancor and a renewed commitment to do right by the will of the people.”
Evers announced an array of proposals to support schools, including by providing free meals to students, expanding mental health resources, supporting child care for families and implementing better gun violence prevention measures.
Bipartisan collaboration will be necessary for Evers to accomplish the priorities he laid out, and the road could be difficult as Republican lawmakers were mostly critical following the address.
“What we heard tonight was Gov. Evers’ longest State of the State address and it was chock full of liberal wishes, empty promises and a whole lot of things that are not going to happen in Wisconsin,” Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) told reporters.
“The things the governor talked about tonight, every single thing that he talked about, was a new government program, new government spending,” Assembly Majority Leader Tyler August (R-Walworth) said. “I really am at a loss for words at how ridiculous the things he talked about were tonight.”
Highlighting lower taxes
Before speaking about his proposals, Evers highlighted the state of taxation in Wisconsin, pointing to a recent Wisconsin Policy Forum report that found the local and state tax burden has fallen to the lowest level on record.
“Just two decades ago, Wisconsin was in the top five states for our tax burden and the taxes Wisconsinites paid as a share of their income. Today, Wisconsin is in the bottom 16 states in the country,” Evers said. “We have seen the largest drop in our tax burden of any state over the last 20 years.”
Evers said tax cuts have been a bipartisan priority. He noted that he has proposed tax cuts in each of his budget proposals targeted at middle class Wisconsinites. He has also accepted some of the proposals that Republicans have sent him. Evers’ emphasis on the state’s declining tax burden came as Republicans have said their top priority for the next state budget will be to further cut taxes.
August accused Evers of taking credit for work that Republicans did — pointing out that Evers vetoed Republicans’ major tax proposals last session.
“[Evers] actually vetoed the biggest tax cut that has ever been proposed in the state of Wisconsin. He vetoed that,” Rep. Tyler August told reporters. “Everything that he took credit for tonight economically was because of legislative Republicans’ work over the last 20 years. He’s an educator, he should know you can’t take credit for somebody else’s work.”
Evers pivoted from taxes to his vision for increasing spending and implementing new policies that would help children across the state.
“I will soon introduce our next state budget, laying out our state’s top policy priorities for the next two years. Every budget I have ever built began first by doing what is best for our kids, and this one will be no different,” Evers said.
Proposals to support kids in school
“If we want to improve our kids’ outcomes, then we have to shorten the odds,” Evers said. “If we want our educators and schools to be able to do their very best work in the hours our kids are with them, we have to set them up for success, and we have to start by making sure our kids can bring their full and best selves to our classrooms.”
Evers said he would propose “historic investments in K-12 education” and “meaningful” investments in early childhood education, the University of Wisconsin system and the state’s technical colleges.
Evers also called for lawmakers to release $50 million that was allocated in the last budget to support new literacy efforts in classrooms. Republicans on the Joint Finance Committee have withheld the money due to disagreements over exactly how the money should be spent, and if the money isn’t released before June 30, it will lapse back into the state’s general fund.
“Our kids and their futures are too important for petty politics,” Evers said. “Republicans, release those investments so we can get to work improving reading outcomes statewide.”
In addition, Evers said that he would propose ensuring that children have access to food and clean water by reintroducing his “Healthy Meals, Healthy Kids” plan, which would provide free lunch and breakfast in schools, as well as by seeking to address the issue of lead in water.
“Making sure our kids are healthy — physically and mentally — is a crucial part of improving outcomes in our classrooms. But we have to connect the dots between school achievement and the challenges our kids are facing at home and in our communities,” Evers said. “Take lack of access to clean and safe drinking water, for example. There is no safe level of lead exposure for kids.”
Evers is proposing that the state dedicate $154.8 million for his “Healthy Meals, Healthy Kids” initiative. The initiative, he said, would use the money to provide free breakfast and lunches to students as well as for other programs including modernizing “bubblers” in schools to remove harmful contaminants.
Evers called for urgency when it comes to addressing a mental health crisis among Wisconsin children.
“The state of our kids’ mental health continues to be concerning for me, both as a governor and as a grandfather. A kid in crisis may be distracted or disengaged and may not be able to focus on their studies, if they are able to get to school at all,” Evers said.
Evers noted that the 2023-25 state budget included $30 million for school-based mental health services, but it was “just a fraction of what I asked the Legislature to approve.” His renewed call for more mental health resources comes as children in Wisconsin have reported increasing levels of anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicidal thoughts over the last decade, especially among girls, kids of color and LGBTQ youth.
Evers said he’ll propose dedicating almost $300 million to supporting mental health services in schools. This would include about $168 million for comprehensive school mental health services aid, $130 million to modify the existing aid for school mental health programs to provide 20% reimbursement for the costs of pupil services professionals, $500,000 for peer-to-peer suicide prevention programs and $760,000 to increase the amount and types of mental health trainings provided to schools.
“Making sure our kids are healthy—physically and mentally—is a crucial part of improving outcomes in our classrooms. But we have to connect the dots between school achievement and the challenges our kids are facing at home and in our communities,” Evers said.
Violence prevention — including for gun deaths
Highlighting the recent school shooting in Madison and the recent death by suicide of a former state lawmaker, Evers said gun violence prevention will be another priority this year.
“Thirty-seven days ago, a shooting at Abundant Life Christian School in Madison took the lives of Erin and Rubi — a student and an educator — who woke up and went to school that morning and will never return home. Six others were injured, and countless lives will never be the same,” Evers said.
Evers urged lawmakers to come together to work to prevent the next school shooting.
Specifically, Evers called for a law that would require background checks for any person seeking to purchase a gun, and implementing “red flag” laws in Wisconsin so “law enforcement and loved ones” have a way to remove guns from people who pose a risk to themselves or others.
“We aren’t here in Madison to quibble about the semantics of the last shooting. We are here to do everything we can to prevent the next one,” Evers said. “We do not have to choose between respecting the Second Amendment or keeping kids, schools, streets and communities safe.”
Evers said that he would also propose a $66 million investment to support services for crime victims statewide and help critical victim service providers, which would help address recent reductions in federal funding under the Victims of Crime Act.
Evers also outlined proposals that would help address deaths by suicide, and spoke about the recent loss of Former Milwaukee Rep. Jonathan Brostoff, who died by suicide in November.
“We are so deeply saddened that he is no longer with us,” Evers said before asking the room to recognize Brostoff’s wife and parents, who stood in the gallery looking over the lawmakers.
According to the Department of Health Services, Wisconsin reported 932 deaths by suicide in 2022 with almost 60% of those deaths involving a firearm.
“If you talk to someone whose loved one died by suicide, many will tell you their loss was not a foregone conclusion. That maybe — just maybe — if the person they loved had just made it through one more dark night to see with certainty that the sun again would rise, things might have ended up differently,” Evers said. “I’m asking this Legislature to give the next family and the next one, and the family after that, hope for that same opportunity.”
Evers proposed the creation of a “Self-Assigned Firearm Exclusion” (SAFE) Program, which would allow people to temporarily and voluntarily register to prevent themselves from purchasing a firearm.
Evers also called for lawmakers to reimplement a law that would require a 48-hour waiting period for buying firearms.
“The window for intervention is very short. Being able to purchase and possess a gun in minutes significantly increases the risk of firearm suicide — and firearm homicide, as well,” Evers said.
Republican lawmakers said they likely wouldn’t take up any of Evers’ proposals related to guns.
Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) talks to reporters after Gov. Tony Evers’ State of the State address Wednesday evening in the state Capitol. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)
Vos said that there are already some measures in place including background checks and that some money has gone into helping schools protect against shootings. Background checks are required for purchasing a handgun or long gun from a licensed dealer, but aren’t required for private sales or at gun shows.
“Unfortunately, sometimes people do bad things and there’s only so much that we can do to prevent it,” Vos said.
Vos said that everyone feels “bad for Jonathan Brostoff’s death,” but accused Evers of using it as a “cheap political stunt to try to get a piece of legislation passed.” He said Evers’ response “demeans Jonathan’s death.”
Lower costs for family through supporting child care
“There are a lot of ways we can lower everyday, out-of-pocket costs to make sure Wisconsinites and working families can afford basic needs,” Evers said.
Describing child care as “too darn expensive,” he highlighted a bipartisan bill that he signed into law last year that will expand the child care tax credit once it goes into effect this year.
Evers also said he will propose investing $480 million to continue the state’s Child Care Counts program, which has provided funding assistance to eligible child care providers to support operating expenses, investments in program quality, tuition relief for families, staff compensation and professional development. The program was started in March 2020 using federal funds and Evers wants to keep it going with state funds. He also wants to dedicate another $20 million to other programs, including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and he wants to use the budget to create the framework for community-based 4K.
Cautions against forgetting immigration history
Evers cautioned Wisconsinites about forgetting the state’s historical ties to immigrants during his address, appearing critical of President Donald Trump, who was inaugurated on Monday and immediately issued orders sending troop to the U.S.-Mexico border, calling for mass deportation of undocumented immigrants and even attempting to end constitutionally protected birthright citizenship.
“A lot has happened in Washington in the last 72 hours, and I know there is a lot of angst about what may happen in the days, months and years ahead,” Evers said. “I want to talk about what that means for Wisconsin and how we move forward together.”
“Wisconsin began as a land of many people, of many origins, each important and none any better than any other,” he continued, “and that is still who we are 177 years later. The state of Wisconsin was born of immigrants, but today, there are those who would have us forget this fact.”
“Let’s agree to be honest about the fact that, in this state, some of our state’s largest — and most important — industries and companies have always welcomed the hard work of immigrants,” Evers said. “Let’s agree to be honest about the fact that the story of our state’s success today is told in the labor of over three million Wisconsinites, including tens of thousands of workers whose only transgression to date was not having the good fortune of being born in this country.”
Evers and Attorney General Josh Kaul have joined a multi-state federal lawsuit that was filed in Massachusetts to challenge the order trying to deny birthright citizenship.
Republicans, meanwhile, were supportive of Trump’s work, saying that Wisconsinites voted in favor of it when the state voted for Trump in November.
