A memorial grows Thursday, Jan. 8, 2026 on the spot where an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Good, 37, the previous day. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

Renee Nicole Good, who was fatally shot by an ICE agent in Minneapolis on Wednesday, was a poet and a mother of 3. She moved to the city with her wife and 6-year-old son almost a year ago.

Good’s wife, Rebecca Good, told the Washington Post that they had stopped to support neighbors when she was shot by the ICE agent, who has been identified as Jonathan Ross by the Star Tribune. 

“On Wednesday, January 7th, we stopped to support our neighbors. We had whistles. They had guns,” Rebecca Good said in a statement to the Post and other media outlets on Friday.

“We were raising our son to believe that no matter where you come from or what you look like, all of us deserve compassion and kindness,” the statement continues. “Renee lived this belief every day. She is pure love. She is pure joy. She is pure sunshine.”

Renee Good, 37, was a mother to a 15-year-old daughter and two sons, ages 12 and 6, her first husband told the Post. Online records and interviews with media outlets from family and friends paint her as a caring person and an avid writer who enjoyed movies, making art, singing and playing guitar. Her first husband described her as a devoted Christian to the Post.

She studied creative writing at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, graduating in December 2020. She won an undergraduate poetry prize in 2020 for her poem “On Learning to Dissect Fetal Pigs,” which the contest judge described as “a meditation that leads the reader into the unknown.”

“May Renee’s life be a reminder of what unites us: freedom, love, and peace,” university president Brian O. Hemphill said in a statement. “My hope is for compassion, healing, and reflection at a time that is becoming one of the darkest and most uncertain periods in our nation’s history.”

She was originally from Colorado Springs, Colo. She lived in Kansas City, Mo., with her wife before moving to Minnesota. Their former neighbor in Kansas City told the Post that the couple said they wanted to move out of the red state after President Donald Trump was elected in 2024.

Her second husband, Tim Macklin, died in 2023 and was a military veteran who suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, reported the Post. He was also a comedian with whom she co-hosted a podcast, according to a post on the Old Dominion University English department Facebook page.

A faculty member who taught her, Kent Wascom, described her to the Post as a poet who was focused on improving her fiction writing and who, unlike peers, never talked about politics.

“She was kind and talented, a working class mom who put herself through school despite circumstances that would’ve crumpled the pathetic rich boy politicians who sadistically abetted her murder,” Wascom said in an X post.

Good described herself as a “poet and writer and wife and mom and sh*tty guitar strummer from Colorado” who is “experiencing Minneapolis” on what appears to be her now-private Instagram page.

Good’s life was honored by thousands at a vigil Wednesday in Minneapolis. The site of her killing has become a memorial to her, where people have placed candles and flowers.

Local police officers stand guard as Renee Good's car is towed away after ICE officers shot and killed a woman through her car window Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2026 near Portland Avenue and 34th Street. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

The Trump administration made its opinion known almost immediately after an ICE agent shot and killed a woman in Minneapolis on Wednesday: The officer acted heroically in defending himself from Renee Nicole Good, who was intent on running him over with her Honda Pilot in an act of “domestic terrorism.”

“The officer, fearing for his life and other officers around him and the safety of the public, fired defensive shots. He used his training to save his own life and that of his colleagues,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in a news conference in Minneapolis.

A jury might very well disagree after seeing footage of the incident, like Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey who called ICE’s claim of self-defense “bullsh*t.”

But the Trump administration seems intent on blocking local prosecutors from even bringing charges against the ICE officer, who the Star Tribune identified as Jonathan Ross.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office took the unusual step soon after the shooting of ousting the state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension from the investigation into the killing.

The BCA typically investigates police shootings in the state, and was on the scene in south Minneapolis on Wednesday collecting evidence as part of a joint investigation with the FBI.

Then the U.S. Attorney’s Office “reversed course” and decided the investigation would be led solely by the FBI, said Drew Evans, BCA superintendent, in a statement.

“Without complete access to the evidence, witnesses and information collected, we cannot meet the investigative standards that Minnesota law and the public demands,” Evans said. “As a result, the BCA has reluctantly withdrawn from the investigation.”

Gov. Tim Walz during a Thursday press conference expressed doubt about the results of any investigation conducted by the federal government because Minnesota officials have been purposefully excluded.

“Now that Minnesota has been taken out of the investigation, it feels very, very difficult that we will get a fair outcome,” Walz said. “People in positions of power have already passed judgment … and told you things that are verifiably false.”

If federal investigators don’t share their findings with local prosecutors, they’ll struggle to put together a case to bring charges, said former Acting U.S. Attorney for Minnesota Anders Folk, who brought federal charges against former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin for killing George Floyd in 2020.

“I don’t know how any prosecutor could make a charging decision without facts,” Folk said. “The local authorities are going to have to figure out a way to do their own investigation if they want to be able to evaluate whether a criminal charge can be brought.”

Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, who has jurisdiction in Minneapolis, said in a statement on Thursday that her office is searching for a way for a state level investigation to continue.

“If the FBI is the sole investigative agency, the state will not receive the investigative findings, and our community may never learn about its contents,” Moriarty said in a statement.

The FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office did not respond to requests for comment.

A spokesperson for U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, who will make charging decisions based on the FBI investigation, pointed the Reformer to a post on X when asked if she has commented on the case and if she believes the use of force was justified.

“Obstructing, impeding, or attacking federal law enforcement is a federal crime. So is damaging federal property. If you cross that red line, you will be arrested and prosecuted. Do not test our resolve,” the post says.

Who might do a local investigation is unclear. Folk, who is now running for Hennepin County attorney, said he’s not aware of any cases of officers shooting someone in Minnesota in which the BCA was not involved.

“They are the law enforcement organization that we as Minnesotans look to do this kind of investigative work,” Folk said.

If the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office is able to complete a criminal investigation and file charges, they face another difficult task: convincing a federal judge that the ICE officer was not acting reasonably in carrying out his lawful federal duties.

If state charges are filed, the officer will likely ask to move his case to federal court to assert immunity under what’s known as the Supremacy Clause, which protects federal officials from state criminal prosecution if they are reasonably carrying out their duties. Attorneys with the Department of Justice may then assist with his defense.

Whether the officer’s actions are deemed reasonable could hinge on a range of facts from his training to his duties to his subjective beliefs and the U.S. Supreme Court has provided only minimal guidance on how to answer that question, according to Bryna Godar, a staff attorney with the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School.

Still, she emphasized local prosecutors can and have brought charges against federal officials.

“The baseline understanding here is that states can prosecute federal officials when they violate state criminal laws,” Godar said.

If state prosecutors convince a federal judge the officer’s actions were not reasonable, they could continue bringing the case in federal court on state crimes. That’s significant because a conviction for a state crime cannot not be pardoned by the president.

Godar points in a recent article to cases going back to antebellum, when free states charged U.S. marshals for capturing enslaved people under the Fugitive Slave Act. During the Prohibition Era, local prosecutors charged federal officers for using excessive force in shutting down distilleries.

More recently, local prosecutors in Idaho brought a charge of involuntary manslaughter against an FBI sniper who shot and killed an unarmed woman during the siege on Ruby Ridge in 1992. A divided federal appeals court ruled that the case could proceed because of disputed facts over whether the agent acted “reasonably.”

“Where we see those state prosecutions going ahead is where the use of force is deemed unreasonable or excessive or unlawful,” Godar said.

But that case may offer a cautionary tale for Minnesota: The case wasn’t allowed to proceed until 2001, nearly a decade later. Then the case was dropped by the newly elected prosecutor.

Good’s killing was the ninth shooting by an immigration officer in just the past four months and at least the second killing, with all of them involving firing at people in vehicles, according to a New York Times report. On Thursday, federal agents shot two more people in Portland, Ore.

In each of the recent ICE shootings, the government has claimed the officer was acting in self-defense.

A 2024 investigation by The Trace and Business Insider found in 23 fatal shootings by ICE officers from 2015 to 2021, no officers were indicted.

Minnesota prosecutors have won convictions in recent years against officers for killing people in the line of duty — Chauvin, Kim Potter and Mohamed Noor — but they are rare and juries are generally reluctant to convict.

Yet even if a conviction seems unlikely, filing charges allows local prosecutors to register a strong protest against ICE’s aggressive enforcement actions in the state and communicate that officers may not operate with impunity. Not charging would be an admission that federal agents are immune from local accountability as the Trump administration pushes for mass deportation.

Folk said a transparent investigation with clear standards is also important for the public’s faith in the justice system.

“Minnesota has seen firsthand how important it is to do these high-profile investigations the right way,” Folk said. “We deserve a good, thorough investigation, free of any kind of influence.”

Teng Vang, 43, assigned to Oshkosh Correctional Institution died Thursday at a hospital. | Photo courtesy Wisconsin Department of Corrections

A ‘physical disturbance’ involving three incarcerated people occurred on Wednesday afternoon at Oshkosh Correctional Institution, Oshkosh police said in a statement. The department said it is investigating a death that occurred after the disturbance. 

Beth Hardtke, communications director for the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, told the Examiner that Teng Vang, 43, died Thursday at a hospital. He was assigned to Oshkosh Correctional Institution. 

Police said a 43 year-old incarcerated person who assaulted another incarcerated person was secured by prison staff. He experienced a medical emergency and was transported to a local hospital. 

Hardtke wrote that the Oshkosh Police Department is investigating the death and the Department of Corrections is fully cooperating with the investigation.

Vang was found guilty of crimes including attempted first-degree intentional homicide and first-degree recklessly endangering safety. He was released on extended supervision in 2022, which was revoked in 2024. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A section of the U.S.-Mexico border wall near El Paso, Texas, on June 6, 2024. (Photo by Ariana Figueroa/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader John Thune, joined at the U.S.-Mexico border Friday by a handful of other Republican senators, highlighted the president’s signature tax cuts and spending package passed last year that provided billions for immigration enforcement.

The press conference in McAllen, Texas, came after a federal immigration officer shot and killed a woman in Minneapolis on Wednesday, and two people were shot by Border Patrol agents late Thursday in Portland, Oregon.

Thune, a South Dakota Republican, touted how the tax cuts and spending package signed into law last summer also provided “for additional reinforcements,” such as the hiring of more Border Patrol and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. 

On Jan. 3, ICE announced it hired 12,000 new officers, more than doubling its force from 10,000 agents to 22,000. Thousands more are set to be hired.

The GOP-passed bill also included $4.1 billion for Customs and Border Protection to hire 5,000 customs officers and 3,000 Border Patrol agents over the next four years.

Thune said because migration at the southern border has slowed, the time has come for President Donald Trump to shift his focus to immigration reform. CBP data from November, the most recent available, shows total apprehensions at the southwest border slowed to 7,350 that month.

“I think President Trump is probably the president best equipped to lead the effort to reform immigration law in his country in a way that it creates, again, those better paying jobs, opportunities for people who come to the country legally,” Thune said. “We are a nation of immigrants, but we’re also a nation of laws, and we have to make sure we’re enforcing our laws, and that’s where it starts.”

The Trump administration has continued with its aggressive mass deportation efforts throughout the interior of the country and has moved to revoke the legal status of more than 1.5 million immigrants since taking office last January. 

Thune added that the GOP bill, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill, also provided billions for border security.

“As a result of the passage of the One Big, Beautiful bill … we got more resources down here, not only for physical infrastructure, for the wall, but for also that virtual infrastructure, for technology and counter drone technology, all those sorts of things that make it possible for the Border Patrol to do their job,” he said.

Thune was joined by Whip John Barrasso of Wyoming and Sens. John Cornyn of Texas, Ashley Moody of Florida, Jon Husted of Ohio, Mike Rounds of South Dakota and Pete Ricketts of Nebraska.

Rounds said that under the Trump administration the southern border has undergone “a remarkable transformation.” 

“There is no such thing as a country that can be a superpower, or, for that matter, be free if they can’t defend their own borders,” Rounds said. 

Cornyn also highlighted how the bill will reimburse, up to $13.5 billion, those border states who have spent money on immigration enforcement. He said of that money, Texas will get $11 billion. 

A hemp plant at a Cottage Grove farm. Hemp, used for industrial purposes and now grown legally in Wisconsin, is made from a variety of the cannabis plant that is low in THC, the active ingredient that is responsible for the intoxicating effect of marijuana. (Wisconsin Examiner photo)

Wisconsin lawmakers are backing competing visions for the future of hemp in the state. One proposal, (SB 682), was discussed during a Thursday meeting of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Revenue. The bill would create a regulatory structure for hemp-derived cannabis products which would preserve the state’s hemp industry despite a federal ban set to take effect in November. Without state-level intervention, or the federal government choosing to reverse course, hemp growers and distributors fear that Wisconsin’s $700 million industry and about 3,500 jobs will disappear.

Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point), chair of the  Agriculture and Revenue Committee presented the bipartisan hemp bill to his committee, which he authored with bipartisan support. Testin’s legislation would define hemp as cannabis plants with no more than 0.3% of delta-9 THC (or the maximum concentration allowable under federal law up to 1%, whichever is greater) and define “hemp-derived cannabinoids” as any such compound extracted from the hemp plant. THC concentrations would be determined using specific high-performance testing methods. 