“[Evers is] clearly pushing back against the president. He’s lashing out because Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were not only resoundly rejected by the American people, but by the state of Wisconsin,” August said, adding that Republicans would be ready to lead on the issue of immigration in Wisconsin.
Vos said that a proposal will be coming from Republicans next week that will require cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to ensure that “if someone is here illegally and committed a crime” they are deported.
Vos said that he is “open” to the idea of repealing birthright citizenship.
“I certainly think that there’s a legal case to be made. It wasn’t enacted until sometime, I think, around the year 1900, so it’s only been part of our country for about half of our nation’s existence,” Vos said.
Apart from immigration legislation, Vos said that Republican priorities would include a tax relief proposal, which he says would provide $1,000 to Wisconsinites, and a proposal to ensure “high educational standards” if there is an increase in funding for schools.
Evers will deliver his budget address and announce his full 2025-27 budget proposal on Feb. 18.
President Donald Trump holds up an executive order after signing it during an indoor inauguration parade at Capital One Arena on Jan. 20, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump Wednesday invoked an executive order he signed on his first day in office to send 1,500 military troops to the southern border, despite encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border being the lowest in several years.
“President Trump is sending a very strong message to people around this world – if you are thinking about breaking the laws of the United States of America, you will be returned home. You will be arrested. You will be prosecuted,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters, according to pool reports.
While Leavitt said 1,500 troops would be sent, she did not specify from where or when they would arrive at the border.
The comments by Leavitt followed a flurry of immigration-related orders that Trump signed on his first day in office cracking down on immigration in multiple ways.
One declared a national emergency at the southern border that outlined military support would be deployed “through the provision of appropriate detention space, transportation (including aircraft), and other logistics services in support of civilian-controlled law enforcement operations.”
Other orders, some of which are already facing legal challenges, include the end of asylum and the move to end birthright citizenship for immigrants in the country without authorization, among other stipulations.
It’s not the first time an administration has sent U.S. military to the southern border. The Biden administration did so in 2023 amid high encounters of migrants. In fiscal year 2023, there were about 2.5 million encounters, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data.
Troops largely handle administrative work, rather than law enforcement work, due to the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars the U.S. military from performing civilian law enforcement duties.
However, that could change.
A separate executive order Trump signed Monday directs the secretaries of the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Defense to evaluate within 90 days if the Insurrection Act should be invoked, which allows military action to be used in civilian law domestically.
The troops heading to the southern border will be doing so at a relatively quiet time period, as the most recent CBP data in December showed 96,000 encounters, compared to the December of fiscal year 2023, when there were 252,000 encounters.
Reproductive rights supporters marched in Phoenix to mark Roe v. Wade’s anniversary in January 2024. Arizona voters approved an amendment restoring abortion access up to fetal viability in the fall. (Photo by Gloria Rebecca Gomez/Arizona Mirror)
Erika Christensen decided to become a patient advocate for abortion later in pregnancy after she had to travel from New York to Colorado to get a third-trimester abortion.
Christensen found out her wanted pregnancy wasn’t viable around 30 weeks. At that time in 2016, New York banned abortion after 24 weeks of pregnancy, and only allowed abortions after that limit to save a patient’s life.
She and her husband were able to borrow thousands of dollars from her mother and put last-minute travel funds on a credit card to access abortion care across the country, Christensen told States Newsroom.
“At every stage, I realized how many pieces had to be in the perfect place for me to be able to do that, to be able to get this urgent health care that I desperately needed,” she said.
When she and her husband returned home to New York, a lawyer at the state American Civil Liberties Union affiliate reached out and asked if they wanted to be advocates. They led a grassroots effort to get legislation passed in 2019 that protected abortions after 24 weeks for fetal abnormalities and to preserve a patient’s health.
The Reproductive Health Act also decriminalized abortion later in pregnancy and allowed health care providers besides physicians to perform abortions. Former Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the bill into law on Jan. 22, 2019, the anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling that protected the right to an abortion nationally.
This year would have marked the 52nd anniversary of Roe, which ensured abortion rights until fetal viability, when a fetus can survive outside the womb — generally thought to be around 24 weeks. Only about 1% of all abortions in the United States happen after that point, typically for medical reasons, research shows.
But a conservative-majority bench overturned Roe nearly three years ago, upending abortion access across the nation with the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision. States rolled out a patchwork of varied health care restrictions.
Twelve states ban most abortions today, while voters in 10 approved ballot measures enshrining the right into state constitutions. Most of the states with constitutional protections have fetal viability limits.
“Advocates, activists and folks in the movement have different opinions about how we reach the ideal policy on reproductive rights and justice, and initiatives and laws may vary from state to state depending on the political realities that we see,” said Ashley All, president of Kansas Coalition for Common Sense, who has worked on several successful abortion-rights initiatives.
Some within the reproductive rights movement argue that gestational bans on abortion later in pregnancy cause patients harm, and say that the protections of Roe — the 1973 Supreme Court said abortion is a privacy right based on the due process clause of the 14th Amendment — are insufficient.
Renee Bracey Sherman is the founder of the nonprofit WeTestify, a nonprofit devoted to evaluating and shifting the narrative around abortion.
“Allowing the public to vote on personal medical decisions is wrong and completely ridiculous,” she said. “But somehow it’s acceptable with abortion, and then doubly acceptable when it comes to later abortion. We have a population that does not understand how anatomy works, how pregnancy works, how abortions happen, and why people need later abortions.”
In pregnancy, “viability” isn’t straightforward and can be used in more than one way. The word can reference whether a pregnancy is expected to develop normally or if it could lead to a miscarriage, according to the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. And fetal viability is the point in pregnancy when a fetus is able to survive outside of the womb. Premature babies have a 42% to 59% chance of survival at 24 weeks, according to ACOG and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.
ACOG, the national OB-GYN organization, “strongly opposes policy makers defining viability or using viability as a basis to limit access to evidence-based care” and said the decision to terminate a pregnancy should be between patients and medical providers.
Viability language in policymaking stemmed from the Roe decision in 1973, according to Adrienne Ramcharan, assistant director of state policy at Physicians for Reproductive Health and MiQuel Davies, the former public policy director at the organization.
“While this framing was built into the law, researchers and medical providers who care for pregnant people recognize that viability is not a set point in time,” Ramcharan and Davies wrote in August 2024. “Instead, it occurs along a continuum shaped by an individual’s medical history, access to medical care, and demographic characteristics among other things.”
Later abortion care is criminalized and stigmatized, Christensen said, causing the cost of care to go up. Plus, abortion providers willing to offer the procedure later in pregnancy are scarce.
“I have the benefit of having directly experienced a viability ban and knowing in my core how unjust it was, how my humanity was erased, my dignity was erased,” Christensen said.
She is the co-author of a memo published last year titled Abortion Justice Now. The authors wrote that they reject efforts to restore Roe-era limits into abortion policy.
“Gestational and viability limits will disproportionately impact the most marginalized among us, either denying them critical care or pulling families toward financial instability,” they wrote. “These limits will result in an inequitable ability to exercise rights, allow for criminalization in pregnancy, and ultimately reinforce the dangerous assertion that the government has any role in regulating a pregnant person’s body.”
Abortion opponents, including doctors, sometimes hinge their argument on the concept of fetal viability.
“I think, certainly, beyond the point where a child can survive outside of his or her mother, there would never be a reason you would need to intentionally end that child’s life,” Dr. Christina Francis, chief executive officer at the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, told lawmakers on a U.S. Senate committee in June, States Newsroom reported.
“You would simply deliver that baby,” Francis said. “You’d take care of mom and you’d take care of baby in an appropriate way.
Patients may seek abortion after fetal viability for several reasons: They receive a fetal fatal diagnosis later in pregnancy, giving birth could risk their life or health, they couldn’t access or afford an abortion earlier, or they didn’t know they were pregnant, according to ACOG.
Polling shows that Americans support abortion in most cases, but not necessarily after fetal viability. A June 2023 poll from Gallup found that 69% of respondents said abortion should be legal in the first three months of pregnancy, while 37% said it should be legal in the second trimester and 22% in the third.
But the nonpartisan public opinion research firm PerryUndem found last year that most public polling on abortion later in pregnancy lacks context. Of those who heard stories about women with complications later in pregnancy who needed to travel out-of-state for abortions, 69% said abortion should be legal in all cases.
U.S. Sen. Tina Smith, a Minnesota Democrat, speaks during a press conference inside the U.S. Capitol building on Wednesday, Jan. 22, 2025. Also pictured is Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., left, and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)
WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Democrats blocked legislation Wednesday that would have established penalties for health care professionals who don’t provide medical care for infants born following an attempted abortion, arguing the bill would have kept parents from making decisions about care for newborns delivered early following a fatal fetal diagnosis.
Republicans said the issue should lend itself to common ground between the two political parties, citing a “loophole” in federal law that could potentially permit health care providers to allow an infant to die, instead of using medical interventions.
The 52-47 procedural vote needed the support of at least 60 senators to advance under the chamber’s legislative filibuster rules, but no Democrats voted to move the bill toward final passage. Tennessee Republican Sen. Bill Hagerty didn’t cast a vote.
The vote marked the first time this year Republicans, who now control both the House and Senate, brought up an abortion bill for debate. The vote took place on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision that established a constitutional right to abortion in 1973, but was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2022.
Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford, who sponsored the eight-page bill, said debate on the legislation was “not just an academic issue,” but one with real-world implications.
“It’s rare, but the question is, what do we do in those situations? How do we track this? How do we engage on it?,” he said.
When an abortion results in a live child, Lankford said, “the current practice is everyone kind of backs away and allows the child to die on the table by exposure because it is against American law in every single state to take the life of a child. But if everybody just steps back and watches the child die that’s okay.”
Lankford cited the story of Melissa Ohden, a woman he says lived following an attempted abortion because a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, or NICU, nurse noticed her crying and breathing in a pile of medical waste, before rushing her to the emergency department for medical care. Ohden is founder and CEO of the Abortion Survivors Network.
“It was years later that she learned her adopted mom had adopted her because her birth mom literally didn’t know she still existed. Her birth mom was never told that the abortion, quote unquote, didn’t work,” he said.
‘Killing a baby is illegal in every single state’
Washington state Democratic Sen. Patty Murray said during a floor speech Tuesday the bill was a “sham” and a “disgrace,” before noting that “killing a baby is illegal in every single state.”
“In fact, we passed a law in 2002 that made that crystal clear. I would know because I was here. It passed unanimously,” Murray said. “Doctors already have a legal obligation to provide appropriate medical care to any infant born in this country.”
The legislation, she said, would have created “a new government mandate that would override the best judgment of grieving families who find out their fetus has a fatal condition.”
“And it would create new, medically unnecessary barriers for doctors and patients, at a time when doctors already have their hands tied when it comes to providing basic reproductive health care,” Murray said.
New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen said during a press conference on Wednesday ahead of the vote she wasn’t concerned about Republicans using the vote against vulnerable incumbents up for reelection in 2026.
“I have run now in seven statewide races in New Hampshire and in every single one of those races, I have been attacked by Republicans for my support for allowing women to make their own decisions,” Shaheen said.
“It’s not a decision that I should make as a senator, that the court should make, that the men who are in the Senate should make,” she added. “It’s a decision for women and their families. And for those people who don’t understand that, they are on the wrong side of morality on this one.”
Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff and Michigan Sen. Gary Peters are the two most vulnerable Democrats up for election in 2026, both representing states President Donald Trump won in November’s presidential election.
Details of Senate legislation
Lankford’s bill would have required medical providers “to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”
The bill adds that anyone who “intentionally performs or attempts to perform an overt act that kills a child” would be charged with “intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.”
It is already illegal to kill children, or adults, under federal law as well as state laws.
Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar was the sole Democrat to vote for the bill, while Rep. Vicente Gonzalez, D-Texas., voted “present.”
Wagner’s House bill appeared extremely similar to the Senate version, though the two weren’t marked as “related bills” on Wednesday in the congressional database.
Dr. Stella M. Dantas, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, wrote in a statement sent to States Newsroom that the “offensively named legislation does not reflect the reality of abortion later in pregnancy, harms families who receive devastating diagnoses and restricts their ability to choose the path of medical care that is right for them.”
“This legislation is not evidence-based,” Dantas wrote. “Its impacts fall with crushing weight on families trying to access reproductive care in devastating circumstances and limits how clinicians are able to provide care.”
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists writes on a webpage about the differences between abortion and perinatal palliative care that “the idea of ‘abortions’ being performed after delivery of a fetus is” misinformation and that “no such procedure exists.”
Perinatal palliative care, ACOG explains, “encompasses a coordinated care strategy that centers on maximizing quality of life and comfort for newborns who have life-limiting conditions in early infancy.”
“When providing perinatal palliative care, obstetrician–gynecologists’ chief aim is to alleviate the newborn’s suffering and honor the values of the patients involved—namely, the newborn’s parent or parents,” the website states. “Ultimately, the parent or parents, in consultation with their physician, decide which course of perinatal palliative care to pursue.”
Eighteen medical organizations — including ACOG, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, the American Academy of Nursing and the American Academy of Pediatrics — sent a letter to Congress on Wednesday urging lawmakers not to pass the bill.
Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser released a written statement that the 2024 election showed Americans “have clearly rejected the extreme pro-abortion agenda.”
“We cannot continue to turn a blind eye to that baby fighting for his or her life, whether in a hospital or an abortion center, whether that little one is deemed ‘wanted’ or not,” Dannenfelser wrote. “These children must not be discarded like trash. With a new administration in Washington and new majorities in the Senate and House, there has never been a better or more urgent time to protect the life of every newborn equally.”
A SBA webpage about the legislation notes that while the 2002 law was “a step in the right direction,” it didn’t include any “enforcement mechanisms.”
“Federal law and 31 states do not adequately protect the lives of infants born alive after botched abortions (state and federal laws are not necessarily redundant, either),” the webpage states.
Anna Bernstein, principal federal policy adviser at the Guttmacher Institute, wrote in a statement to States Newsroom the bill “misrepresents the reality of care later in pregnancy and seeks to criminalize and intimidate health care providers, despite existing laws that already ensure appropriate medical care is provided.”
“By perpetuating disinformation and stigma, this bill undermines reproductive autonomy and paves the way for political interference in deeply personal and painful decisions, particularly for families facing tragic situations such as fatal fetal diagnoses,” Bernstein wrote.
The Guttmacher Institute, she wrote, “strongly opposes this bill, as it disregards the complexities of people’s lives, attempts to criminalize providers, and perpetuates misinformation about abortion care.”
President Donald Trump signs executive orders in the Oval Office of the White House on Jan. 20, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — All federal employees in diversity, equity and inclusion positions are ordered to be placed on paid administrative leave by the close of business Wednesday, according to a memo from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
The move came as President Donald Trump spent the early days of his second term issuing executive orders that gut DEI programs and activities across the federal government and end affirmative action in federal contracting.
Trump’s sweeping efforts reflect a broader Republican push to repeal programs and hiring practices aimed at facilitating equitable and inclusive workplaces.
A Tuesday memo from Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management, orders the leaders of federal agencies to notify employees of DEI offices that they are being placed on paid administrative leave no later than 5 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday. OPM is the federal agency in charge of human resources and employee management.
The heads of agencies are also tasked with canceling any DEI-related training, terminating DEI-related contractors and taking down “all outward facing media” of DEI offices by Wednesday evening.
By Thursday at noon Eastern, the agencies’ leaders must also report to OPM with “any agency plans to fully comply” with the executive orders and Ezell’s memo.
They must also submit a written plan “for executing a reduction-in-force action,” or layoffs, surrounding DEI office employees by Jan. 31.
In one of a barrage of wide-ranging executive orders issued this week, Trump ordered an end to all DEI “mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities” in the federal government.
The White House described these DEI efforts as “radical and wasteful.”
Trump also terminated all environmental justice positions and offices across the federal government. Environmental justice centers on improving the health and well-being of disadvantaged communities, who are disproportionately affected by environmental harms.
In another major move, he revoked a series of diversity and inclusion initiatives, including a decades-old executive order from then-President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965 on affirmative action in federal contracting.
He is also encouraging a push to end DEI efforts across the private sector. Some U.S. companies already have rolled back their programs in recent months.
Reactions from Congress
U.S. Rep. James Comer, who chairs the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, praised Trump’s executive orders regarding DEI and a separate, federal return-to-office mandate in a statement earlier this week, saying: “For too long, the unelected federal bureaucracy has wielded too much power over Americans’ lives and wasted hard-earned taxpayer dollars.”
“Under these executive orders, the federal workforce is expected to work in-person for the American people, the federal government must stop wasting money on woke DEI programs, and no tax dollars can be used to fund the censorship industrial complex,” the Kentucky Republican added.
Meanwhile, at a Wednesday press conference, House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar of California said “it’s unfortunate that a lot of the decisions — including this one that Donald Trump did on Day 1 — don’t do anything to address real issues that Americans are facing.”
“None of these affect lowering the prices of groceries that Donald Trump said he would do on Day 1, and they reduce our ability to hear different ideas and perspectives when we make decisions,” Aguilar said.
Aguilar also noted that the House Democratic Caucus represents “the most diverse caucus ever assembled in the history of Congress — from every corner of our country, every background — that’s who the Democratic caucus is.”
Congressional Black Caucus Chair Yvette Clarke and members of the group said Trump’s executive order to end all DEI initiatives in the federal government “is not only a broken economic promise” but also “stands in opposition to evidence which shows that diversity initiatives improve the government’s ability to better serve our communities,” per a Wednesday statement.
“Under the Biden Administration, Democrats worked to prioritize racial equity with a whole of government approach,” the New York Democrat and caucus members added. “President Trump’s executive actions undermine that progress and will only make our country less prosperous.”
President Donald Trump's nominee for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, speaks during a Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on Jan. 14, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — New allegations of alcohol abuse and misconduct by defense secretary nominee Pete Hegseth drew fresh scrutiny Wednesday about the veteran, former Fox News host and author who President Donald Trump wants to install at the top of the U.S. military.
New revelations in a sworn affidavit from Hegseth’s ex-sister-in-law accuse Hegseth of causing his second wife to fear for her life, and of being so drunk in uniform during a Minnesota National Guard drill weekend that his brother had to carry him out of a Minneapolis strip club.
The nominee has been accused of numerous occasions of public drunkenness and sexual misconduct, and was grilled by Senate Democrats during his confirmation hearing. Hegseth has blamed allegations on a smear campaign. “I’m not a perfect person, as has been acknowledged, saved by the grace of God, by Jesus and Jenny,” he said, referring to his third wife, television producer Jennifer Hegseth, who was seated behind him, during his hearing. The couple lives in Tennessee.
Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Committee on Armed Services, expressed concern Wednesday over Hegseth’s fitness to lead the Pentagon and the importance of “serious oversight of the U.S. military and its leaders.”
Reed said the late December testimony provided to the FBI by Hegseth’s former sister-in-law was not included in the FBI background check provided to the committee. The Rhode Island Democrat directly requested the former family member recount the testimony to the committee.
“As I have said for months, the reports of Mr. Hegseth’s history of alleged sexual assault, alcohol abuse, and public misconduct necessitate an exhaustive background investigation. I have been concerned that the background check process has been inadequate, and this affidavit confirms that fact,” Reed said in a statement.
“The sworn affidavit from this courageous woman, provided at enormous personal risk and with nothing to gain, documents a disturbing pattern of abuse and misconduct by Mr. Hegseth,” Reed said. “This behavior would disqualify any service member from holding any leadership position in the military, much less being confirmed as the Secretary of Defense.”
The FBI told States Newsroom Wednesday that it does not comment on specific background investigations.
Republican committee leadership did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Senators reviewing allegations
The affidavit was obtained and reported byseveralmajornewsoutlets. NBC News, which broke the story, reported that at least 15 senators, including Republicans, had reviewed the document by Tuesday afternoon.