Wisconsinites would need to be at least 21 years old to purchase hemp-derived cannabinoid products under the bill, which mandates that products undergo independent lab testing to ensure that they contain the amount and type of cannabinoids described on the product’s label. This practice, known as truth-in labeling, is something the hemp industry has called for in recent years. 

Products could not be sold under the bill without labeling including contact information for the manufacturer or brand owner, serving sizes per container of product, ingredient lists including allergens, potency labeled in milligrams, and any necessary warnings. Under the bill, hemp-derived products could not contain more than 10 milligrams of THC in a single serving. 

Testin said Thursday that globally, the industrial hemp market was valued at roughly $11 billion in 2025, and is expected to reach $48 billion by 2032. “Despite its wide availability, the regulation of [hemp-derived cannabinoid] products is essentially non-existent, leaving a patchwork of different approaches taken by states across the country,” he said. 

In Wisconsin, such products “are generally recognized as legal but unregulated,” Testin said. “There are no state laws that restrict the sale to minors, regulate the potency or content of [hemp-derived cannabinoid products], or establish labeling or packaging requirements.” Minnesota, Kentucky, Tennessee and other states have moved to enact their own regulations, Testin said. “Regulations are needed to eliminate the current uncertainty regarding the status of [hemp-derived cannabinoid products], provide stability and certainty for businesses looking to enter this segment of the economy, and enact public safety regulations.”

Both Testin and Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc) have worked on hemp laws for Wisconsin since the federal Farm Bill passed in 2018. “I’ve actually grown hemp,” said Kurtz, recalling that in 2019 “it was kind of a wide open market.” People that Kurtz and others called “bad actors” throughout the hearing also rode the hemp wave, seeing it as a “get rich quick scheme.” Kurtz said that today, the hemp industry is filled with people who want to do the right thing, but that “bad actors” have persisted. 

Kurtz said SB 682 is designed to ensure that Wisconsinites “get the very best product, and they know what they’re getting.” He stressed that “if we do nothing, then hemp is going to be illegal at the federal level…but it will still be legal here in the state of Wisconsin. So I think it would behoove us to work together, get a good compromise, a good common sense piece of legislation to make sure that we — in my humble opinion — protect our constituents, but also protect an industry that I think is needed.” 

Although hemp would be illegal at the federal level, a state-level industry could still operate similarly to the way some states have fully legal recreational or legalized cannabis programs, largely because the federal government has not cracked down on those industries. 

Testin added that “regardless of anyone’s thoughts as it relates to cannabis and cannabinoids, it’s here. And obviously we have a lot of different approaches as to how to best move forward.” He repeatedly took aim at the “stupidity” of what he described as “our overlords” in Washington D.C., but also criticized other hemp-related bills being pushed in Wisconsin. Whereas some Republicans are seeking to ban hemp products outright, others have differing ideas about how a legal industry should be regulated. 

A bill introduced by Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto), SB 681, would require that manufacturers and distributors of hemp-derived cannabinoid products have permits. Products would be sold under a three-tier system, and would be regulated similarly to alcohol under the Division of Alcohol Beverages, a component of the Department of Revenue, which would be renamed to the Division of Intoxicating Products. 

Although both Testin and Wimberger’s bills have gained bipartisan support, Testin described Wimberger’s bill as “the dead bill” and “deader than dead.” Testin argued that SB 681 would over-regulate the hemp industry, and even lead to a monopolization effect where a small number of entities could control who gets hemp permits, shape an otherwise competitive market, and operate in a “good ol’ boys club” manner. 

Sen. Sarah Keyeski (D-Lodi) highlighted  the divide among state Republicans over hemp and cannabis products, stressing that Democrats are not the ones holding up legalization and regulation.

The committee room was filled with people from across the hemp industry who listened to the conversation. When lawmakers questioned how to ensure that children do not acquire intoxicating hemp products, distributors and manufacturers pointed to age-verification software even for online sales, which require a photograph and image of a driver’s license to approve an order. There was also discussion about how to prevent products from being marketed to children using cartoon-like advertising and appealing candy wrappers. 

Some veterans testified, describing how hemp helped them alleviate pain, kick addictive pain killers, soothed PTSD symptoms, and calmed the body for sleep. Other testimony centered on the danger involved in crossing state lines to Michigan or Illinois to acquire cannabis to treat various medical conditions. Hemp farmers stressed that they need to know now how they will be affected by a looming federal ban as they decide when or whether to plant their crops in the spring. 

Much of the public testimony was supportive of  Testin’s bill, though some speakers said that it needed to be amended to protect farmers and growers, and also expand the kinds of products it would cover including drinks and gummies. 

“Yes, we are now in a scenario where there are intoxicating hemp products,” said Testin. “But just no different than anything like beer, wine, or alcohol, we need to have some sensible regulations put in place, which this bill aims to do just that.”

As for “concerns about getting baked or getting high from these products,” Testin added, “it’s no different than those individuals who go out and consume too many old fashioneds at fish fry on a Friday night, or have too many beers. It’s about personal choice and responsibility, but at the same time making sure that we have some regulations put in place.”

The hemp industry deserves to “thrive and grow,” Testin said, while the public deserves protection and to know “that this stuff isn’t falling into the hands of people it shouldn’t be in, like kids.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Deputy State Superintendent Tom McCarthy speaks to Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) after delivering testimony on AB 678. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Wisconsin school districts would be required to establish policies on appropriate communication between students and staff members before the next school year, under a bill that received a public hearing Thursday. 

The bill comes in reaction to a report from the Capital Times in November that found over 200 investigations into teacher licenses due to allegations of sexual misconduct or grooming from 2018 to 2023. Another bill coauthored by Nedweski, AB 677, making grooming a felony crime in Wisconsin received a public hearing earlier this week.

“Many of these cases begin with the erosion of professional boundaries when a school employee starts communicating with the students inappropriately often outside of school hours and without parent knowledge usually through the use of text messaging and social media,”  Nedweski told the Assembly Education Committee. “While the vast majority of school staff use these tools responsibly, a small number have exploited that access — sometimes leading to devastating consequences.”

AB 678 would require Wisconsin school boards to adopt a policy on appropriate communications between students and employees or volunteers in the school district.

“This bill preserves local control. It does not mandate a one-size-fits-all policy; instead it allows each school district to determine what communication policies work best for its own community,” Nedweski said.

The policies would need to include specific consequences for staff who violate the policy and specify that it applies to communications during and outside of school hours. The policy would need to include standards for appropriate content and methods of communication.

An amendment to the bill, which Nedweski said came at the request of the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) and other stakeholders, would require annual training for employees on identifying, preventing and reporting grooming and professional boundary violations. 

The Department of Public Instruction has worked with Nedweski on the legislation and supports it. 

“We think this is a good effort to get the conversation started,” Deputy State Superintendent Tom McCarthy said, noting the agency has been working on policy related to appropriate communication for over eight years. He said there are a lot of districts that are using technology for software that allows them to track communications. 

“There’s a bit of a dichotomy with this issue. We know that in order to educate kids we need to foster and build relationships with students and families, and so we do encourage appropriate communication in every school district,” McCarthy said, adding that the policy and training would be critical. “You will find some circumstances where you’re going to want communication and it might not be as neat and tidy as you’d expect it to be. There are always emergency circumstances where a teacher might need to call a student directly… so we want some policies to be flexible to address those areas.” 

Chris Kulow, director of government relations for the Wisconsin Association of School Boards (WASB), said the organization had some concerns about the language in the bill related to consequences. He testified for information only, noting the issue of communication between staff and students is not new to school districts. 

“Although recent news coverage and increased interest from state policymakers may make this appear to be a new issue, it is not new to schools. School boards have long recognized the need for policies addressing appropriate communication and professional boundaries between pupils and staff. Many districts have already adopted such policies,” Kulow said. “This bill may require some districts to update existing policies to reflect its specific language and to the extent it prompts boards to review and strengthen policies is beneficial.” 

Kulow said complying with the provision related to consequences as currently written would be challenging as violations can vary widely and require a wide range of responses. The organization wanted the provision removed, but said Nedweski wanted something related to be included in the bill. 

“Attempting to predetermine specific consequences for every specific scenario may be impractical and could complicate the disciplinary process,” Kulow said. “We suggested revising the language in the bill to read that ‘the school board shall include in the policy a range of consequences up to and including termination.’”

The bill currently only covers Wisconsin public schools, though Nedweski told Democratic lawmakers, who expressed concerns about the bill not including the state’s private voucher schools, that she is working on an amendment. 

“We need to protect all kids. This is such a growing problem. We’ve seen just an increase in inappropriate communication,” Nedweski said.

Democratic lawmakers, including Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison), also asked whether lawmakers would be open to including funding for school districts to support the implementation of the bill. 

Nedweski said she hasn’t had any requests for funding from schools or the DPI throughout the development of the bill.

“I think it’s a serious enough issue, a weighty enough issue, that all schools can find the resources to craft a policy and do some training to make sure they are protecting children,” Nedweski said, adding that DPI already has modules related to this type of training.

McCarthy said additional funding, including the release of $1 million set aside for the agency in the state budget, could help speed along the process. Those funds, which sit in a supplemental fund, can only be released by the Joint Finance Committee. He said without the funds the agency could potentially have to cut down on staff and other areas of its operations, which could affect how quickly work is done.

Under the bill in its current form, school boards would need to adopt a policy by July 1, 2026. 

McCarthy said DPI would like to see an amendment that would move the deadline for policy adoption to a later date, saying DPI may need a longer “runway” to ensure the agency has time to change and update policies and training if needed. He told the Wisconsin Examiner that some of the changes could be necessary if Nedweski’s grooming bill becomes law. 

Rich Judge, assistant state superintendent for the division of government and public affairs, also noted that school boards would need to have time to meet, develop and approve policies. 

Nedweski said in a written statement to the Examiner that she is taking the agency’s suggestion under consideration and is discussing potential dates. One potential date could be Sept. 1, 2026, she said. 

“If AB 678 is signed into law, the goal is for school districts to have these policies in place for the 2026–27 school year,” Nedweski said. She noted that some of the agency’s concerns are tied to her other bill. “This only underscores the importance of passing AB 677 and getting it signed into law promptly to ensure that districts across Wisconsin can take the necessary steps to better protect students in school.”

The U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 1, 2025, at the beginning of a government shutdown of historic length. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Republicans and Democrats in Congress are cautiously optimistic they can enact the remaining government funding bills before their deadline at the end of the month, avoiding another shutdown. 

The milestone would represent an accomplishment for the typically gridlocked Congress, though it comes months after lawmakers’ original October deadline and the longest shutdown in history that reverberated throughout the country.  

Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, said recently negotiators are making “progress” toward agreement on the unresolved bills, which include funding for the departments of Defense, Health and Human Services and Homeland Security.

Those three bills are the most complicated to resolve and this year will be no exception given President Donald Trump’s actions on immigration, deportation and military intervention in Venezuela. 

Washington Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, ranking member on the committee, was somewhat less optimistic than her colleague about the likelihood all of the bills become law. But she didn’t rule it out. 

“It’s up to the Republican leadership,” Murray said. “We’re working hard to get our end of it done.”

House approves some spending

Congress approved three of the dozen annual spending bills in the package that ended the shutdown in November, providing funding for their own offices and operations; military construction projects; the Agriculture Department; and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The package provided stopgap spending for the remaining federal programs in the other nine bills. 

The House voted 397-28 Thursday to approve the Energy-Water, Commerce-Justice-Science and Interior-Environment spending bills, sending them to the Senate, where Collins expects that chamber will take a procedural vote Monday.

Collins said the remaining six unresolved bills will likely move through Congress in two separate packages — one funding financial services, homeland security, the State Department and foreign operations as well as one funding defense, education, health care, housing and transportation programs. 

If Congress finishes work on the full slate of bills, which will likely account for about $1.8 trillion in spending, it would mark the end of the first annual appropriations process of Trump’s second term in office.

Minnesota ICE shooting jolts process

The biggest hurdle to completing work on all of the bills will be reaching consensus on funding for the Homeland Security Department, especially after an immigration agent shot and killed a woman in Minnesota. 

Collins said a day after the Jan. 7 incident that members of both political parties in both chambers continue to work on the bill and praised subcommittee Chairwoman Katie Britt of Alabama for “doing a really good job.”

Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy, ranking member on the subcommittee, however, said there must be “constraints” on how immigration agents are operating. 

Murphy said the sharp increase in hiring at Immigration and Customs Enforcement as well as Customs and Border Protection, spurred by billions in additional funding included in Republicans’ big, beautiful bill, “likely resulted in people being out there on our streets who don’t have the necessary training.”

“Now I’m not saying that’s part of the story yesterday, but we know that they are not applying the same standards and the same training that they have in the past,” Murphy said. “There’s a broader question about whether CBP is qualified to operate in the interior at all. From my understanding, CBP was part of that deployment yesterday that resulted in the murder of this young woman.”

Murphy said he has a “handful of ideas” about how to address his and other Democrats’ concerns about how the Trump administration has approached immigration enforcement, while acknowledging any final agreement will need Republican support to move through Congress. 