Hegseth’s former sister-in-law, Danielle Hegseth, reportedly told the committee that the nominee’s second wife, Samantha, feared Hegseth’s volatile behavior and created a plan with family members for a safe word, used once, that could be texted in the event she needed immediate help, according to Reed’s office. The statement detailed that on one occasion, sometime between 2014 and 2016, Samantha hid in a closet for safety.
Danielle also reported being verbally attacked by an inebriated Hegseth at a family event, to the point of needing intervention, and multiple drunken incidents and racist and misogynistic statements.
Hegseth’s lawyer, Tim Parlatore, did not respond to an email Wednesday requesting comment.
A man who answered the phone number listed for Parlatore on his law firm’s website said, “I rely upon the public statements I’ve already made.”
In a statement provided to NBC News Tuesday, Parlatore said: “Sam has never alleged that there was any abuse, she signed court documents acknowledging that there was no abuse and recently reaffirmed the same during her FBI interview. Belated claims by Danielle Dietrich, an anti-Trump far left Democrat who is divorced from Mr. Hegseth’s brother and never got along with the Hegseth family, do nothing to change that.”
Hegseth’s second wife denied the allegations to NBC News, telling the network that “There was no physical abuse in my marriage” and that she would not be commenting further.
The Senate approved a motion to proceed on Hegseth’s nomination Tuesday evening in a 53-45 vote. Hegseth could be confirmed as soon as Thursday.
States Newsroom reached out to the White House for comment.
Assembly members being sworn in in January 2025. Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner
Wisconsin Assembly committees look different this session with new committee names and several old committees now made up of fewer members. The differences will affect the way legislation is shaped.
Each session the Assembly Speaker has the responsibility for determining the number of members per committee, unless a rule specifies otherwise. The Speaker also determines the ratio of majority to minority members on each committee. The committees are essential to the lawmaking process given that they are where bills are first moved to be discussed after being introduced, where bills receive public input and are debated by lawmaker before ever being considered for a vote by the full body.
Democrats have complained about losing members on committees despite winning additional seats in the full body. Despite Republican’s narrower majority this session, in some cases Democrats make up a smaller proportion of members on committees than they did in the last session.
“Unfortunately, Assembly Republican Leadership has chosen to begin the legislative session in a highly partisan fashion, reducing Democratic positions on the vast majority of committees despite the people of Wisconsin choosing to replace ten incumbent Republican legislators with Democrats in the last election,” Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine) said in a statement announcing Democratic committee membership. “I hope my Republican colleagues will choose to shift course and join Democrats in putting the people of Wisconsin over partisan politics in the coming legislative session.”
Neubauer’s staff said they were not consulted by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) about the committee sizes or ratios.
Rep. Robyn Vining (D-Wauwatosa) said there was a “general understanding” that with more members in the house overall, Democrats were expecting that to be reflected in committees. Democrats picked up 10 additional seats in the Assembly, making the body about 55% Republican and 45% Democratic.
Instead Republicans and Democrats both lost seats on some committees, but the losses were exaggerated for Democrats, who now make up a smaller percentage of representation on several committees. For example, the Campaigns and Elections Committee last session had six Republican members and three Democrats. This session the committee is made up of five Republicans and two Democrats — or a 71% Republican to 29% Democratic makeup.
Vining described the change to committee membership as a punishment.
“We were penalized for maps that the Republicans actually passed themselves…,” Vining said. “They're penalizing us for having more seats and I think that's unfair to Wisconsinites.”
Vining said having diverse representation on committees matters because of how it shapes the way legislation turns out.
“Our job in committee is to vet bills. We're supposed to bring our perspective to the room and bat it around and figure it out… We need voices in the room,” Vining said. “When you have less voices in the room, I would argue that there's less there to vet a bill, to put a bill into the best form that it could possibly be in for the Wisconsin people.”
Vining is the ranking member on the Assembly Mental Health and Substance Abuse Prevention Committee this session. She also sits on the Children and Families, Health Aging and Long Term Care and Small Business Development committees.
The Mental Health committee is one where Democrats lost representation. The committee last session had eight Republicans to four Democrats — meaning Democrats made up 33% of the committee. This session the committee includes seven Republicans and three Democrats — bringing Democrats to only 30% of the committee.
One Democrat not returning to the Mental Health committee, Vining noted, is Rep. Supreme Moore Omokunde (D-Milwaukee).
“I have one less member, which means I have one less microphone around the state of Wisconsin,” she said, “one less community that's represented on the mental health committee and one less person going out to destigmatize mental health, so yeah, that's a loss.”
Rep. Robyn Vining (D-Wauwatosa). Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner
Vining said Omokunde’s absence is also notable given that one of the goals of the committee this session will be to discuss the issue of male loneliness. She noted that he has done a lot of work within the Black Caucus on Black mental health, including Black men's mental health.
“We'll find another way to keep that conversation going and I'm sure he will because he is fantastic at that,” Vining said. Still, she said that it is important to have ethnically diverse representation and gender representation on committees.
“Something I'm very aware of is we have two wonderful women who are joining me on the mental health committee but all the Democrats are women,” Vining said.
It’s not just Democratic lawmakers who have expressed disappointment about committee memberships this session.
Rebecca Aubart, executive director of Ladies of SCI, a nonpartisan prison reform advocacy group, said the situation is upsetting to the group. The group has been working to improve the state’s correctional system, including by advocating for an ombudsman to serve as a watchdog.
“This isn't what Wisconsin voted for. We voted for more fair representation. We voted for both of the sides to have to come together because it was going to be more fair representation,”Aubert said. “This seems like such a power struggle that just makes me sick.”
Aubert said the group had been waiting for several months to see how committees would turn out this session given the new legislative maps, and so they could return to their advocacy work. She said she was looking forward to there being new discussions with fresh ideas this session, and feels like that may not end up being the case.
“Most of our meetings are between 65% and 68% Republican, because that is who has been in control, but the Democrats have really good points too and are very sympathetic and their voices aren't heard,” Aubert said. “They have a lot of good ideas that would help straighten out corrections, but their voices are still going to go unheard.”
“If we want new legislation to come through, everything comes through the committee first, and then it goes to everybody else. I just don't think the people of Wisconsin are aware that even though our votes changed a lot in the Assembly, it actually didn't change anything because of how these committees are picked.”
Aubert said that she thinks there should be rules that the Speaker should have to follow, including that the partisan balance on committees should match the Assembly as a whole.
Vining noted that she encouraged her Republican colleagues in a public statement to push back on the decision made by their leadership.
Vos did not respond to requests for comment from the Examiner.
Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) is leading the newly formed Government Operations Accountability and Transparency (GOAT) committee and also serves as vice-chair of the Assembly Colleges and Universities committee. In an interview discussing her new roles this session, Nedweski said she didn’t think the fluctuation in the committee memberships were intentional or political.
Nedweski said having fewer people on committees isn’t a disadvantage given that the committee process is public and anyone is still welcome to show up to committee meetings.
“People who are interested in being on that committee are there and, you know, if there's legislation that comes before the committee that people who are not on the committee are interested in, they can always come and testify and you know, be a part of discussion,” Nedweski said. “No one's being locked out of anything.”
New committees highlight Assembly priorities
Other changes this session include several new and revived Assembly committees, highlighting some of lawmakers’ priorities in the coming months.
Vos put a special emphasis on the GOAT committee this session. In a statement, he said the committee — with Nedweski at the helm — would help the caucus’ focus on its “renewed goal of identifying and addressing government inefficiencies.”
Nedweski said the committee is the result of “demands from the people” and a “mainstream interest in fiscal conservatism and government efficiency.” She said part of the interest in having Wisconsin lawmakers take on the work was driven by President Donald Trump announcing the creation of a federal Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). While a committee existed last session focused on government operations and accountability, Nedweski said it wasn’t very active and the new committee will be.
Rep. Amanda Nedweski. Photo courtesy of her office.
“We had so many people reaching out saying ‘Who's going to be the state DOGE?’” Nedweski said. “I think there are opportunities around every corner to find quick and easy ways for improvement for some things and then certainly there are much bigger problems that could take solutions that are multi-year.”
Nedweski said her background in corporate finance and doing work that involves finding efficiencies inspired her to want to take on the role of chairing the new committee.
“In the private sector, there are natural forms of accountability driven by bottom lines, and government just doesn't have those built in, but we should,” Nedweski said.
The committee is still exploring what exactly its work will include, but Nedweski said it will focus on issues big and small. Ultimately, she said she wants to ensure that the state is using the taxpayers’ resources efficiently and effectively.
One issue she said the committee will likely look at is the number of state employees who are working remotely, which has been a contentious issue over the last several years.
“Are we getting the most productivity out of those people who are working from home? How do we measure that, and if we're seeing that it's not the most productive situation, why aren't those people back in the building?” Nedweski said. “Maybe they are productive, maybe that's the best situation for them, but then what do we do with that physical building? If the solution is we don't need in-person employees, then we don't need to pay for the space either, and I think we have a responsibility to the taxpayer to make sure that we're not wasting.”
Nedweski said other committees could also bring issues to GOAT to explore.
“Our intention is to have the entire body involved in this process where maybe… we're going to maybe do a joint hearing with the education committee, or the college's committee,” Nedweski said. “How do we use our resources within GOAT to help them further explore some of the areas that they identify for us that are in need of oversight, transparency, accountability or efficiency?”
Another issue Nedweski mentioned as an area of interest is “administrative bloat” in Wisconsin’s K-12 schools and in the University of Wisconsin system.
She also mentioned looking at programs and laws as they sunset. She noted that Texas has a Sunset Advisory Commission, a mission that the GOAT committee takes on.
“There's all these statutes on the books that maybe there's appropriations tied to, and sometimes things fly under the radar and are there any circumstances — and I can't say that there are — are there any circumstances where we have continued to fund something that was supposed to end? Maybe GOAT has an arm of that... where we're diving into the weeds and looking at where we spend money and should this have ended five years ago?”
One revived committee this session is the Assembly Small Business Committee. Last session, it became part of the Jobs, Economy and Small Business Development Committee.
Vining said she commends Vos for bringing the committee back because it gives a greater opportunity to speak about the issues affecting Wisconsin small businesses.
“Ninety-nine percent of Wisconsin businesses are small businesses. We're a small business state. We should have a small business development committee. We should be talking about how access to capital is more difficult for women and people of color,” Vining said.
The Assembly is also reviving the Assembly Urban Revitalization Committee this session with Rep. Bob Donovan (R-Greenfield) serving as its chair. Donovan, who served as a Milwaukee alderman for about 20 years, said he is excited about the opportunity.
“It's certainly fair to say that Milwaukee has some neighborhoods that are very challenged, and we need to work on that, but I suspect other cities around the state may be suffering from the same challenges, so I'm hopeful that we can work a number of initiatives to help revitalize those struggling neighborhoods,” Donovan said.
Donovan said that the “sky's the limit” when it comes to the issues the committee may look at, but that public safety concerns, educational issues and housing, including more home ownership, are some areas that he is interested in exploring.
As the committee’s work is only just starting, Donovan said that he has requested that the Legislative Reference Bureau provide the committee with some information about revitalization efforts that have gone on in other cities across the country as well as about what the 2017 committee did.
“I've always believed we don't need to reinvent the wheel. If something is working in another community, I see no reason why we couldn't make it work here in Wisconsin,” Donovan said.
Donovan said that he is prepared to communicate with local leaders in Milwaukee and other cities. He said he already had a “very good” conversation with Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley about some concerns at the county level when it comes to parks and other services.
“[I] just wanted to open up or continue the lines of communication,” Donovan said.
Other new committees include the Commerce Committee, the Constitution and Ethics Committee, the State and Federal Relations Committee, the Public Benefit Reform Committee and the Science, Technology and AI Committee.
Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel (second from left) stand next to Chippewa County Sheriff Travis Hakes (second from right), who has been at the center of numerous controversies. (Screenshot)
The Wisconsin Examiner’s Criminal Justice Reporting Project shines a light on incarceration, law enforcement and criminal justice issues with support from the Public Welfare Foundation
In a television ad and recent endorsements, Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel has touted the support of Chippewa County Sheriff Travis Hakes — a controversial figure whose county board voted 19-1 last year to find it had “no confidence” in him after he was accused of sexually harassing a female job applicant and subordinate.
As the race between Shimel and his opponent, Dane County Circuit Court Judge Susan Crawford, heats up, the two candidates have attempted to claim the other is soft on crime. Schimel, a Waukesha County Circuit Court judge who was previously the state attorney general under Republican Gov. Scott Walker, has in recent days announced endorsements from a number of current and retired sheriffs from across the state.
Hakes is one of the sheriffs who endorsed Schimel and appeared with the judge in a television ad behind a graphic that states Schimel is “tough on crime.”
Last February, the Chippewa County Board voted nearly unanimously that it has “no confidence in Chippewa County Sheriff Travis Hakes’ continued leadership” and that the sheriff has “a long history of not being credible.”
An independent investigation into Hakes initiated by the board found that he had sent inappropriate messages to a female job applicant and a subordinate, including a text that shared a “racist ethnically charged meme.”
“For any leader of a law enforcement agency to make such comments calls into question their professional judgement and ability to enforce the law and treat all persons fairly and lawfully,” a joint statement from County Administrator Randy Scholz and Board Chair Dean Gullickson said. “Moreover, for any leader of a law enforcement agency to suggest that his subordinates engage in such conduct with his implied support and tolerance leaves no doubt as to his inability to effectively manage any law enforcement employee and not expose the County to great risk.”
In the texts, Hakes told a female subordinate that she was the “breast person for the job!” in a conversation about birds and then later sent a meme depicting an Asian man crying with the caption “when the chow mein was on point but you kinda miss your cat.”
Hakes’ term as sheriff runs through 2026 and the board has no ability to remove him from office, which led to the no confidence vote. But in December 2023, the Chippewa County District Attorney put Hakes on the county’s Brady list — a document prosecutors are required to send to defense attorneys naming law enforcement officers “who have had incidents of untruthfulness, criminal convictions, candor issues, or some other type of issue placing their credibility into question.”
Hakes has “misled the public and County Board” multiple times about his work history, according to the board’s statement.
Because of his inclusion on the Brady list, Hakes is unable to be actively involved in investigations or handle physical evidence.
Several other sheriffs who have endorsed Schimel have also sparked controversy during their tenures.
Polk County Sheriff Brent Waak drew attention in 2023 for refusing to enforce a rule from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms that banned the use of stabilizing braces on pistols. Waak has previously shared his belief in the constitutional sheriff ideology — which states that county sheriffs have nearly unlimited authority to decide what the law is.
Schimel was also endorsed by Racine County Sheriff Christopher Schmaling, who drew the praise of election deniers after he called for the arrest of five members of the Wisconsin Elections Commission and declined to arrest an election denier who had requested absentee ballots on behalf of Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Racine Mayor Cory Mason.
In his 2018 campaign for attorney general, Schimel ran an ad touting his law enforcement support that included the endorsement of former Taylor County Sheriff Bruce Daniels — who was investigated by the FBI for hacking into a subordinate’s Dropbox account and by the state Department of Justice for pressuring another agency to destroy a report on a traffic accident that involved his son.
Wisconsin Democratic Party spokesperson Haley McCoy said in a statement that Schimel touting Hakes’ support shows a lack of judgement.
“This isn’t the first time that Brad Schimel has struggled with a photo op, but standing with a man censured 19-1 by local elected officials and accused of sexual harassment, conflicts of interest, poor leadership, and violating his oath is a new low — even for an extreme politician like Schimel,” McCoy said. “Brad Schimel has a long record of failing to keep Wisconsinites safe, from giving light sentences to convicted domestic abusers to failing to test more than 6,000 sexual assault kits over two years. It’s clear as day that Wisconsin voters can’t trust Brad Schimel’s judgment or public safety record on the state Supreme Court since he can’t even get this easy call right.”
Schimel’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
Milwaukee cut homicides dramatically by getting community members involved in the work of the Office of Violence Prevention. | Photo by Getty Images Creative
Gov. Tony Evers signed an executive order on Jan. 14 establishing Wisconsin’s first statewide Office of Violence Prevention. This announcement was praised by most and erroneously criticized by others who are ill-informed about the life-saving role that this type of office can play in addressing gun violence. I would know, because in Milwaukee we did it.
I became director of Milwaukee’s Office of Violence Prevention in 2016 after the city experienced a 70% increase in homicides in 2015. I was committed to ensuring that the voices of those from the neighborhoods most affected by violence would be centered in determining the priorities for increasing community safety and wellbeing in our city.
We engaged thousands of community residents and stakeholders including youth, survivors, former perpetrators, clergy, law enforcement, activists, philanthropies, public health workers, business leaders and elected officials in a process to develop Milwaukee’s first comprehensive violence prevention plan known as the Blueprint for Peace.
The launch and implementation of the Blueprint coincided with a steady four-year decline in homicides and non-fatal shootings in Milwaukee from 2016-2019. In fact, during the same period, Milwaukee experienced one of the deepest declines in homicides and non-fatal shootings in the country and achieved two consecutive years of fewer than 100 homicides before the pandemic.
If arrest and prosecution were the sole answers to violence, America would be the safest country on the planet.
In 2020, Milwaukee and cities across the country were hit with historic levels of gun violence that continue to this day. Over the past four years, federal policies and investments in comprehensive approaches to violence prevention have contributed to historic reductions in homicides and non-fatal shootings across the country.
If arrest and prosecution were the sole answers to violence, America would be the safest country on the planet. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The smartest police chiefs, prosecutors and judges will tell you that investments in violence prevention make a real difference in public safety.
Nothing is stronger on crime than being smart about it. Research from the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform’s The Cost of Violence – Milwaukee, WIreport found that a single homicide in Wisconsin cost taxpayers $2 million per incident and a single non-fatal shooting costs $644,000.
For context, Milwaukee ended 2024 with 132 homicides and 639 nonfatal shootings, resulting in a total cost to taxpayers of $264,411,516 in a single year! That is half the cost of building one Fiserv Forum.
In contrast, a single violence intervention program in Milwaukee known as 414 LIFE has intervened in over 250 high risk conflicts since 2018 that could have resulted in a non-fatal shooting or homicide, saving taxpayers approximately $500 million.
Combined funding from the city and county for this program is $2 million per year. The return on investment in violence prevention is clear. Furthermore, doing everything possible to prevent another resident from ending up in a hospital bed, graveyard or jail cell should be a shared priority regardless of political affiliation.
While the details of the state office are being worked out, the effectiveness of such an office is dependent on competent leadership, unwavering support and sustainable funding. I hope that the governor and his team take a similar approach to the one that produced Milwaukee’s Blueprint for Peace by centering the voices of those most affected by violence as they determine the new office’s priorities for solutions and investment. Anything less would be a missed opportunity.
The Lyndon Baines Johnson Department of Education Building pictured on Nov. 25, 2024. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)
WASHINGTON — Three former secretaries of the U.S. Department of Education took to a Brookings Institution panel on Tuesday to offer more perspective on President Donald Trump’s calls to dismantle the federal agency, among other education-related priorities of the new administration.
Trump — who repeatedly pledged to get rid of the department throughout his campaign — has vowed to “save American education” with a focus on parental rights, universal school choice and funding preferences for states and school districts that adhere to his sweeping education vision.
In his inaugural address on Monday, Trump said “we have an education system that teaches our children to be ashamed of themselves, in many cases, to hate our country despite the love that we try so desperately to provide to them.”
“All of this will change starting today, and it will change very quickly,” Trump said, going on to enact a barrage of executive orders later on Monday and undo some of former President Joe Biden’s most consequential efforts in protecting LGBTQ+ students.
Trump’s pick for Education secretary, Linda McMahon, could be pivotal to making more of his education vision a reality.