“I won’t be asking for the moon. We’re not going to fix all of these issues. And I’m not looking for comprehensive immigration reform at all,” Murphy said. “But some targeted improvements in the way that ICE and CBP are operating, I think, are going to be necessary.”

Murphy said he believes there is time to work out a bipartisan solution on that spending bill before the Jan. 30 shutdown deadline. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said during a press conference that the leaders on the Appropriations Committee and the subcommittee are having an “important and serious discussion” about the funding bill after the shooting. 

Congress could pass a stopgap spending bill for programs within the Homeland Security Department, which includes the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to keep everything up and running for the rest of the fiscal year. The fall-back option can be used when consensus on a full-year bill isn’t possible. 

That type of funding bill, known as a continuing resolution, would keep DHS’ funding mostly flat and avoid the need for it to shut down after the current funding law expires at the end of the month. It would leave in place the types of policies that DHS has been operating under all year. 

Negotiations continue

House Appropriations Committee ranking member Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., said Wednesday talks on the unsettled bills are “going well” and that she expects lawmakers to meet their Jan. 30 deadline.

House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., said his “goal” is to approve the leftover bills before the end of the month, avoiding the need for Congress to use another stopgap measure to keep the government up and running or face a shutdown. 

While the groupings Collins outlined may seem random, Cole said appropriators spent a good bit of time contemplating how to package the remaining bills. 

“There was a lot of thought given to how to work these things together and what would maximize support on each side,” Cole said. “Obviously, those discussions were had not just amongst Republicans but our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and in the other chamber. So we think that’s the best package to move forward.” 

Congress rarely approves the final versions of the government funding bills one-by-one and used to approve all 12 in one omnibus package, though Republican opposition to that has led to smaller “minibuses.”

Cole said negotiations between Republicans and Democrats on final versions of the full-year spending bills are being undertaken by subcommittee leaders. 

“If you can solve these problems at the subcommittee level, you’ve got the most knowledgeable people, the people that care the most on both sides of the aisle,” Cole said. “The further up the food chain it goes — whether to my colleagues in the four corners (of the Appropriations Committee) or to leadership — the more political decisions come, and the less knowledgeable the people making the decision are about the topic.”

Wisconsin Sen. Tammy Baldwin, the top Democrat on the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee, said that “great progress” had been made so far toward final agreement on that bill.

“I’m very hopeful and encouraged, given the work that’s been done so far, that we can do that,” Baldwin said. 

Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy cast doubt on his colleagues’ ability to reach consensus on the last six bills, saying it will be “difficult” to work out final agreements in the time left. 

“I wouldn’t bet my house on it,” Kennedy said. “And if I were betting your house, it would be just a maybe.”

Kennedy said he isn’t involved in the negotiations on those bills but expects negotiators are “fighting over something.” Kennedy is chairman of the Energy-Water Appropriations Subcommittee, which already completed work on its bill. 

Ariana Figueroa contributed to this report. 

Portland police officers stand behind police tape in front of an apartment building in east Portland. (Photo by Alex Baumhardt/Oregon Capital Chronicle)

Federal agents reportedly shot and injured two people near a medical clinic in east Portland on Thursday afternoon, according to the Portland Police Bureau.

The Department of Homeland Security acknowledged the shooting on social media, though it referred to a U.S. Border Protection agent firing “a defensive shot.” Police had few immediate details to share about the incident, which occurred the day after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer shot and killed a woman in Minneapolis. 

Like Minneapolis, Oregon’s largest city has been the subject of an intense immigration crackdown by federal agents in recent months. While a federal judge stymied President Donald Trump’s efforts to mobilize the Oregon National Guard and deploy guardsmen from other states to Portland, federal officials revealed in court in December that they’ve brought ICE agents from around the country to the metro as part of a major operation.

The Homeland Security Department claimed that agents were conducting a targeted stop against a Venezuelan national affiliated with the transnational Tren de Aragua criminal group, and that the driver attempted to run over agents when they identified themselves. The agency made similar claims about the Minneapolis shooting, though bystander videos from multiple angles showed that the officer fired into Renee Nicole Good’s car after he was clear of the car’s path. 

No such videos were immediately available of the Portland incident, which occurred near a medical campus on Southeast Main Street. 

“We are still in the early stages of this incident,” Portland Police Chief Bob Day said in a statement. “We understand the heightened emotion and tension many are feeling in the wake of the shooting in Minneapolis, but I am asking the community to remain calm as we work to learn more.”

Multnomah County Sheriff Nicole Morrisey O’Donnell said in a statement that the FBI is handling an investigation into the shooting. Attorney General Dan Rayfield announced Thursday evening that his office will investigate whether any federal officers acted outside the scope of their authority, in keeping with a November warning he and district attorneys of the state’s three largest counties gave the federal government that the state will investigate and prosecute federal agents who engage in excessive force.

“We have been clear about our concerns with the excessive use of force by federal agents in Portland, and today’s incident only heightens the need for transparency and accountability,” Rayfield said. “Oregonians deserve clear answers when people are injured in their neighborhoods.”

Shooting reported mid-afternoon

Police received reports of a shooting on the 10200 block of Southeast Main Street at 2:18 p.m. Six minutes later, they received a call for help from a man at Northeast 146th Avenue and East Burnside, a 10-minute drive away. 

The shooting occurred near an Adventist Health building with several offices and medical clinics, the health organization confirmed in an email. The clinics closed for the rest of the day, and Portland Police were seen escorting people out in the evening. 

Police found a man and woman with apparent gunshot wounds. Emergency responders transported both people to the hospital and their condition is unknown, according to police. 

State Rep. Ricki Ruiz, D-Gresham, represents a neighboring state House district and spoke to the Capital Chronicle near an apartment complex where the shooting victims called for help. He said the two were hospitalized at Oregon Health & Science University and he was unsure of their condition.

A woman he spoke to said she spotted U.S. Border Patrol agents roaming the area earlier this morning, Ruiz said.

Lilian Rubi Herrera, who spoke to the Capital Chronicle in Spanish outside the apartment building, receives donations from her followers on social media to buy groceries for immigrants who are fearful of leaving their homes. She was in the neighborhood distributing food when she heard about the shooting and went to the scene. 

Herrera said her social media followers are extremely sad because of the shooting in Minneapolis.

“Out of all the years I’ve lived here, I never thought I would witness this type of treatment from the federal government.” she said. “They treat us worse than dogs, and that’s not fair. We must use our voices and seek help for our community.” 

A Capital Chronicle reporter saw men wearing FBI gear walking around the apartment complex behind police tape. 

State, local leaders condemn shooting, urge caution

Within hours of the shooting, about 150 people had gathered outside Portland City Hall, chanting “abolish ICE.” Some held candles and anti-ICE signs as they waited to hear from city councilors.

Portland City Councilor Angelita Morillo, speaking to the crowd, called upon Congress and local officials to resist ICE operations and strip funding from the agency.

“The reality is that anyone who chooses to stand in solidarity with our community is putting themselves directly in harm’s way, because that’s what it means to sacrifice and to love your neighbor,” she said. “And what I see here is we have a group of people that is prepared to do anything and everything to take care of our immigrant community.”

Councilor Candace Avalos said the recent shooting victims were her constituents in her city councils’s district, arguing that “this is what the Trump administration’s deportation agenda looks like.” She called for the audience to keep organizing until ICE agents leave the city.

“We keep each other safe when ICE shows up in our neighborhoods, it’s not politicians who stop them,” she said. “It’s neighborhood whistles, with their phones out, standing shoulder and shoulder, forcing them out of our communities.”

Portland Mayor Keith Wilson called on ICE to immediately pause its operations in Portland and urged residents to remain calm.

“We cannot sit by while constitutional protections erode and bloodshed mounts. Portland is not a ‘training ground’ for militarized agents, and the ‘full force’ threatened by the administration has deadly consequences,” Wilson said. “As mayor, I call on ICE to end all operations in Portland until a full investigation can be completed.”

U.S. Rep. Maxine Dexter, a Democrat who represents Portland, also urged her constituents to stay calm and said local law enforcement must be able to conduct a full investigation. 

“ICE has done nothing but inject terror, chaos, and cruelty into our communities,” Dexter said. “Trump’s immigration machine is using violence to control our communities—straight out of the authoritarian playbook. ICE must immediately end all active operations in Portland.”

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, added that he was monitoring reports, and that “Trump’s deployment of federal agents in my hometown is clearly inflaming violence — and must end.”

Reporter Mia Maldonado contributed to this report.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., speaks as U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., looks on during a news conference at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 8, 2026 in Washington, D.C. Schumer and Jeffries spoke to reporters on topics including upcoming floor legislation extending health insurance subsidies. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House approved a bipartisan bill Thursday to resurrect the enhanced tax credits that expired at the end of last year for people who purchase their health insurance from the Affordable Care Act marketplace.

The 230-196 vote sends the legislation to the Senate, where Republican leadership is unlikely to put it on the floor without considerable changes, which a bipartisan group of senators appears close to finalizing. Seventeen Republicans voted with every Democrat to pass the bill. 

House GOP leaders didn’t want to bring the bill up in their chamber, but a handful of their own members signed a discharge petition in December, forcing the vote amid rising health care costs. 

Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern said during floor debate on Wednesday evening “it’s about damn time” the chamber took up a bill to address the now-expired tax credits, arguing lawmakers have a “moral obligation to act” to help people afford health insurance.

“This Congress musters up the will to spend trillions of dollars on tax breaks for billionaires and to send the Pentagon billions of dollars more than they even asked for. And the administration came up with tens of billions of dollars to bail out Argentina, for God’s sake,” McGovern said. “But somehow helping moms and dads, grandparents and kids afford trips to the doctor is a step too far for this Republican leadership.”

New York GOP Rep. Mike Lawler said he only backed the bill after Republican leaders declined to bring up a bipartisan two-year compromise bill he helped negotiate last year. 

“I am voting in favor of this discharge and of this legislation to send it to the Senate so that the Senate will have the opportunity to put forth a reform package that can pass Congress and become law,” Lawler said. 

Republicans and Democrats, he said, agree that the country’s health care system is in need of a serious overhaul. He called on his colleagues to find solutions to the bigger, more structural issues. 

“Enough of the blame game on both sides,” Lawler said. “Let’s focus on actually delivering affordable health care for Americans.”

Prolonged fight over ACA tax credits 

Democrats originally established the enhanced ACA marketplace tax credits during the coronavirus pandemic in an attempt to get more people health insurance coverage. They set the subsidies to expire at the end of 2025.

The debate over the sunset date simmered in the background for much of last year but surged to the forefront in October after Democrats shut down the government and repeatedly demanded GOP leaders negotiate an extension to the expiring enhanced tax credits.

The shutdown ended in mid-November after Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., agreed to give Democrats a vote on a health care bill of their choosing in December. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., ultimately decided to bring up a three-year extension of the enhanced tax credits without any changes, but it failed to get the 60 votes needed to advance.

A proposal from Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy and Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo, both Republicans, that would have provided funding through Health Savings Accounts for some ACA marketplace enrollees during 2026 and 2027 also failed to move toward final passage. 

A House Republican health care bill passed that chamber last month, but doesn’t have the bipartisan support to move through the Senate and become law. 

Senate problems

Thune said Tuesday any renewal of the enhanced ACA marketplace subsidies would need reforms to move through that chamber.

The bill, he said, would need to set income limits on who qualifies for the enhanced tax credit and eliminate ACA health insurance plans that have $0 premiums, a feature Republicans allege allowed insurance companies to enroll people without their knowledge to receive the subsidy. 

“And then the second component would be some sort of a bridge to (Health Savings Accounts). An expansion of HSAs so that you’re getting more money into the pockets of the American people, the patients, if you will, the consumers, as opposed to insurance companies,” Thune said. “And then finally you’ve got to deal with the Hyde issue.”

The Hyde Amendment has been a feature of government spending bills for decades, preventing federal dollars from going to abortions unless the pregnancy is the result of rape, or incest, or threatens the woman’s life. 

Republicans want the prohibition to apply to all ACA marketplace health insurance plans without any way for Americans to pay for the coverage themselves, the way they do now. Democrats have rejected the change as a non-starter that would restrict abortion access in blue states. 

‘Be a little flexible on Hyde,’ says Trump

President Donald Trump waded into that debate this week, telling House Republicans during a policy retreat at the Kennedy Center they must be “flexible” about the Hyde Amendment in order to broker a health care deal that can reach his desk. 

“You have to be a little flexible on Hyde. You know that. You’ve got to be a little flexible,” Trump said. “You’ve got to work something. You’ve got to use ingenuity. You’ve got to work. We’re all big fans of everything, but you’ve got to have flexibility.”

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser rebuked Trump for the comment, writing in a statement that to “suggest Republicans should be ‘flexible’ is an abandonment of this decades-long commitment. If Republicans abandon Hyde, they are sure to lose this November.”

States have a patchwork of laws addressing abortion coverage in ACA  marketplace health insurance plans, with 25 prohibiting coverage with certain exceptions and 12 requiring abortion coverage, according to analysis from the nonpartisan health research organization KFF.

“In states that do not bar coverage of abortions on plans available through the Marketplace, insurers may offer a plan that covers abortions beyond the permissible Hyde amendment situations when the pregnancy is a result of rape, or incest or the pregnant person’s life is endangered, but this coverage cannot be paid with federal dollars.”