McMahon, who has yet to sit before a U.S. Senate panel for her confirmation hearing, is a former World Wrestling Entertainment executive, the prior head of the Small Business Administration during Trump’s first administration and a wealthy donor.
She is likely to be confirmed in the GOP-controlled Senate.
In the meantime, Trump named Denise Carter as acting secretary of Education. Prior to stepping into the post, she was the acting chief operating officer of the department’s Office of Federal Student Aid — the largest student financial aid provider in the country.
‘Kind of an old saw’
Trump’s vow to abolish the department is one that experts have viewed with skepticism over the complex logistics, the need for bipartisan congressional approval and the redirection of federal programs that would be necessary.
Margaret Spellings, who was Education secretary under then-President George W. Bush, said the push for abolishing the department is “kind of an old saw that has been around for a long time.”
“Obviously, there’s maybe more seriousness around it this time as we think about slicing and dicing and relitigating the federal role, and I think that’s an appropriate conversation, I mean, we ought to do that,” Spellings said.
Arne Duncan, Education secretary under then-President Barack Obama, compared Trump’s promise to get rid of the department to his “saying he’s going to build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it, which is stuff he says.”
“No one ever seems to hold him accountable for lies, false promises, but that’s what’s going to happen,” he said.
‘Sex’ rather than ‘gender’ order
On his first day back in office, Trump also issued a slew of wide-ranging executive orders including that the federal government should only recognize “two sexes: male and female,” and that federal agencies should use the term “sex” and not “gender” in all federal policies and documents.
The order also calls for federal agencies to “end the Federal funding of gender ideology.”
“I think about LGBTQ students and how they might feel based on the statements from the administration so far and the executive order yesterday,” said former Education Secretary John B. King Jr., who also served under the Obama administration.
King said he worries about “low-income students, about students of color, where we still see huge opportunity gaps, and so all of us need to be asking, ‘Who’s championing the needs of those most vulnerable students?’”
King said he also thinks about “the impact on undocumented students or students from mixed-status families, of the conversation about mass deportation and the fear that that instills in them and their families.”
Trump’s deluge of executive orders signified his immigration crackdown, including a move to end birthright citizenship in the United States, which has already drawn legal challenges.
U.S. President-elect Donald Trump and wife Melania Trump arrive at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 8, 2025 in Washington, D.C. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., walks in back of them. (Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — Republican congressional leaders huddled with President Donald Trump on Tuesday in search of a clear path forward to make sweeping changes to the country’s border security, energy policy and tax code, though they remained stuck on a question they’ve been mulling for weeks.
Republicans secured unified control of government by promising voters they’d pass new laws addressing major policy areas, but aren’t yet aligned over whether to bundle all the various changes together in an omnibus measure, or to pass them in two separate packages.
GOP leaders also still need to determine where far-right members and centrists overlap in dozens of areas, since votes from nearly every Republican in Congress will be necessary to get any bill to Trump’s desk.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune said after arriving back at the Capitol that negotiators had yet to reach consensus on how to package their policy proposal. It was Trump’s second day in office and the first gathering of top Republicans at the White House with him.
“Well, I think that discussion is always predicated on what we can get done and we’re obviously all interested in getting to the same destination,” Thune said.
The South Dakota Republican said in addition to working out agreement amongst themselves on reconciliation, GOP leaders need to figure out how to fund the government ahead of a March 14 deadline and how to address the country’s debt limit prior to a default date that’s expected to take place later this year.
Both of those issues will require Republicans to reach agreement with Democrats to avoid a partial government shutdown starting less than 100 days into Trump’s presidency, or a first-ever default on the country’s debt, which would likely trigger a global financial crisis.
“So there’s a lot to do and part of it is just figuring out how to stage it and what’s the best way to get all those results,” Thune said, adding with a bit of a laugh that there are a lot of “great theories” about how to get it all done this year.
“But, you know, it’s always different when you have to translate that into practice,” he said, previewing the complicated and rocky path that accompanies writing campaign promises into law.
Trump said during a press conference at the White House after the meeting that he believed the House, Senate and White House had “pretty much” figured out a strategy.
“I think we have a good situation now,” Trump said.
Tricky process
Republicans are planning to use the complex budget reconciliation process to pass their border security, energy and tax proposals without needing Democratic support to move past the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster.
The process requires every part of the package to impact federal revenue or spending in a way that is not deemed “merely incidental” by the Senate parliamentarian.
That could cause some challenges for the committees tasked with drafting various sections of the package in the months ahead, especially on immigration policy, which might not have the price tags that typically go along with the reconciliation process.
Democrats, for example, tried to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 per hour in a coronavirus relief bill they moved through the reconciliation process in 2021. But the Senate parliamentarian ruled its impact on the federal budget was “merely incidental,” leading Democrats to remove that provision from the larger bill.
South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, ranking member on the Budget Committee at the time, released a written statement in February 2021 praising the parliamentarian’s ruling on the minimum wage language.
“Very pleased the Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that a minimum wage increase is an inappropriate policy change in reconciliation,” Graham wrote at the time. “This decision reinforces reconciliation cannot be used as a vehicle to pass major legislative change — by either party — on a simple majority vote. This decision will, over time, reinforce the traditions of the Senate.”
Budget resolution
Republicans need to be on the same page about one rather than two reconciliation bills and generally about how to change U.S. law before they can officially begin the reconciliation process.
The House and Senate must vote to approve a budget resolution with reconciliation instructions before they can unlock the reconciliation process. That will require leaders to at least have some outline of what they plan to do, how much they expect it will cost and which committees hold jurisdiction over those policy areas.
House Republican leaders hope to vote on that budget resolution in February, draft the legislation in March, hold a floor vote in that chamber in early April and work out any disagreements with the Senate before late May, at which point they hope to send the entire package to Trump.
Ashley Murray and Ariana Figueroa contributed to this report.
Stewart Rhodes, Oath Keepers founder, speaks with the press in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 21, 2025, after being released after spending the past three years in Cumberland, Maryland, at the Federal Correctional Institution On Jan. 20, President Donald Trump pardoned around 1,500 criminal defendants who were charged in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — Barring a few exceptions, Senate Republicans on Tuesday largely deflected or altogether avoided questions about President Donald Trump’s broad clemency for over 1,500 defendants who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 — including many who beat police officers, smashed windows and trashed offices as lawmakers hid in designated safe areas.
Just hours into his second term Monday, Trump commuted the sentences of 14 felons, including leaders of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers.
The president granted a “full, complete and unconditional pardon to all other individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.” He also dismissed any pending indictments.
The pardons did not come as a surprise. As Senate Republicans were cheering for Trump on his march to electoral victory, the former and now current president exalted the “hostages” and “patriots” who injured more than 140 law enforcement officers and caused north of $2.8 million in damage to the Capitol, according to the Department of Justice.
Oath Keepers founder and Jan. 6 ringleader Stewart Rhodes told reporters Tuesday that it was “a good day for America.” Rhodes, who was released from federal prison in Cumberland, Maryland, faced an 18-year sentence for seditious conspiracy, among other crimes.
But Trump allies had earlier raised questions about releasing some defendants, including Vice President J.D. Vance, who told Fox News on Jan. 12 that “If you committed violence on that day, obviously you shouldn’t be pardoned.”
As of early January the government had charged just over 1,580 people for crimes related to the riot, 608 of whom were charged with assaulting, resisting or impeding law enforcement. Nearly a third of those charged with assaulting officers used a dangerous or deadly weapon, according to the Justice Department.
Investigations uncovered that weapons brought onto Capitol grounds included firearms, tasers, chemical sprays; edged weapons, including a sword, axes, hatchets, and knives; and makeshift weapons, including broken office furniture, fencing, bike racks, stolen riot shields, baseball bats, hockey sticks, flagpoles, PVC piping and reinforced knuckle gloves.
States Newsroom asked over 20 Republican senators if they are comfortable with Trump’s clemency orders, and followed up with some of the lawmakers who were willing to speak.
Trump ‘keeps his campaign promises’
Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina said he wasn’t comfortable with “any that involved an assault on a police officer.”
Sen. Lisa Murkowski told a group of journalists that she was “disappointed.”
“I do fear the message that is sent to these great men and women that stood by us,” the Alaska Republican said as she gestured toward the Capitol Police officers posted outside the Senate Republicans’ weekly luncheon.
Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said there’s a “distinction to be made between providing clemency for individuals who may have been caught up in the crowd that day and did not commit any violent act, versus those who assaulted police officers with their fists, with flag poles, with pepper spray, and destroyed property, broke into the Capitol by breaking windows.”
“I do not believe those individuals warrant clemency,” she said. Collins also released a written statement.
Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, who was photographed raising his fist in solidarity with Trump supporters as he exited the Capitol on Jan. 6, said “If you’re asking me if it’s what I would have done, what I’ve said is, is that for folks who committed violence, I wouldn’t commute their sentence or pardon.”
Hawley, who can be seen on security video running for safety during the attack, said the pardons send a signal that Trump “keeps his campaign promises.”
Biden pardons
When States Newsroom asked Sen. Deb Fischer if she was comfortable with the broad pardons, the Nebraska Republican responded, “I’m looking forward to getting some great opportunities and getting good things done.”
In response to a follow-up question on whether she condoned political violence, Fischer, who was on her way into Majority Whip John Barrasso’s office, said, “Ma’am, no one would ever condone political violence.”
As Sen. Markwayne Mullin walked by an entrance to the Senate chamber he greeted and shook the hands of Capitol Police officers posted at the doors.
The Oklahoma Republican refused to talk specifically about the Jan. 6 pardons, saying he didn’t get “near this many questions” about pardons issued by former President Joe Biden in his final hours in office.
“Here’s my thing on pardons, I’m not any more comfortable with Biden releasing and pardoning his whole family too,” Mullin said. “When you all want to cover both, come talk to me.”
States Newsroom reported Monday Biden preemptively pardoned lawmakers who served on the congressional committee to investigate the Capitol attack, as well as police officers who testified before the panel.