Any ACA marketplace health insurance plan that offers abortion coverage in circumstances outside those three exceptions must charge each enrollee $1 for that coverage, according to KFF.

Behind the scenes in the Senate

A bipartisan group of senators has been talking behind the scenes for months about how to extend the ACA marketplace subsidies with changes. 

Ohio Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno said Thursday he expects the group, which has agreed on a “framework,” to release a bill next week, though he cautioned that’s just one small step. 

“We have agreement that we think we have a skeleton of a deal. But it’s all fun and games until you have it on paper in a bill form,” Moreno said. “So we have to do that. And then we have to go sell the heck out of it to our conference. And again, look, this is politics. There’s people on both sides that want this to fail. So we have to get past that massive mountain.”

Moreno said the tentative plan is to revive the enhanced ACA marketplace tax credit for another two years with modifications.

The bill would also: 

• Extend open enrollment for this year until March 1.
• Cap the enhanced subsidy for people making under 700% of the federal poverty level, or about $109,550 in annual income for one person, according to the guidelines for 2025.
• Require people eligible for the enhanced tax credit to pay at least $5 per month or $60 per year for their health insurance to ensure the enrollee knows about their coverage.
• Fine insurance companies $1,000 for “deliberately causing fraud, meaning signing someone up without their consent.”

ACA marketplace enrollees eligible for the enhanced tax credit would have a choice in 2027 to either keep the lower premium that stems from the health insurance company receiving the subsidy, or move to a Health Savings Account where they would receive the money from the government. 

“The final piece, which I think is the biggest sweetener to the whole deal, is putting back in place cost-sharing reduction payments, which, according to (the Congressional Budget Office), reduce premiums for everybody in the exchange by 11% and save the federal government money,” Moreno said, later clarifying that would happen in 2027.  

There is not yet a final proposal regarding how ACA marketplace plans handle abortion coverage in states where it’s allowed, he said. 

The handshake agreement, Moreno said, is intended to give Congress time to overhaul the bigger issues facing the country’s health insurance and health care systems in a way that reduces costs.

Gang of negotiators

Moreno said the core group of negotiators, which he nicknamed the EPTCOG gang on his text chain, includes six Democrats and five of his Republican Senate colleagues. There are 24 senators total in the “extended OG” gang. 

Moreno believes one of his advantages in the negotiations is that he hasn’t been around the Senate that long, having just been elected in 2024. He said senators are also handling the details themselves, instead of deferring much of the work to staff. 

“This has been principals only. We don’t even allow staff in meetings,” Moreno said. “And the idea is if we can’t work it out, there’s really no point in tasking this with staff.”

New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, one of the negotiators, said Wednesday she wasn’t aware of a deadline for the negotiators to release a bill. She also brushed aside the possibility of changes to how the ACA handles abortion coverage. 

“There is no need to come to a compromise because it’s already been dealt with in the Affordable Care Act,” Shaheen said. “There is very specific language on how it is dealt with. And I think that applies to whatever happens with the Affordable Care Act.”

Shaheen said Thursday the House vote “provides momentum” for Senate negotiators.

Vice President JD Vance speaks during a news briefing in the White House briefing room on January 8, 2026. Vance joined White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt to address several topics including the Jan. 7, 2026, fatal shooting of a woman by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer during a confrontation in Minneapolis. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Vice President JD Vance said Thursday the Trump administration would stand by the federal immigration officer who shot and killed a woman in Minneapolis the day prior. 

Vance defended the immigration officer’s actions as “self-defense” and berated journalists for covering the story, including by reporting that on-the-scene videos contradicted claims from the Trump administration that 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good used her vehicle to harm the immigration officer who fired three shots into her windshield. 

“I would appreciate everybody saying a prayer for that agent,” Vance said. “I think the media prejudging and talking about this guy as if he’s a murderer is one of the most disgraceful things I’ve ever seen from the American media.”

The Minnesota Star Tribune identified the federal immigration officer as Jonathan Ross, who Vance said was hit by a vehicle during an immigration operation six months ago.

An analysis from The New York Times of videos from three different angles show Good turning her SUV away from Ross and that he was not in the path of her vehicle when he fired three shots at close range into her windshield. 

“That ICE officer nearly had his life ended, dragged by a car six months ago, 33 stitches in his leg so you think maybe he’s a little bit sensitive about somebody ramming him with an automobile,” Vance said. 

Vance also accused Good of impeding a law enforcement operation.

“I’m not happy that this woman was there at a protest violating the law by interfering with the law enforcement action,” he said. “I think that we can all recognize that the best way to turn down the temperature is to tell people to take their concerns about immigration policy to the ballot box, stop assaulting and stop inciting violence against our law enforcement officers.”

DHS operation to continue

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem also defended the immigration agent during a Thursday press conference.

“This is an experienced officer who followed his training,” she said.

The federal immigration operation in Minneapolis began last month but intensified this week after a right-wing influencer reported day care centers run by members of the Somali community as fraudulent. 

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said during the briefing that the aggressive immigration enforcement in Minnesota would continue. 

“The Department of Homeland Security will continue to operate on the ground in Minnesota, not only to remove criminal illegal aliens, but also to continue conducting door-to-door investigations of the rampant fraud that has taken place in the state under the failed and corrupt leadership of Democrat Gov. Tim Walz,” Leavitt said. 

‘Absolute immunity’

The FBI has refused to allow the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension from the investigation to have access to evidence or other case materials in order to investigate the shooting.  

When reporters in the White House briefing room pressed Vance on why the FBI is refusing to cooperate with local law enforcement officials, Vance said it was a federal issue.

“The idea that Tim Walz and a bunch of radicals in Minneapolis are going to go after and make this guy’s life miserable because he was doing the job that he was asked to do is preposterous,” Vance said. “The unprecedented thing is the idea that a local official can actually prosecute a federal official with absolute immunity.”

A federal officer can be prosecuted by local and state authorities if a federal official violates state criminal laws. 

Absolute immunity is applied to civil liability, and extended to certain positions such as the president, judges and legislatures acting in their official duty. Qualified immunity is usually applied to the conduct of law enforcement and grants them immunity from certain legal actions.

Congressional Democrats have decried the shooting and have called for a criminal investigation. 

A nurse gives a vaccine to a child. (Getty Images)

State health officials won’t change their recommendations for childhood vaccines, endorsing the guidance of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services announced Thursday.

The announcement comes three days after the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Monday scaled back its list of recommended childhood vaccines — reducing the number of diseases for which vaccines are recommended for all children from 17 to 11.

The scaled-down recommendation has alarmed public health organizations and providers across the country.

“No new clinical data on either safety or effectiveness were presented that would justify these changes,” wrote Dr. Ryan Westergaard, the DHS chief medical officer and state epidemiologist for communicable disease, in a memo sent Thursday to providers and organizations that offer vaccination services in Wisconsin.

In place of the revised CDC recommendation, DHS is recommending that health providers refer to the immunization schedule published by the American Academy of Pediatrics “as the standard of care when they provide care to children and adolescents,” Westergaard said Thursday afternoon. 

“We update recommendations when new, high-quality evidence shows that a change would improve safety or effectiveness,” he told reporters at a media briefing. “We’ve not seen any new evidence that would justify changing long-standing recommendations that have successfully protected children in the United States for decades.”

In the CDC’s new list, some vaccines formerly recommended for all children were reclassified as primarily for “certain high risk groups,” Westergaard said. Other vaccines were assigned a category to be considered “only after an individualized risk assessment.”

After reviewing those changes, however, DHS concluded there was no reason to change Wisconsin’s childhood vaccination recommendations.

“In the past 48 hours, multiple state health departments and leading health and medical organizations have independently reached the same conclusion and issued similar public statements,” Westergaard said. 

The immunization schedules by themselves don’t create legal requirements or mandates. But they have historically been based on “rigorous, transparent processes to evaluate vaccine safety, effectiveness,” he said. “Parents and health care professionals deserve information that’s accurate, credible and consistent.”

Public health professionals have been concerned about declining vaccination rates in Wisconsin, including among children, in recent years. “They’re not as high as we wish they were,” Westergaard said. While most parents do get their children fully vaccinated, “we want that to be as close to 100% as we can.”

But he said he hopes the federal changes will not deter families from getting their children vaccinated. Since the CDC announcement, state and local health departments along with health professionals’ organizations “are speaking with one voice” on the importance of vaccine schedules and the evidence to support them “as the best ways to keep our children healthy,” he said.

Although the CDC has stopped requiring states to report vaccination rates, he said DHS will continue to track that information.

Comparing other countries

The CDC’s revisions followed a directive in December from President Donald Trump to look to other developed countries, including Denmark, in revising the U.S. vaccine schedule. Federal officials said the change was based on that review and called the U.S. a “global outlier” for the number of diseases and vaccine doses in its recommendations.  

“Copying another country’s schedule without its health and social infrastructure will not produce the same health outcomes,”  DHS Secretary Kirsten Johnson said in a statement Thursday. “It creates chaos and confusion and risks the health of Wisconsin’s youngest and most vulnerable citizens.”

While some other countries have fewer routinely recommended vaccines on their schedules, Westergaard said those comparisons ignored other important factors. 

Denmark, for instance, has a smaller and less diverse population, with disease risks that are different from the U.S., and with “a health system that has universal access and very strong primary care continuity,” he said.

“Vaccine schedules are designed around local disease epidemiology and health system capacity,” Westergaard said. “So what works well in Denmark does not automatically translate to a large, diverse country like the United States, which faces different risks, different barriers to other types of preventive care. That’s why US vaccine recommendations should be based on U.S. data and U.S. public health realities.”

Until now, the CDC’s vaccine advisors “have focused on those on-the-ground public health realities, equity concerns, economic concerns in the United States,” he added. “That lens was not used by the federal government” when making its latest changes.

Overcoming confusion

He suggested that parents who may be confused by the new differences between CDC recommendations and those being made by Wisconsin health officials should talk to their personal physicians. 

“We want to communicate to Wisconsin families and communities that the science hasn’t changed and our recommendations haven’t changed,” Westergaard said. The department is also sending the message to the medical community that the state and local health departments along with other health care leaders all agree on maintaining the past recommendations. 

He suggested that the CDC decision to reclassify some diseases that were previously targeted for universal vaccination as better left to  “shared decision-making” on the part of providers and patients is problematic.

“I am very pro-shared clinical decision-making,” said Westergaard, calling informed consent an “ironclad ethical principle” in medical care. 

A universal vaccine schedule doesn’t take that away, he said. But in the past, the CDC and its vaccine advisory panel has distilled a deep reservoir of scientific literature to identify vaccines for which the evidence is especially strong, making them appropriate for virtually the entire population with only limited exceptions. 

In those evaluations, “shared clinical decision-making has been a flag to say, ‘Well, the evidence might not be quite as strong,’” Westergaard said — warranting individual doctor-patient discussions.

For a vaccine that has already passed muster as widely beneficial, the universal recommendation “can save us a lot of time rather than for individual clinicians to look at data, to look up articles, look up reviews for individual vaccines,” he said. 

The science behind the schedule before the CDC made its changes this week “hasn’t changed at all,” Westergaard said, and the AAP’s schedule reflects the longstanding consensus process. 

“That’s the type of thoroughness that is absent from the memo that the federal government released this week that we wanted to draw attention to, and why we shouldn’t change practice based on that — because it hasn’t used that same consensus-building process,” Westergaard said.

DHS administers Wisconsin’s Medicaid programs and said the health insurance program for people with low incomes will cover all the recommended vaccines, including for newborns. They will also remain covered under the Vaccines for Children program.

The Office of the Commissioner of Insurance issued a reminder Thursday that state law requires individual, small group and self-funded health plans to cover immunizations for patients and their dependents from birth without a copayment.

• To check on a child’s vaccine status and recommended vaccines see the  Wisconsin Immunization Registry.
• For clinicians, refer to the DHS Recommended Vaccination Schedule for Wisconsinites.

This report was updated following a DHS media briefing on its announcement Thursday. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A federal agent grabs a demonstrator as they attempt to drive a truck through the area while protesters gather after ICE officers shot and killed a woman through her car window Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2026 near Portland Avenue and 34th Street. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

Minneapolis Public Schools canceled school on Thursday and Friday, citing safety concerns related to incidents involving immigration agents Wednesday.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents deployed tear gas at Roosevelt High School in Minneapolis Wednesday afternoon as students were being dismissed, hours after an ICE agent shot and killed a woman a few miles away, according to the teachers’ union.

The incident occurred hours after an ICE agent shot and killed 37-year-old Renee Good in the Powderhorn neighborhood of Minneapolis, sparking protests and a vigil that attracted thousands. 

Roosevelt High School is home to the Spanish immersion program for Minneapolis Public Schools. The student population is around one-third African American and one-third Hispanic American, according to the district. 

The Minneapolis Federation of Educators Local 59 said in a statement a union member was detained by ICE at the school but later released. 

“We will not tolerate ICE inhibiting our city’s youth from their constitutional right to attend school safely or inhibiting educators from doing their job,” the union’s executive board said in the statement. 

El Colegio High School, a nearby bilingual charter school, announced Wednesday that classes would be held online until further notice. 

ICE Police at Immigration Detention Center. Oneida tribal leaders in Wisconsin announced they would end a contract to build ICE facilities with a the Oneida Engineering Science Construction Group and apologized saying they were previously unaware of the agreement. | Getty Images

Oneida Engineering Science Construction Group (OESC), a Limited Liability Company (LLC) of the Oneida Nation, is taking action to terminate two contracts it has with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to provide engineering services to at least 34 ICE facilities.

The action comes after tribal leaders only recently became aware of the contracts that OESC has through a subsidiary company: Oneida Environmental (OE) that is working in a joint venture with Stantec JV, called Oneida-Stantec JV, LLC.

In a Jan. 2 Oneida Live online meeting, Tribal Chairman Tehassi Hill said he had just learned of the ICE contracts on Monday morning, Dec. 29 through social media posts.

“I want to make sure that I clearly state that the Oneida Business Committee (OBC, the agency that runs the tribe when the tribal governing board is not in session) was not aware of this joint venture or the signing of the contract,” said Hill. “I also stand strong in my words and conviction that the business venture does not align with the nation’s values, our culture and who we are as Haudenosaunee People, and it is something the committee would have never entertained had it been made aware of this.”

Jeff House, chief executive officer (CEO) of OESC, took full responsibility for the contracts, adding  that his motives were to provide a service to ensure the ICE facilities were habitable for residents and also as a business venture to sustain the operation of the LLC’s 500 employees.

“I deeply apologize,” House said. “The decision did come to me and I green-lighted the proposals to go forward, and I know it was a huge mistake.”

House said when he made the decision he wanted  to ensure the facilities would be “up to code, making sure they meet human standards, making sure that it’s properly engineered.” And, he added, “while I don’t approve and am appalled by the ICE activities, these people are being detained and put in a facility somewhere, and what had gone through my mind was, ‘Who’s taking care of them? Who’s looking out for their best interest?’ As much as I have disdain for the ICE activities going on, that’s where my mind went, and I was flabbergasted that I didn’t reach out further and get more information.”

House said he was aware of the recent controversy involving the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation in Kansas to terminate a subsidiary contract with ICE for designing large-scale migrant detention centers, and he applauded the Potawatomi Chairman for noting how Indian people had been treated by the federal government by being placed on reservations and drew parallels to ICE activities.

House said he hadn’t considered the history of tribes and detention when he pursued the ICE contracts, but was more focused on ensuring the ICE facilities would be humane facilities.

According to the Federal Procurement Data System for Oneida-Stantec JV LLC, the recent ICE contract signed on Dec. 26 is for $3.777 million, and another contract signed on Sept. 19 is for $2.601 million.

House said the immediate goal is to begin the process of terminating the Dec. 26 contract, but he noted that the Sept. 19 contract, initiated under the administration of former President Joe Biden, would be more complicated to terminate because work had already begun under that contract.

House emphasized the LLC  would sustain any loss or liability as it pursued the terminations.

To avoid potential liability to the tribe, Chairman Hill noted that the tribe doesn’t directly operate OESC or participate in day-to-day operations to maintain a “corporate veil.”

In a press release, the tribe explained the “corporate veil” is “a legal concept that recognizes a company as a separate legal entity distinct from its shareholders, and it protects shareholders from personal liability for the company’s debts and obligations (meaning the company itself is responsible for its own liabilities).”

However, the OBC does appoint members to the corporate board of OESC, and there are regular reports from the LLC to the OBC.

“It is important to reiterate that the Oneida Business Committee does not approve, negotiate or manage individual contracts of its subsidiaries,” said Hill, “and only provides high-level oversight.”

Hill read a recently passed OBC resolution that directs business decisions to reflect the Oneida Nation values and specifically states that “any employee or representative of Oneida Nation and its tribal corporations to disengage with all grant agreements and contracts that involve Immigration and Customs Enforcement.”

In the future, House said, he will keep the OBC informed of any gray areas of concern.

In 2025, House said, OESC processed $177 million in revenue and made $12 million in profit, most of which was reinvested in the LLC, with a small amount given to the tribe’s general fund. He estimated the valuation of the LLC as somewhere between $80-100 million.

House said one of his primary concerns in securing contracts, most of which are for engineering services, is keeping the LLC’s 500 employees on the job.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., speaks to reporters alongside U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va.,  during a pen and pad meeting with reporters at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 7, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — In a rare rebuke to President Donald Trump, Senate Republicans joined Democrats in advancing a war powers resolution to halt U.S. military action in Venezuela without congressional authorization.

Republican Sens. Todd Young of Indiana, Josh Hawley of Missouri, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska split with their party to act as a check on the administration’s use of military forces — as did Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, the measure’s co-sponsor with Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia.

Trump in response slammed the vote on his own social media platform, writing that the Republicans who voted in favor “should never be elected to office again.” The White House said in a statement he would likely veto the resolution if it reaches his desk.

The move marked a significant moment after Republicans on Capitol Hill have largely smoothed the path for Trump’s agenda throughout the past year.

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., also unexpectedly supported the measure, which advanced on a 52-47 vote. Sen. Steve Daines, a Montana Republican, did not vote.

The joint resolution directs the “removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress.” 

Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky have introduced their own bipartisan war powers resolution in the House. A previous effort failed to advance in the House in December.

Trump looks toward next vote

Trump in his social media post said the Republicans joined Democrats in trying to curb his authority as the chief executive.

“This Vote greatly hampers American Self Defense and National Security, impeding the President’s Authority as Commander in Chief. In any event, and despite their ‘stupidity,’ the War Powers Act is Unconstitutional, totally violating Article II of the Constitution, as all Presidents, and their Departments of Justice, have determined before me. Nevertheless, a more important Senate Vote will be taking place next week on this very subject,” he posted on Truth Social.

Thursday’s vote advanced the legislation over a procedural hurdle to discharge the bill from committee. The bill still requires additional Senate debate and votes before it would head to the House. 

The vote came days after U.S. special forces launched a surprise overnight attack on Venezuela’s capital of Caracas on Saturday, capturing the country’s president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores. The couple appeared in federal court Monday on federal drug and conspiracy charges.

Venezuelan Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello claimed Wednesday that more than 100 were killed in the raid, according to numerous media outlets that posted a video of his statement. The Cuban government announced on Facebook Monday that 32 of its citizens were among the dead.

Seven U.S. troops were injured in the incursion, according to the Pentagon. Two are still recovering, while five have returned to duty, a Defense Department official said.

GOP senators’ explanations

Young issued a statement saying that while he supported the U.S. ouster of Maduro, any further military action must be approved by Congress.

“Today’s Senate vote is about potential future military action, not completed successful operations. The President and members of his team have stated that the United States now ‘runs’ Venezuela. It is unclear if that means that an American military presence will be required to stabilize the country. I — along with what I believe to be the vast majority of Hoosiers — am not prepared to commit American troops to that mission. Although I remain open to persuasion, any future commitment of U.S. forces in Venezuela must be subject to debate and authorization in Congress,” Young said.

Collins similarly said she supported Maduro’s capture by U.S. special forces, but expressed concern about Trump’s vague comments regarding the U.S. role in the South American country going forward.

“The resolution I have supported today does not include any language related to the removal operation. Rather, it reaffirms Congress’s ability to authorize or limit any future sustained military activity in Venezuela, while preserving the President’s inherent Article II authority to defend the United States from an armed attack or imminent threat. I believe invoking the War Powers Act at this moment is necessary, given the President’s comments about the possibility of ‘boots on the ground’ and a sustained engagement ‘running’ Venezuela, with which I do not agree,” Collins said in a statement.

Hawley wrote on social media shortly after the vote: “With regard to Venezuela, my read of the Constitution is that if the President feels the need to put boots on the ground there in the future, Congress would need to vote on it. That’s why I voted yes on this morning’s Senate resolution.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth delivered a classified update to members of Congress Wednesday on Capitol Hill on the ongoing U.S. military intervention in Venezuela. Democrats said they remained unsatisfied with the information shared during the meetings.

White House defends actions

In a statement of administration policy released by the White House after Thursday’s Senate vote, officials defended the apprehension of Maduro as a “law enforcement operation” that was supported by military strikes.

The legislation “should be rejected, like the previously rejected Resolutions, as it once again fails to recognize the ongoing national security threats posed by the Maduro-led Cártel de los Soles and other violent drug-trafficking cartels. If S.J. Res. 98 were presented to the President, his advisors would recommend that he veto the joint resolution,” according to the statement.

Vice President JD Vance suggested during the White House press briefing Thursday that the measure would be unenforceable and that the vote would not curtail the administration’s actions.

“Every president, Democrat or Republican, believes the War Powers Act is fundamentally a fake and unconstitutional law,” he said. “It’s not going to change anything about how we conduct foreign policy over the next couple of weeks, the next couple of months and that will continue to be how we approach things ahead.”

A similar measure failed to gain enough Republican support in early November, in a 49-51 vote. Murkowski was the only other Republican to join Paul in approval.

Paul and Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., first cosponsored the initial effort in October, which at the time failed, 48-51. 

The U.S. launched a bombing campaign off the coast of Venezuela in September, striking small vessels in the Caribbean Sea that the administration alleges were operated by “narco-terrorists.” The death toll from the strikes reached over 100 in December.

Kaine forced Thursday’s procedural vote under the War Powers Resolution, a Vietnam War-era statute that gives Congress a check on the president’s use of the military abroad. 

Dems say vote will restrain Trump, despite veto

Kaine, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and California Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff told reporters following the vote that the result would allow debate over the matter to proceed in public, rather than only in the secure facilities where lawmakers have been briefed.

“We’re going to have a fulsome debate on this issue of the kind we haven’t been allowed to have for a very long time,” Kaine said.

The senators added that the more the public hears about the administration’s plans for Venezuela, including Trump’s comments published Thursday in The New York Times that U.S. forces may occupy the country for “much longer” than a year, the less popular it would become.

“The more the American people hear about what’s going on in Venezuela and the more they learn about it, the less they are going to like it, the more fiercely they’re going to oppose it,” Schumer said.

While Kaine acknowledged Trump would likely veto the measure, he said Trump also vetoed a similar bill Congress passed in 2020 to restrain military action in Iran but backed down from an aggressive posture against Iran.

“He vetoed it, we couldn’t override it,” he said. “But what we noticed is the president then backed off for the remainder of his first term because he heard the voices of the American public through the votes of Congress, saying, ‘We do not want more war right now, Mr. President.’ And I think that’s one thing this president is very sensitive to.”

The Democratic senators added that they believed the vote would restrain the administration from taking military action in Colombia, Greenland and Mexico, as administration officials have suggested.

McConnell parts way with Kentucky colleague

Former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, opposed the legislation and released a lengthy statement afterward. He said the president “was well within this authority in his decision to bring Nicolas Maduro to justice” and cited past military incursions without formal congressional approval by presidents from both parties.

McConnell continued later in the statement: “Successfully returning Venezuela to its role of stable, prosperous, democratic neighbor is a noble goal … but an ambitious one. It doesn’t come without risk. And it’s worth making the clear case to the country.”

Former Democratic Rep. Max Rose, now with VoteVets, issued a statement Thursday calling the vote “stunning.”

“They stood up and said that Trump does not have the authority to use our military any which way he wants, and if he wants to go further, he’ll have to come to Congress to allow Americans to have their say,” said Rose, an Afghanistan war veteran and senior adviser to the political action committee that endorses veterans to run for office.

“It is sad that it has come to the point where a simple affirmation of the ‘declare war’ clause of the Constitution is news, but it is nonetheless a good day when Republicans join Democrats in telling Donald Trump that this is not ‘his military’ as much as he wants it to be his. It belongs to America,” he continued.

Ariana Figueroa contributed to this report.

DOC Secretary Jared Hoy (Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Jared Hoy, Secretary of the Department of Corrections (DOC), appeared before the Assembly Committee on Corrections Wednesday morning to discuss a third-party study of DOC facilities, policies and practices. “The report clearly shows our agency and our staff are working hard getting a lot right, but as expected we also learned of several areas we need to make improvements on,” said Hoy, calling the report conducted by Falcon Correctional and Community Services Inc. “a critical and necessary step forward” after he succeeded former Secretary Kevin Carr in 2024. 

Hoy said that the Falcon Report focused on behavioral health, correctional practices, health care, employee wellness, leadership development, agency culture, recruitment of staff and problems in the restrictive housing unit, otherwise known as solitary confinement. The review lasted nearly a year, and highlighted a number of positive changes within DOC that Hoy listed, including: 

• Developing an objective custody classification system in 2023;
• Restructuring the Bureau of Health Services in 2024,
• Expanding the earned release program,
• Transitioning the Waupun Correctional Institution to having all single cells,
• Reforming restrictive housing in 2024 by enhancing training and increasing security rounds, 
• Implementing new systems to track the number and frequency of security rounds, 
• Retraining medication distribution and documentation, 
• Performing security audits,
• Requiring supervisory meetings at Waupun at the beginning of each shift,
• Implementing a new restrictive housing policy. 