He also preemptively pardoned former administration officials who’ve been the target of death threats, as well as five of his family members — roughly a month-and-a-half after he pardoned his son, Hunter. Majornewsoutletspublishednumerous articles covering Biden’s pardons.
Mullin walked away from a follow-up question highlighting violent acts committed by those who received Trump’s clemency.
Collins similarly said the press “ought to be paying attention” to Biden’s pardons as well, especially the commutation of indigenous activist Leonard Peltier.
Iowa’s Sen. Chuck Grassley, the most senior member of the Senate and the body’s president pro tempore, said, “Hey, everybody’s asked me about J6. None of you guys are asking about the Biden pardons.”
Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said “Congress doesn’t have a role to play in pardons” and walked away from further questions on the topic.
No response at all
Many GOP senators did not respond to clearly shouted, and many times repeated, questions from journalists Tuesday afternoon about the pardons.
They included Mike Crapo of Idaho, Barrasso of Wyoming, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, John Curtis of Utah, Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott of South Carolina, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Tommy Tuberville of Alabama and Joni Ernst of Iowa.
Blackburn and Curtis specifically said they don’t speak to reporters in the hallways of Congress.
Some GOP senators said they hadn’t yet seen Trump’s Monday night order.
“I haven’t looked at it yet,” said Sen. Rick Scott of Florida.
When States Newsroom summarized the 334-word proclamation and underscored that it was highly publicized by major news outlets, Scott replied “I haven’t looked at the executive order yet.”
Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana said: “I don’t have anything for you.”
“You don’t have anything about people who came here with weapons and beat police officers?” States Newsroom pressed as Kennedy walked away.
Murkowski’s fellow Alaska senator, Dan Sullivan, stopped to speak to reporters about the “grand slam home run” executive order from Trump that expands energy development in his state, but he would not comment on the president’s clemency for Jan. 6 defendants.
“I need to read the order first,” he said.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune’s office did not respond to requests for comment. The South Dakota Republican briefly told reporters outside of a committee room, “We’re not looking backwards, we’re looking forward.”
States Newsroom reached out to all members of Senate and House Republican leadership for comment, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, but did not receive any response.
A immigrant from Venezuela tries in vain to access the CBP One app day a day after the second inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 21, 2025 in Nogales, Mexico. The incoming administration shut down the app, which was created by the Biden administration to allow migrants to schedule appointments to gain entry into the United States. (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — A day after President Donald Trump signed a slew of immigration-related executive orders, immigration researchers said during a Tuesday briefing they are scrutinizing the legal implications of the White House’s move to end birthright citizenship as well as sweeping directives barring asylum and more.
The ACLU and immigrant rights groups sued the Trump administration in U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire shortly after Trump signed the birthright citizenship order. On Tuesday, 18 state attorneys general also sued over the order, in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Those states include New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin.
Additionally, state attorneys general from Arizona, Illinois, Oregon and Washington sued the Trump administration in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle over birthright citizenship, in which people born in the United States are considered citizens — excluding the children of foreign diplomats — even if their parents are not.
Other executive orders Trump signed Monday night declare a national emergency at the southern border, end asylum and reinstate several harsh immigration policies from his first term.
“Executive orders do not change the fact that U.S. law provides for access to asylum … which I think will feature prominently in what I expect to be rapid litigation of these measures,” said Kathleen Bush-Joseph, an attorney at the Migration Policy Institute, a think tank that studies migration and facilitated the press briefing.
Trump order permits enforcement in churches, schools
Additionally, the Trump administration is already issuing new directives for immigration enforcement.
Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Benjamine Huffman issued two directives Monday. One rescinds Biden-era guidelines for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection that limited enforcement in or near so-called “sensitive” areas, such as places of worship, schools, health care facilities, relief centers, and social services centers, among other areas.
“The Trump Administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement, and instead trusts them to use common sense,” DHS said in a statement.
The other directive curtails the use of humanitarian parole and “returns the program to a case-by-case basis.” The Biden administration used that authority for Ukraine, Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela.
Within hours of Trump taking office, a popular app that migrants used to make appointments with asylum officers, known as CBP One, was shut down, canceling all future appointments. The ACLU has already sued over that as well.
Birthright citizenship
But it was the order on birthright citizenship that immediately attracted multiple legal challenges.
The executive order states the federal government will not recognize or issue citizenship documentation to any child born after Feb. 19 to parents who are in the country without proper authorization, or if the parent is in the United States on a temporary visa and the other parent is a noncitizen or green card holder.
Birthright citizenship is a right enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and was upheld in a 1898 U.S. Supreme Court case.
There are roughly 5.5 million U.S. children born with at least one parent who is an undocumented immigrant and 1.8 million U.S.-born children with two undocumented parents.
“I think if it wasn’t obvious already, it is just the operational sort of challenge of even making this interpretation live,” said Muzaffar Chishti, a senior fellow and director of the Migration Policy Institute office at New York University School of Law, at the briefing.
He argued that the executive order would apply to any child born in the U.S. after it’s enacted and would require hospitals to check the documentation of everyone.
“You cannot just limit to people you think may be in the country illegally,” Chishti said.
Mass deportations
Trump, who campaigned on carrying out mass deportations of people in the country without proper authorization, made little mention of the promise in his inauguration speech and other remarks Monday.
But his executive orders signal that initiative, said Doris Meissner, the director of U.S. immigration policy at the Migration Policy Institute.
“A range of the executive orders that have to do with expedited removal, broadening detention capacity, information-sharing with local law enforcement, all do speak to the issue of the mass deportations initiative,” Meissner said.
But she added that some of the executive orders signed, and a bill that is likely to make its way to Trump’s desk to be signed into law could undercut those efforts by using vast resources and impeding on deportation logistics.
For example, one executive order ends the policy known as “catch and release.” That policy allows migrants who are detained to live in U.S. communities while they await having their asylum cases heard by an immigration judge.
The bill Congress is moving toward final passage, S. 5, would require mandatory detention for immigrants accused of or charged with property crime, injury or death of a U.S. citizen and the assault of a law enforcement official.
“Both require significant detention capacity in order to enforce them,” Meissner said. “So we see impediments, we see constraints, but we’re also likely to see continuing and ongoing threats that generate fear and uncertainty that is already at a heightened level and that will heighten even further.”
The Wisconsin Examiner’s Criminal Justice Reporting Project shines a light on incarceration, law enforcement and criminal justice issues with support from the Public Welfare Foundation
Immigrant rights advocates and attorneys are preparing for how Wisconsin’s law enforcement community might assist federal authorities in President Donald Trump’s proposed mass deportation efforts — warning that the new administration’s policies could lead to profiling and high levels of data sharing.
Eight counties in Wisconsin currently have agreements with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) under the agency’s 287(g) program, which state that the counties will hold undocumented immigrants in jail if ICE requests them to do so. Brown, Fond du Lac, Manitowoc, Marquette and Sheboygan counties have a memorandum of agreement with ICE under the Warrant Service Officer program and Waukesha County has an agreement with the agency under its jail enforcement program — which allows local deputies to act as immigration enforcement agents and ask questions about inmates’ citizenship status.
Tim Muth, a senior staff attorney with the Wisconsin ACLU who has researched how local law enforcement interacts with ICE, says these agreements weren’t used very much under the administration of President Joe Biden but now under Trump, it gives federal authorities a good sense of which departments will be allies in a mass deportation effort.
“What they do indicate is which are the counties who have already raised their hands and said, ‘we are happy to assist with deporting people from the state,’ and I anticipate that the Trump administration is going to start with that list and say ‘we know who our allies are in this in the state of Wisconsin,’” Muth says. “Let’s see if one: We can get more allies signing these agreements, and, two: For the ones who already have, let’s see what we can do to get them more active in this area.”
Luca Fagundes, an immigration attorney based in Green Bay, says that under Biden, ICE generally only picked up undocumented immigrants in the Brown County jail if they’d committed serious infractions. Fagundes anticipates that ICE — as it did in the first Trump administration — will use the agreement with the sheriff to send people to deportation proceedings for low-level offenses such as driving without a license or other minor traffic violations.
“If history is precedent, I believe the administration will place detainers on anyone they can, regardless of how minor the offense committed by the individual,” Fagundes says, adding that he doesn’t think local law enforcement should aggressively support ICE efforts in a county that Trump won with just 53% of the vote.
“Certainly there are concerns that law enforcement will cooperate with more aggressive ICE efforts,” he says. “I have these concerns, and I believe the community also shares these concerns. I personally hope that law enforcement in this area continue to exercise their own level of discretion on who to detain. Given the political leanings or lack thereof of Brown County, I don’t believe a mandate has been established with regards to the incoming administration’s immigration policies.”
Aside from the eight counties with formal agreements with ICE, dozens of other county sheriffs in Wisconsin are Republicans and likely share Trump’s opinions on immigration. Muth says a big concern is these counties forging informal relationships with ICE that amount to letting the agency know whenever a foreign national is held in a county jail.
This practice, he says, has historically been common in Walworth County, resulting in a higher per capita number of immigrants removed from the county than anywhere else in the state.
“Basically every day they would send a list to ICE of every foreign national who had been booked into the jail,” Muth says. “So I think we’re going to see more of that kind of informal information sharing. And then I think the other thing is, even though immigration enforcement is not a state matter, it’s a federal matter, we’ll probably see more local law enforcement, the county level and local municipal level, asking people, what’s their immigration status?”
Muth says the ACLU, community organizations and churches have been working on extensive know-your-rights campaigns in recent months to inform people of what their rights are if they’re stopped by law enforcement and asked these sorts of questions.
“And our advice is always, you know, you shouldn’t speak to law enforcement without your attorney, and ask for counsel,” he says. “Very often people, especially people from marginalized communities, don’t know that they can refuse to answer questions like, ‘what’s your immigration status?’ And I expect we’re going to see local law enforcement, especially in more conservative counties, asking those questions, even though it is unrelated to enforcing any state of Wisconsin criminal statute.”
But, he adds that many rural sheriffs will be in a bind. They can support Trump and assist ICE in aggressive deportation efforts but that could come with political backlash from an important local voter base — farmers who rely on undocumented labor.