It wasn’t an entirely rosy picture, however. “As noted in the report, our agency is at a period of transition,” said Hoy. “We are not alone in navigating this unique point in time following the operational disruptions of the pandemic and the related staffing shortages that followed.” 

Hoy urged people to view the report in that context as he went into the areas of improvement it suggested. High vacancy rates for staff at different institutions remains an issue, although the DOC has been able to fill more security positions due to pay raises approved by the state Legislature. This has created a “new and unique concern,” Hoy said, in that many staff are new and do not have much correctional experience. Additionally, many staff members were hired during the COVID-19 pandemic, and thus have skewed perceptions of what normal DOC procedures look like. The highly restrictive, atypical protocols intended to stifle the spread of COVID-19 became the formative experience of this new generation of DOC guards and staff. 

Mental health needs among DOC residents was another area of concern. Hoy noted that “44% of male persons in our care and 91% of female persons in our care have a mental health condition.” As a result of the study, DOC is working towards updating its mental health classification system, creating specific mental health units, better monitoring and collecting mental health data, and improving conditions within the restrictive housing unit, otherwise known as solitary confinement, and increasing programming and recreation. 

“So while the results of this study are both informative and valuable, they represent only the starting point,” said Hoy. “The true measure of our agency’s success will be determined by how thoughtfully and effectively we act upon the recommendations that follow.” DOC is currently planning another contract with Falcon to develop a framework to review the report’s key findings, and implement its recommendations. Although many of the changes will need to cover the entire DOC, Hoy said the state agency will also look at specific institutions to “reimagine” their functions, and begin implementing changes at five “pilot sites” before expanding to other facilities. 

Hoy took questions from corrections committee members. Public comment in response to the secretary’s presentation was not allowed. Lawmakers pointed out that the DOC remains overcrowded, with over 23,000 people spread across various prisons. Some highlighted the need for more uniformity among DOC policies across facilities, as well as a need for increased and centralized data analysis. 

Hoy acknowledged that there are ongoing problems with placing people in appropriate facilities, such as people who should be in minimum or medium-security prisons being placed in maximum security institutions, or people with severe mental health needs not being cared for adequately. He also noted that because DOC is generally a paramilitary organization, staff are often “craving” direction and vision from their leadership. Hoy said that there is more work to be done to change the culture among DOC staff, emphasizing that “we need to treat everybody with dignity and respect, to treat people as human beings, and see that person no matter whether they have a cap and gown and they’re graduating and ready to walk out the door, or if they’re sitting at rock bottom in restrictive housing, that they are still a human being.”

Hygiene and feminine product access in prison

The Corrections Committee also heard testimony on three bills which were open to public comment. One Republican bill (AB 297) would provide pay bonuses to DOC probation and parole officers based on their ability to increase employment rates among their clients under supervision. Rep. Benjamin Franklin (R – De Pere), the bill’s author and a member of the corrections committee, said the bill would help reduce the recidivism rate. Franklin was questioned by fellow lawmakers about whether the bill would adversely affect people who have small children at home, or who need to prioritize substance abuse treatment and mental health care over finding immediate employment. 

There were also questions about how probation and parole officers might abuse the incentive structure such as by creating revolving doors where clients get and lose jobs, only to be hired somewhere else, earning another bonus for their probation agent. 

The bill was backed by Cicero Action, a policy advocacy group whose board of directors is chaired by Joe Lonsdale, a billionaire co-founder of the data and surveillance company Palentir. Lonsdale has called for the use of public hangings to demonstrate “masculine leadership.”

Members of the public who attended the hearing, including members of the criminal justice reform advocacy groups Dream.org, Ladies of SCI, Ex-Incarcerated People Organizing, and others testified that people on probation and parole already have lives dictated by the whims of their agents. One woman gave an example of a formerly incarcerated loved one who had to take time out of their day for a three hour bus ride to check in with a probation agent for just a few minutes. Others shared firsthand experiences of being placed in unfulfilling jobs for which they were ill suited by their probation agents, or being discouraged from applying for certain kinds of work. 

Two Democratic bills (AB 736 and AB 741) focused on increasing hygiene products across DOC facilities and expanding access to menstrual products for incarcerated women. Reps. Shelia Stubbs (D-Madison), Robyn Vining (D-Wauwatosa) and Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee) presented the bills to the committee. 

Stubbs said that “good hygiene is both a matter of health and dignity, especially for those incarcerated.” AB 741 would require the DOC to provide culturally sensitive products ranging from shampoos to shaving cream, bar soap, natural conditioners, and other products through the commissary at no more than 125% of the price at the highest-grossing retail chain in Wisconsin, or no more than 100% of the sales price, depending on the product. Incarcerated people would also be given a $25 monthly stipend to help purchase hygiene products. The bill would also require sheriffs overseeing jails to provide a stipend and products to people held within jails. 

During testimony, some formerly incarcerated people  shared experiences of witnessing fellow incarcerated people fight because of bad hygiene. Family members of incarcerated people said that the costs to purchase commissary items, make phone calls and other expenses amount to unsustainable drains on their household budgets. 

AB 736 would expand access to safe and appropriate menstrual products to incarcerated women. Although some prisons and jails take it upon themselves to provide such products to their residents, not all of them do so consistently nor do they provide a range of appropriate products. In some cases, women can bleed through their clothing in prisons and jails, creating embarrassing and awkward situations in which correctional staff may or may not be sympathetic to their needs. 

“In this way, menstruation becomes a monthly cycle of humiliation solely borne by women simply because they are women,” said Johnson. “And that’s not fair.” Johnson called providing menstrual products to incarcerated women “a minimum standard of care in more than two dozen states,” adding that the federal prison system guarantees women access to tampons and pads in correctional facilities. “States that have implemented these policies report minimal cost and improved conditions including fewer medical complications, fewer grievances, and safer, more sanitized facility environments.”

Lawmakers, as well as members of the public, pushed the committee to consider providing menstruation cups as well as more common products like tampons, and to evaluate whether products are safe or if they come with a risk of exposing incarcerated women to toxins. Many in the committee pointed out that if public bathrooms — including those in the Capitol — provide women with menstrual products for free, then why can’t jails and prisons? 

“For far too long meaningful conversations about menstruation have been avoided due to stigma, and it is my hope that as leaders in the state of Wisconsin, we can change that,” Vining said in a statement. “We need to talk about this issue now because women are one of the fastest growing populations in the U.S. And over the last 25 years, the number of women in Wisconsin’s prisons and jails has quadrupled. Our state jails and prisons, and their policies and programs, were simply not designed to safely and humanely incarcerate women.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Colbey Decker, a WILL client who alleges her white son who struggles with dyslexia faced racial discrimination in the Green Bay Area School District, testified in favor of a proposed amendment to the state constitution outlawing government programs that promote diversity, equity and inclusion. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Two constitutional amendment proposals that could be on Wisconsinites’ ballots in November received public hearings on Tuesday, including one to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs from state and local governments and one to bar the governor from issuing partial vetoes that increase taxes. 

Constitutional amendment proposals in Wisconsin must pass the state Legislature in two consecutive sessions and receive majority approval from voters to become law. Each proposal is on its second consideration, meaning if they pass the Senate and Assembly, each would appear on voters’ ballots in November alongside a slate of consequential races including for governor, Congress and the state Legislature.

One of the proposed constitutional amendments, SJR 94, takes aim at DEI programs throughout state and local government in Wisconsin. Republicans have been targeting DEI programs for years and have at times found success, including when they elicited concessions from the University of Wisconsin system in 2023. 

If the proposal passed the Senate and Assembly, voters will see on their ballots the question “Shall section 27 of article I of the constitution be created to prohibit governmental entities in the state from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, public contracting, or public administration?”

Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) told the Senate Licensing, Regulatory Reform, State and Federal Affairs Committee that the proposal would “ensure that we hire, promote, select, and admit people to our unit, public universities, schools and government agencies the same way we choose people for our Olympic team, military and sports teams — through merit, character, ability and hard work without regard to race, sex color, ethnicity or other immutable characteristics.” 

Sen. Dora Drake (D-Milwaukee) asked the authors of the proposal how they define “preferential treatment” and whether they know about the types of programs the amendment would eliminate.

“I don’t know how deep it is in hiring, contracting… I would say if the criteria for making your choice deals with race or sex, then that’s not appropriate,” Rep. Dave Murphy (R-Hortonville) said.

Drake brought up the state’s Supplier Diversity Program, which was established in the 1980s and certifies minority-owned, service-disabled veteran-owned and woman-owned businesses to provide better opportunities for them to do business with the state of Wisconsin. 

“Everyone should have access to opportunity. The reality is that our state historically has not shown that. That [program] was created because we have minority-owned businesses that were seeking opportunities for state contracting and they weren’t getting them, and that was based on relationships, it was based on race… and so this was implemented as a protective measure to ensure that people weren’t being discriminated against,” Drake said. “We’re pushing this forward when we still haven’t addressed what’s happening. If we’re doing this based on merit, then I would argue that there’s plenty of different minority-owned businesses that would be more than qualified, but they don’t get them, and you have to ask why.”

“They may be qualified, but are they the most qualified?” asked Sen. Chris Kapenga (R-Delafield). “And what this does is it takes away… the sex, the gender all of those items that the U.S. Constitution lays out as this is something that you can’t discriminate against. If you discriminate against a male because he’s a male, that’s still discrimination.” 

Dan Lennington, the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty’s managing vice president and deputy counsel, said the bill would help to ensure that Wisconsin is “color blind.”

Lennington leads the conservative legal organization “Equality Under the Law Program,” and spoke to the number of lawsuits they’ve engaged in on the issue.

“We sued [former President] Joe Biden 12 times. We have five lawsuits pending against President [Donald] Trump right now based on race discrimination. We have a lot of things in the pipeline against the state of Wisconsin… We’d love to sue over the Minority Supplier Program. We haven’t gotten to it yet” Lennington said. “A constitutional amendment would, especially a new attorney general, would wipe all this clean and enforce the law as it’s already written, and would really help bring this to an abrupt end. Otherwise, there’s going to be decades more of this litigation.” 

Colbey Decker, a WILL client who alleges her white son who struggles with dyslexia faced racial discrimination in the Green Bay Area School District, testified in favor of the proposed amendment. The Trump administration launched an investigation into the school district over the allegations last year. 

Decker told the committee that her son wasn’t able to receive reading services because he is white, saying that she found that the school’s “success plan” included a policy related to “prioritizing resources to First Nations, Black and Hispanic students.”

“When an educational system’s moral compass is calibrated by a child’s skin color, the system has fundamentally failed. Our family’s story has forever changed after witnessing firsthand the casual callousness of sorting my son, color-coding him and then deprioritizing him based on his race,” Decker said. “The brutal reality of DEI is that it robs all children of the dignity and respect of individuality.” 

Curtailing executive partial veto power

SJR 116 would limit the governor’s partial veto power by prohibiting any vetoes from “creating or increasing or authorizing the creation or increase of any tax or fee.”

Lawmakers introduced the proposal last session in response to Gov. Tony Evers’ partial veto on the last state budget that extended school revenue increases for an additional 400 years. He did so by striking two digits and a dash from the years to extend the annual increases through 2425. The action was upheld by the state Supreme Court in April 2025. 

Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) said the school revenue increases that are resulting from the partial veto are “unaffordable” and “unsustainable” for Wisconsinites.

“No governor, Republican or Democrat, should be able to single-handedly raise taxes on Wisconsin families with the stroke of his pen. The governor is not a king,” Nedweski said. “This constitutional amendment reigns in that power, restores the proper balance between the branches of government and ensures taxpayers are protected from runaway tax increases in the future.”

A recent Wisconsin Policy Forum report found that Wisconsin property taxpayers’ December bills included the highest increase since 2018 and warned property taxpayers could see similar increases to their property taxes in the future.

“We did all get a kick in the pants with property taxes this year… we’re gonna get another wack in 2026 in December,” Nass said during the hearing. 

Drake said the bill appeared to be a “grab for power.” 

Kapenga, one of the proposal authors, pushed back on the comment, saying if he were governor, he would sign a bill from Drake eliminating the governor’s ability to levy such a veto. 

“I do not like the power that the governor has in this state, regardless of who it is,” Kapenga said. “The power of the people should be vested in the Legislature, not in the executive branch.”

The question voters would see is: “Shall section 10 (1) (c) of article V of the constitution be amended to prohibit the governor, in exercising his or her partial veto authority, from creating or increasing or authorizing the creation or increase of any tax or fee?”

Constitutional amendments have been used to limit the partial veto power in a couple other scenarios, including in 1990 when voters approved the prohibition of the “Vanna White” veto, or eliminating single letters within words, and in 2008, when voters approved, eliminating the “Frankenstein veto” — or the ability for governors to create new sentences by combining parts of two or more sentences.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

"What major purchase does anyone in this room make without knowing the cost before you make the purchase? It is inconceivable to me that we do not know what something is going to cost of that magnitude before we actually consent to the cost,” Sen. Mary Felzkowski said. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

A bill to implement state-level enforcement of federal hospital price transparency requirements in Wisconsin, with the goal of bringing down the cost of health care, received pushback from hospital representatives and support from employers on Wednesday.

Sen. Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin) told the Senate Licensing, Regulatory Reform, State and Federal Affairs Committee that ensuring that the cost of services provided would help with health care affordability.  

“When hospitals clearly share pricing information, patients can make informed decisions. Trust in the system grows and costs come down naturally,” Bradley said, adding that the bill would ensure Wisconsin “reaps the benefits” of changes made by the Trump administration. 

During his first term, President Donald Trump’s administration implemented rules to require hospitals to post pricing information online. The effects of the changes on patients’ costs have been mixed. At the start of his second term, Trump signed an executive order intended to bolster the effort and in December, the administration proposed a new rule that aims to simplify how price data is organized and shared with people. 

SB 383 would instruct the Wisconsin Department of Health Services to enforce federal price transparency requirements for hospitals. 

Bradley and Rep. Robert Wittke (R-Caledonia), the bill coauthors, said it is needed to help ensure that federal policies are being followed.

“Sometimes we need to take action to make sure that it goes all the way through the state and all of our residents have access to the things that are expected through federal law,” Wittke said. 

Bradley said the lawmakers aren’t trying to penalize hospitals, just ensure people have access to information. 

If a hospital is found to be out of compliance under the bill, Wisconsin DHS would be able to take several actions including providing a written notice to the hospital, requesting a corrective action plan or imposing a financial penalty. DHS would also need to keep a public list of any hospitals that have violated the requirements.

Hospitals would also need to be certified as being in compliance with the requirements when seeking judgment from a court against a patient who owes a debt for services.

Lawmakers introduced a similar bill in 2023, but it failed to receive a floor vote in the Senate and advance in the Assembly.

The current version of the bill includes a provision that says that if federal laws change and are eliminated, then provisions in the bill that establish state level requirements for publishing prices will take effect.

Under those provisions, each hospital would need to make a list of “shoppable services” — ones that can be scheduled in advance such as a knee replacement — available with the standard charge for each item that would be publicly available. A hospital’s list would need to include at least 300 “shoppable services,” and if a hospital doesn’t provide that many, it must list all of its shoppable services.

The change is meant to avoid overlapping and varying requirements, though hospital representatives expressed concerns that would happen anyway.

The Wisconsin Hospital Association (WHA) opposes the bill. Christian Moran, the WHA vice president of Medicaid and payer reimbursement policy, said during the hearing that the organization’s opposition to the bill is not opposition to price transparency.

“Our opposition is to the added regulatory complexity that is created by layering on state level enforcement and state level regulations and unlimited fines on Wisconsin hospitals when robust federal regulation and enforcement already exists,” Moran said.

Moran said no Wisconsin hospitals have been fined for noncompliance since the first federal regulations went into effect. 

“Personal experience, it’s somewhat inevitable: if you pass legislation on the state level that mirrors the federal level it will eventually not match up,” John Russell, president and CEO of Prairie Ridge Health, said. 

Hospital representatives also expressed concerns that not enough attention was being given to the role of health insurance companies. 

“The solution proposed to you in [SB] 383 is to double up on existing enforcement for hospitals while ignoring the state’s current responsibility to enforce and monitor insurance compliance,” Moran said.

Brian Stephens, CEO of the Door County Medical Center, said the state should be more focused on the “middlemen” including insurance providers, saying that bolstering the transparency of hospital costs has its limitations. He spoke to the work that his medical center has done over many years to improve transparency of prices.

“There’s a disconnect in this country between the concerted efforts of health care providers to provide reasonable and transparent prices and the costs that people are paying for health insurance. Unfortunately, hospital price transparency efforts have not put a dent in that dichotomy,” Stephens said. “Perhaps we need to be asking for more transparency from health insurance companies and other middlemen to understand the real drivers of health care costs in our country. Perhaps hospitals have just become a good punching bag for folks who need an effective sound bite. The reality is that, despite our wholehearted commitment to providing reasonable upfront prices, transparency has its limitations. What are the odds that a person waking up with pain will take the time to bring out his or her phone and search the most affordable hospital or clinic prior to seeking treatment.”

Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) said the testimony focused on the insurance companies’ role sounded like “a lot of finger-pointing.” 

Several other states have adopted laws or are in the process of advancing bills to bolster price transparency including Colorado, Washington State and Ohio. 

Patrick Neville, a former Republican state representative in Colorado who helped pass a similar law in his state, testified on the Wisconsin bill, saying provisions in his home state have already helped. He told the story of one patient who was charged nearly $80,000 for a hysterectomy, but didn’t have to pay the cost.

“Because we had the consumer protections in this bill in Colorado, and they weren’t compliant with price transparency. They couldn’t actually collect that $80,000,” Neville said. “That was really important and powerful for the actual consumer in this case, and so it’s actually working in Colorado.” 

Neville added that the Colorado legislation did not codify the federal rules, but he wishes it had. 

“Any president could get rid of those rules at any point and I think the way this bill is crafted… It’s hugely important,” Neville said. “That’s a clever way to craft it.” 

Several employers testified in favor of the legislation. 

Erik Sonju, president of Fitchburg-based Power System Engineering, described the unpredictable jumps in health care costs that his company has grappled with since 2018 when he started in his position. He said that 2023 was the year the “straw broke” as they dealt with a 20% increase in insurance rates and he wasn’t able to get clear answers about the rising cost. 

Sen. Mary Felzkowski (R-Tomahawk) told the committee that the cost of health care is too high. 

“This is common sense. What major purchase does anyone in this room make without knowing the cost before you make the purchase? It is inconceivable to me that we do not know what something is going to cost of that magnitude before we actually consent to the cost,” Felzkowski said.  

Felzkowski is the lead coauthor on two of the other bills the committee took up. SB 796 would require insurers to submit information about claims to the Wisconsin Health Information Organization (WHIO), a nonprofit organization that collects health care claims data, and SB 797 would provide a $600,000 grant for the WHIO to establish an online dashboard of health care claims information and to add new payer data.

The committee also took testimony on SB 703, coauthored by Wittke and Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield), which would establish that employers who sponsor group health insurance plans have a right to data relating to the employees and dependents covered under those plans, including claims data, utilization reports and other information necessary to understand and manage health care costs.

Wittke said the bill will maintain privacy protections by requiring employers to designate a HIPAA compliance privacy officer and ensure that the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance maintains oversight. The bill also includes a provision prohibiting data from being sold to any party without the permission of the plan sponsor and the person to whom the claims data relates.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Wisconsin State Flag | Getty Images Creative

This week marked the fifth anniversary of the Jan. 6 insurrection, in which supporters of President Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol, demanding that then-Vice President Pence overturn the will of the people. Efforts to impose accountability for those responsible and those involved have largely ended — except in Wisconsin. This means that Wisconsin has the opportunity, and the responsibility, to re-assert the rule of law, to ensure justice, and to bolster the foundations on which American democracy has been built over the past 250 years.

As we assess the state of our democracy in light of this somber anniversary, let’s start with the bad news: 

• The U.S. Supreme Court derailed efforts by states to enforce the 14th Amendment’s prohibition against insurrectionists serving in federal office, and then it invented an ahistorical and jaw-droppingly broad doctrine of presidential immunity to derail criminal prosecutions of Trump in state and federal courts alike. 
• Federal prosecutions of the violent mob in the Capitol were upended by Trump’s Department of Justice, and Trump issued sweeping federal pardons to every individual connected with Jan. 6, effectively encouraging them to keep it up. 
• State prosecutions of the fraudulent electors — those who executed an unprecedented effort to overturn the 2020 election by submitting to Congress (and other officials) paperwork that falsely declared Trump to have won seven key states that he in fact lost and thereby laying the groundwork for the Jan. 6 rioters to violently demand Pence validate their efforts — have faltered, often for reasons unrelated to the merits of those actions. 

But here in Wisconsin there are still grounds for hope. Hope that bad actors who deliberately took aim at our democracy will be held accountable. Hope that our institutions will stand up and protect our democracy from further meddling by those most directly responsible. And hope that those institutions will act promptly to prevent further damage. Every Wisconsinite should be watching the following accountability efforts — and urging our elected officials to use their authority to advance the rule of law and protect our democracy. 

First, the Wisconsin Supreme Court will soon determine the appropriate sanction for Michael Gableman’s ethical transgressions as he spearheaded a sham “investigation” of the 2020 election. Gableman, who once served on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, accepted this job despite his own assessment that he did not understand how elections work in Wisconsin. He wasted taxpayer funds, undermined government transparency laws, dealt dishonestly with his clients and the public, lied to and insulted courts, and tried to jail the elected mayors of Green Bay and Madison. In March 2023, Law Forward filed an omnibus ethics grievance, documenting Gableman’s myriad breaches of the ethics rules that bind all Wisconsin attorneys. Last summer, Gableman stipulated that he had no viable defense of his conduct and agreed with the Office of Lawyer Regulation to jointly recommend his law license be suspended for three years. (He is now trying to wriggle out of accountability by serially pushing justice after justice to recuse.) 

Wisconsin precedent is clear that, where a lawyer is charged with multiple ethical breaches, the proper sanction is determined by adding the sanctions for each breach together. The Court should apply established law, which demands revoking Gableman’s law license. Then the Office of Lawyer Regulation and the Court should act on our requests to hold Andrew Hitt (chairman of the Wisconsin fraudulent electors) and Jim Troupis (chief Wisconsin counsel to Trump’s 2020 campaign and ringleader of the fraudulent-elector scheme) accountable as well.

Second, the primary architects of the fraudulent-elector scheme, detailed in records  obtained through Law Forward’s groundbreaking civil suit, are also facing criminal prosecution in Dane County. Attorney General Josh Kaul’s case is narrowly focused only on three lawyers — two who were based here in Wisconsin, and one working for the Trump campaign in DC — who conceived and designed the scheme to overturn Wisconsin’s results and then convinced six other states to follow suit. Troupis, who himself was appointed to the Wisconsin bench by former-Gov. Scott Walker as a reward for his key role in the 2011 partisan gerrymander, has gone to great lengths to slow down this prosecution, which Kaul initiated in June 2024. He filed nine separate motions to dismiss the case. He accused the judge hearing preliminary motions of misconduct and insisted that the entire Dane County bench should be recused. And now he has appealed the denial of his misconduct allegations. This case, since assigned to a different Dane County judge, will proceed, and it is the best hope anywhere in the country to achieve accountability for the fraudulent-elector scheme. 

Third, on behalf of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign and two individual voters, Law Forward is suing Elon Musk and two advocacy organizations he controls for their brazen scheme of million-dollar giveaways to influence the 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court election. This case is about ensuring that Wisconsin elections are decided by Wisconsin voters, not by out-of-state efforts to buy the results they want for us. We’re waiting for the trial court to decide preliminary motions, but, with another Wisconsin Supreme Court election imminently approaching, there is urgency to clarify that Wisconsin law forbids the shenanigans we saw last year, which contributed to the most expensive judicial race in American history. 

Beginning in 2011, Wisconsin became the country’s primary testing ground for the most radical anti-democratic ideas. From Act 10 to one of the strictest voter ID laws in the country, from subverting the separation of powers and steamrolling local control over local issues to hobbling the regulatory state and starving our public schools, Wisconsin’s gerrymandered Legislature adopted idea after idea hostile to democracy. With the end of the nation’s most extreme and durable partisan gerrymander in 2023 and a change in the makeup of the state Supreme Court, however, the tide in Wisconsin has ebbed somewhat. 

Now, improbably, Wisconsin is the place that democracy can best hold the line. We can create accountability for those who have abused power, have undermined elections, and have diminished the ideals and institutions of our self-government. That, in conjunction with Law Forward’s broad docket of work to defend free elections and to strengthen our democracy, sustains my hope.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Smoke is seen over buildings after explosions and low-flying aircraft were heard on Jan. 3, 2026 in Caracas, Venezuela. According to some reports, explosions were heard in Caracas and other cities near airports and military bases around 2 a.m. (Photo by Jesus Vargas/Getty Images)

The U.S. military action to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro Saturday night has divided the candidates running for Wisconsin’s 3rd Congressional District. 

The swing district is set to be among the most high profile congressional races in the 2026 midterm elections as Democrats try for a third time to unseat incumbent Republican Rep. Derrick Van Orden. President Donald Trump won the district in 2024 with 53% of the vote. 

Since Trump’s inauguration, Van Orden has positioned himself as a vocal supporter of the president, often appearing at White House events and loudly defending Trump on social media. 

That defense extended to the Venezuelan raid, of which Van Orden, a former U.S. Navy SEAL, described on X as “perfect.”

“I would like to commend @realDonaldTrump, @SecWar, and the members of our glorious military that conducted the raid in Venezuela to capture the narcoterrorist Maduro,” Van Orden wrote on X shortly after the news of the action was announced. “Perfect operational security and execution.”

Despite regularly criticising American “forever wars,” Van Orden has praised the Venezuela attack as part of an effort to prevent the flow of drugs into the U.S. 

“This operation sends a clear message to America’s adversaries: harming U.S. citizens carries consequences,” Van Orden said in a statement. Nicolás Maduro operated as a narco-terrorist under the false cover of political authority. His criminal network helped fuel the drug trafficking that has killed thousands of Americans. He is now detained and no longer in a position to threaten American lives. President Trump’s decisive leadership made this possible. His administration has made it clear that America will no longer tolerate narco-terrorists who profit from the deaths of our citizens.”