“I think there are some counties where the local farms are very dependent on undocumented farm workers where the sheriffs recognize that they don’t want to harm the local agricultural community,” he says.
In the state’s more liberal communities, local officials have promised to do what they can to thwart local ICE efforts. At a news conference last week, Dane County Executive Melissa Agard and District Attorney Ismael Ozanne said the county would continue to offer the area’s immigrant community assistance through programs in the human services department and that the DA would never ask for the immigration status of a victim or witness in a criminal prosecution.
The Dane County sheriff’s department has also said it would not assist ICE and wants to maintain its relationship with the immigrant community so they report crimes when they happen. But the county has also continued to participate in the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), which provides grants to reimburse local governments for the cost of detaining noncitizens.
Participation in the program involves regularly sending federal authorities a list of all noncitizens who were held in the jail and convicted of at least two misdemeanors or one felony. Shortly after current Sheriff Kalvin Barrett took office in 2022, the Dane County Board assessed the county’s participation in the program and decided to continue the county’s involvement.
Elise Schaffer, a spokesperson for the sheriff’s office, says the board decided to continue because the reimbursement is based on historical data, not who is currently in the jail. She says the county hasn’t even finished sending all of the 2023 data to the Department of Justice office that operates the program and passes the information along to ICE.
Muth says that in many ways Dane County and Madison have policies that he believes are good for the local immigrant community, but that even Milwaukee County, with its tight budget, hasn’t accepted this money.
“The Milwaukee County sheriff’s budget is certainly really tight,” he says. “They’re really suffering, but they don’t pursue that money, which I commend them for. I think in general, other than pursuing this SCAAP funding, I think Dane County and the current sheriff and the Madison police department have a good set of policies that we applaud them for. But ICE’s mass deportation plan ultimately will be necessarily data driven, right? And Dane County has been feeding them data for years.”
Donald Trump supporters clash with police and security forces as they storm the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Brent Stirton/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Monday night issued sweeping pardons for nearly all Jan. 6 defendants, erasing accountability for those who violently tried to stop the certification of the 2020 presidential election results on that date in 2021.
Behind the desk of the Oval Office, Trump told reporters he signed a pardon for nearly 1,500 defendants who participated in the attack and commuted the sentences for several others whose punishments require “further research,” he said.
“We hope they come out tonight. They’re expecting it,” Trump said about the defendants.
Journalists outside the D.C. Central Detention Facility, where many Jan. 6 defendants are being held, reported families began gathering there Monday in anticipation of the pardons.
The White House released the names of 14 defendants whose sentences Trump commuted. They include numerous right-wing militia leadersconvicted of seditious conspiracy.
Among them are Stewart Rhodes of Texas and Kelly Meggs of Florida, the founder and current leader of the Oath Keepers, as well as members of the Proud Boys, including Joseph Biggs of Florida, Ethan Nordean of Washington, Zachary Rehl of Pennsylvania, and Dominic Pezzola of New York.
All remaining Jan. 6 defendants convicted of crimes related to the Capitol attack received a “full, complete and unconditional pardon,” according to the order.
Trump praised the defendants on the campaign trail as “hostages,” “patriots” and “warriors,” and pardoning them became a major theme of Trump’s rallies.
Former U.S. Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn said the pardons marked a “dark day in American history.”
“This decision is a betrayal to the officers who were severely injured — and died — as a result of the insurrection. This decision puts Americans at risk as these violent criminals return to their communities. These pardons are a reflection of what abuse of power looks like and what we the people are bound to witness over the next four years,” Dunn said in statement released by the anti-Trump group Courage for America.
The U.S. Department of Justice launched its largest-ever investigation following the attack that left over 140 police officers injured and upwards of $2.8 million in damage to the Capitol.
As of early January the department had charged just over 1,580 people for crimes related to the riot, 608 of whom were charged with assaulting, resisting or impeding law enforcement, including nearly a third who used a dangerous or deadly weapon, according to the department’s latest figures.
Weapons, and objects used as weapons, brought on the Capitol grounds ranged from firearms and tasers to chemical sprays and sharp-edged weapons, including knives, axes and even a sword, according to the department.
Approximately 1,000 have pleaded guilty — 682 to misdemeanors and 327 to felonies. Just over 200 defendants were found guilty at contested trials, including 10 who were convicted of seditious conspiracy.
Earlier Monday, Trump promised an overflow inauguration crowd in the Capitol Visitors Center that would deliver “action” for the Jan. 6 “hostages.”
He slammed Biden’s preemptive pardoning of the “unselect committee of political thugs,” referring to the former president’s Monday morning action for members and staff who served on the House select committee that probed the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.
Biden also preemptively pardoned police officers who testifiedbefore the committee. The officers have lambasted Trump’s promise to pardon the rioters.
Former U.S. Capitol Police Sgt. Aquilino Gonell, one of the officers to receive the pardon, said in a statement Monday that he “was just doing my job and fulfilling my oath” when “American citizens attacked the U.S. Capitol, injuring me and my colleagues.”
“Thank you President Biden for upholding our nation’s democracy, for your years of service to this country, and — in your final moments as Commander-in-Chief — issuing preemptive pardons for me and other loyal Americans. I did not seek a pardon, and I did nothing wrong. My family and I are grateful for your empathy and leadership.”
President Donald Trump holds up an executive order after signing it during an indoor inauguration parade at the Capital One Arena on Jan. 20, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — Just hours into his second term, President Donald Trump signed some of his first executive orders as an arena crowd of thousands cheered a U.S. withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement and a mandate for federal workers to return to the office full-time.
Trump scrawled his signature on nearly 10 portfolio-bound documents at a desk on the floor of the Capital One Arena in downtown Washington, D.C., following an indoor inauguration parade at the 20,000-seat venue. Monday’s ceremonies were moved indoors because of cold temperatures.
The orders included rescinding 78 Biden administration actions, freezing federal hiring and new regulations, and “restoring freedom of speech,” among others that the White House press office dubbed “America First Priorities.”
“Could you imagine Biden doing this? I don’t think so,” Trump said to the crowd.
Trump threw his ceremonial pens into the seats after signing the orders.
In an Oval Office ceremony shortly afterward, Trump signed a slew of other orders ranging from declaring a national emergency at the southern border to throwing TikTok a 75-day lifeline to find a new owner.
Earlier Monday, surrounded by lawmakers from both parties who bantered with him in the President’s Room at the U.S. Capitol, Trump signed an order mandating all U.S. flags fly at full height during future presidential inaugurations. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, ordered flags at full staff for Trump’s inauguration despite the recent death of the late President Jimmy Carter.
The first blitz
During his first blitz, Trump erased Biden executive orders on “Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation” and “Advancing Equality for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Individuals.”
Trump’s team signaled hours before inauguration that the incoming president planned to sign an order mandating the use of the word “sex” instead of “gender” in federal policy language and documents, including passports and visas.
White House administration officials said on a call with reporters early Monday, speaking on background, that one of their first executive orders will focus on “defending women from gender ideology extremism and restoring biological truth to the federal government.”
Roughly 2 million transgender people live in the United States, according to the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group, which condemned Trump’s order Monday.
Kelley Robinson, the organization’s president, criticized Trump in a statement for “taking aim at the LGBTQ+ community instead of uniting our country and prioritizing the pressing issues the American people are facing.”
Among the dozens of previous Biden administration orders, Trump reversed Biden actions titled “Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science To Tackle the Climate Crisis” and “Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment to Environmental Justice for All.”
Environmental advocates denounced Trump’s executive orders. The Center for Biological Diversity said in a statement that Trump’s order for withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement “shows how threatened Trump is by the recent global compact to transition away from fossil fuels.”
“While Trump buries his head in the sand, it’s going to be up to state leaders to lock eyes on the climate crisis and lead us toward a livable future,” the statement said.
Incoming White House officials also teased orders taking down Biden-era environmental initiatives, including declaring an energy emergency, opening the Alaska wilderness for energy development and nixing energy standards for household appliances. They had not yet been released Monday night.
TikTok
Later Monday evening in the Oval Office, Trump signed an order giving TikTok an extra 75 days to find a new owner. The order instructs the Department of Justice to ignore enforcing a federal law that required TikTok to separate from its China ties by Jan. 19.
“The unfortunate timing of (the law) — one day before I took office as the 47th President of the United States — interferes with my ability to assess the national security and foreign policy implications of the Act’s prohibitions before they take effect,” Trump’s order stated.
The popular video sharing app used by approximately 170 million Americans briefly went dark overnight Saturday into Sunday. A message to users read, “We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office. Please stay tuned!”
A federal law mandated that TikTok’s parent company ByteDance divest from the video sharing platform by the deadline when it became illegal for U.S. companies to distribute or maintain the app. Companies that don’t comply face fines up $5,000 per user.
Trump’s position is a reversal of his support for a ban in 2020.
“I guess I have a warm spot for TikTok that I guess I didn’t have originally,” he told reporters in the Oval Office Monday night.
TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew was among the attendees at Trump’s inauguration, and the company sponsored an inauguration eve party in downtown D.C., Reuters reported.
Some lawmakers want to see the law enforced now. In a statement Sunday, Republican Sens. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Pete Ricketts of Nebraska warned that companies who ignore the deadline could “face ruinous bankruptcy.”
“Now that the law has taken effect there’s no legal basis for any kind of ‘extension,’ of its effective date” they wrote.
A long campaign of promises
Trump told a packed arena in Washington, D.C., on the eve of the inauguration that they were “going to see executive orders that are going to make you extremely happy, lots of them.”
Trump said he would “act with historic speed and strength and fix every single crisis facing our country.”
As a candidate and Republican presidential nominee, Trump promised his supporters that on day one he would launch a mass deportation of immigrants, end Russia’s war on Ukraine, and pardon those convicted and who pleaded guilty to crimes committed during the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol.
In one of his last actions in office, Biden issued preemptive pardons for lawmakers and staff who served on the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol, as well as the police officers who testified before the panel.
Login