While Van Orden’s defense of the president is expected, two of the Democrats running in the primary to challenge him have diverged on the issue. 

Rebecca Cooke, who ran against Van Orden in 2024 and is widely seen as the frontrunner, criticized the lack of a long term plan in Venezuela and the break from Trump’s campaign promise to stay out of foreign wars, but celebrated the unseating of Maduro despite the lack of congressional involvement in the decision to approve military action on a foreign country. 

“Donald Trump and I don’t agree on much, but one thing we used to agree on is ending American involvement in endless foreign wars,” Cooke said in a statement. “I applaud the excellent work of the CIA and Delta teams in capturing a ruthless dictator in Nicolas Maduro — but where is the concrete plan for stability in the region? We haven’t seen one yet. Without it, our nation involves itself in another foreign conflict. I am disappointed — as I’m sure many Wisconsinites are disappointed — to see this administration betray a central promise when communities across Western Wisconsin are struggling.”

Cooke also said she thinks the president should be more focused on domestic issues.

Emily Berge, the president of the Eau Claire City Council who is running against Cooke in the Democratic primary, criticized the military action without any laudatory comments about deposing Maduro. 

“Derrick Van Orden and Donald Trump promised to be ‘America First’ and to end the longstanding waste of our tax dollars bombing other countries based on fabricated stories all in the pursuit of foreign oil,” Berge said in a statement. “They are both breaking their promises to the American people.”

Across the country, criticism of the attack has focused on the president’s decision to go into Venezuela without approval from Congress — which under the U.S. Constitution retains the authority to approve the use of military force. 

On X, Van Orden supported the lack of congressional notification before the operation, agreeing with a post that stated telling Congress would have resulted in details being leaked to the press. 

However, U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin has co-sponsored legislation prohibiting the use of military force in Venezuela without authorization by Congress. 

“President Trump stormed into Venezuela and is drawing the U.S. into another forever war just to take Venezuela’s oil and enrich his big oil buddies,” Baldwin said in a statement. “Simply put, this is not what Wisconsin families signed up for. This puts all the men and women who don the uniform at risk, reeks of corruption, and just shows the President is focused on everything except lowering costs and the issues that keep Wisconsin families up at night. The President cannot just start wars at a whim; he needs to get the people’s approval – and that means Congress signing off.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A change in federal recommendations for childhood vaccines has concerned public health experts nationwide. (Getty Images)

This story was originally reported by Barbara Rodriguez of The 19th. Meet Barbara and read more of their reporting on gender, politics and policy.

The federal government is reducing the number of vaccines it formally recommends to all children in the United States, which public health experts say is an abrupt, potentially dangerous change that will sow confusion among families.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Monday that the agency now recommends vaccines against 11 diseases instead of the 17 previously suggested under America’s childhood vaccine schedule. Acting Director Jim O’Neill says the decision is based on a “comprehensive scientific assessment,” though the agency publicly bypassed a key federal vaccine panel that has long voted on recommendations that shape vaccine policy.

Federal officials claim the altered vaccine schedule will not impact vaccine access for the general public. But medical groups say they’re still determining how it might impact long-term vaccine supply, access and insurance coverage. And they worry how families with small children — many of whom are vaccinated against multiple diseases within the first two years — are interpreting the changes.

“We recognize parents are hearing a lot of information right now, and a lot of it is really confusing and really misleading,” said Dr. Sean T. O’Leary, chair of the Committee on Infectious Diseases for the American Academy of Pediatrics during a media briefing Monday. “Our role as pediatricians is to cut through all that noise and understand what the science actually shows so that parents can make informed decisions with confidence alongside with their pediatrician.”

Wisconsin health department: Vaccine recommendation changes spark ‘great concern’

Here’s what we know about the changes so far and what they mean for families with young kids.

What are the changes?

The childhood vaccine schedule is a series of recommended shots, historically set by the medical community and the federal government, for children as they age. Vaccines are not mandated in the United States, but the CDC’s recommendations impact the cost and availability for everyday people, since insurance companies turn to agency guidance to determine what they will cover. Individual states also require immunizations against several diseases in settings where infections can spread quickly, including at schools and day cares.

The CDC now recommends vaccines to all children against 11 diseases:

• Diphtheria
• Tetanus
• Acellular pertussis (whooping cough)
• Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib)
• Pneumococcal conjugate
• Polio
• Measles
• Mumps
• Rubella
• Human papillomavirus (HPV)
• Varicella (chickenpox)

Officials will also recommend just one dose of the HPV vaccine instead of two. (A study published last month by the New England Journal of Medicine found one dose is highly effective).

Federal officials are recommending children who are part of “certain high-risk groups or populations” get vaccinated against six diseases:

• Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)
• Hepatitis A
• Hepatitis B
• Dengue (the vaccine for this disease was already recommended only to children with a history of dengue infection or in an area where the disease is common)
• Meningococcal ACWY
• Meningococcal B

Officials will also recommend immunizations based on “shared clinical decision-making” for several vaccines that were once suggested for all:

• Rotavirus
• COVID-19
• Influenza
• Meningococcal disease
• Hepatitis A
• Hepatitis B

Previously, COVID-19, influenza and rotavirus were all included in general vaccine recommendations. The change comes amid an uptick in flu activity around the country. And before the rotavirus vaccine — which helps prevent a disease that causes severe diarrhea in young children — there were reportedly 70,000 related hospitalizations.

The changes, according to the CDC, are effective immediately and aimed at aligning the U.S. childhood vaccine schedule to those of “peer” countries. That follows a directive last month from President Donald Trump, after weeks of spreading disinformation about vaccines, to better reflect America’s schedule with other countries, including Denmark — an idea that public health experts warn is ignoring the United States’ lack of a comprehensive health care system.

The change was celebrated by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has repeatedly dismissed the effectiveness of routine childhood vaccines.

“This decision protects children, respects families, and rebuilds trust in public health,” he said in a statement.

Who is considered part of a high-risk group or population?

Vaccination against six diseases is now recommended only for children part of “certain high-risk groups or populations.”

HHS said in accompanying documentation that for people in this category, “risk factors can include unusual exposure to the disease, underlying comorbidities, or the risk of disease transmission to others.”

The updated CDC site lists some of these new parameters:

• RSV: Children should get one dose if their birthing parent did not get a shot during pregnancy. Children should get a second dose at 8 to 19 months if they have a medical condition like chronic lung disease.
• Hepatitis A: Children should get vaccinated against the disease if they’re planning international travel to areas with high or intermediate cases of hepatitis A.
• Hepatitis B: Children whose birthing parent tests positive for the disease or whose status is unknown should vaccinate their newborn and continue the multi-dose series. This follows a CDC advisory panel’s recent recommendation to end a universal newborn shot.
• Dengue: Vaccination is recommended if a child is living in areas with endemic dengue or have a confirmed lab test of a previous infection.
• Meningococcal ACWY: Vaccination is recommended for children with anatomic or functional asplenia or HIV infection, and those traveling to countries with hyperendemic or epidemic meningococcal disease, and first-year college students living in residential housing.
• Meningococcal B: Vaccination is recommended for children with anatomic or functional asplenia and during outbreaks.

Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and a co-inventor of the rotavirus vaccine, said some of these new definitions lack critical context. He noted people can get hepatitis A through food contamination.

“So basically you’re in a high-risk group for hepatitis A assuming you eat food,” he said. “Are they going to make that clear?”

Dr. Lori Handy, an associate director at the same center as Offit, said the new recommendations do not have the typical level of detail that accompanies the immunization schedule.

Handy added that the RSV monoclonal antibodies were previously recommended for all newborns, with a second dose during the next RSV season recommended for high-risk children.

“In my clinical opinion, all infants are at high risk of RSV infection, being that virtually all children are infected by age 2,” she said.

What does shared clinical decision-making mean?

HHS says shared clinical decision-making is between a health care provider and the patient, or the parent or guardian: “It is not always possible or pragmatic for public health officials to clearly define who will benefit from a vaccine, who has the relevant risk factors, or who are at risk for exposure. Parents and physicians, who know the child, may be better placed to make that judgment.”

On a CDC website dated January 2025, shared clinical decision-making is defined as “individually based and informed by a decision process between the health care provider and the patient or parent/guardian that may be informed by factors like an individual’s “characteristics, values, and preferences” and a health care provider’s clinical discretion as well as the “characteristics of the vaccine being considered.”

O’Leary said “shared clinical decision-making” is a confusing phrase for parents and health care providers.

“The fact is, pediatricians already do this all day every day. They routinely have long, detailed conversations with families about vaccines,” he said. “Changing a recommendation to shared clinical decision-making doesn’t change that. It just makes things more confusing for parents and clinicians.”

Survey data released last year by the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) on the general public’s understanding of new COVID-19 guidelines found there was confusion over what such decision-making means.

“Expecting parents to engage in shared decision-making with health care providers about routine, thoroughly studied childhood vaccinations suggests that the public health community has doubts about the safety and efficacy of these vaccines when it does not,” said Patrick E. Jamieson, director of APPC’s Annenberg Health and Risk Communication Institute, in a statement. “These vaccines have been part of the recommended childhood schedule because the benefits of taking them substantially outweigh the risks.”

Will this impact access to shots?

HHS officials claim that anyone who wants a vaccine as previously recommended will be able to access it without additional cost, adding that all vaccines will still be covered by insurance companies.

“While non-consensus immunizations are not routinely recommended for all children, all these vaccines will continue to be available for anyone who wants them and will be covered by Medicaid, CHIP, the Vaccines for Children Program, and private health insurance,” according to HHS.

O’Leary said that claim doesn’t take into account some potential downstream consequences. He worries that some clinicians, who already face logistical costs with ordering and storing certain vaccines, may decide to stop stocking vaccines that are now under shared clinical decision-making because there could be a drop in demand. He also worries that pharmacists in certain pockets of the country may be unable to administer vaccines that are not universally recommended because of local laws and rules over who gives shots and under what circumstances. Others have noted that some combination shots are for diseases that now fall under different CDC categories.

If I want my child to receive vaccinations against diseases listed beyond the reduced 11 universal recommendations, will that be possible?

Given HHS’s claim that this altered schedule will not impact access for anyone, that technically means a parent who wants a vaccine that isn’t part of the non-consensus category — whether as a high-risk group or population or under shared clinical decision-making — should be able to access it.

“Parents can still choose to give their children all of the Vaccinations, if they wish, and they will still be covered by insurance,” Trump wrote on this Truth Social account on Monday. His post included a reference to “MAHA Moms” who he seemed to credit for the change, alongside Kennedy and other federal officials.

A spokesperson for HHS did not immediately respond to a request for clarification about access changes, but several officials emphasized on Monday that all vaccines listed on the schedule under any category would be available at no-cost. A major insurance group said last year that they would cover vaccines recommended through September 2025 into the end of 2026.

Why are Kennedy and his HHS staff making these changes?

Trump and Kennedy have both claimed without evidence that childhood vaccines are unsafe and that the country is an outlier compared to other nations — though the number of vaccines available in the United States is similar to countries like Australia and Germany. It follows years of anti-vaccine activism by Kennedy, who previously helped run an anti-vaccine group.

With Monday’s announcement, federal officials including Kennedy claimed the change would restore trust in vaccines — an assertion that medical groups said ignored the impact of vaccine messaging by Kennedy himself. Those groups have criticized Kennedy’s handling of a measles outbreak that began last year and continues to spread.

In the final months of the year, Kennedy directed the CDC to update its website to claim, without evidence, that vaccines cause autism. That follows his department’s guidance in the fall to warn pregnant people that taking over-the-counter pain relief medication could cause autism, which is false.

How are medical groups responding to the announcement?

AAP described the changes as “dangerous and unnecessary.”

Dr. Ronald G. Nahass, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, called it “irresponsible” for the federal government “to haphazardly change vaccine recommendations without a solid scientific basis and transparent process.” He worried it would further decrease vaccination rates and increase disease.

The Big Cities Health Coalition, whose members represent local health departments with roughly 61 million residents, said the announcement makes those local officials’ jobs harder amid confusion.

“We will continue to do everything in our power to ensure that those who live in our jurisdictions continue to have access to vaccines that protect their health and save lives,” said the group in a statement.

Where can I get more information about vaccines?

O’Leary noted that AAP continues to publish its own vaccination schedule. Several states, particularly those run by Democrats, have announced regional health alliances — both in the west and east — aimed at ensuring access to vaccines recommended by groups like AAP.

“It remains the trusted gold standard for keeping children healthy,” he said. “Following our schedule on time remains the best way to ensure children receive the strongest possible protection.”

Offit said parents with young children should turn to their pediatrician or family doctor, many of whom already seek guidance from groups like AAP, if they have questions about the changes and future availability.

“I do think that on the ground, I’ll be curious to see how much things change,” he said. “We’ll see.”

O’Leary added that AAP will be working with its partners across medicine and public health to ensure that parents have “credible science-backed vaccine recommendations they can trust.”

“Tragically, our federal government can no longer be trusted in this role,” he said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE