A doctor holding T-shaped intrauterine birth control device. (Getty Photos) 

WASHINGTON — The National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in federal court Thursday challenging the Trump administration’s decision to withhold Title X family planning grants.

The 35-page filing alleges the Department of Health and Human Services, which administers the reproductive health program with funding approved by Congress, has withheld $65.8 million over disagreements about organizations’ “opposition to racism” and “providing care to undocumented immigrants.”

“The Affected Members and their subrecipients operate hundreds of Title X service sites across these states, which together provide family planning care to hundreds of thousands of low-income patients, many of whom would not otherwise be able to afford such care,” the complaint says. 

“Depriving these individuals of the high-quality, essential health care provided by Title X-funded health centers reduces access to (sexually transmitted infection) screening and treatment, cancer screening, and contraception, threatens the health and wellbeing of the individuals who rely on Title X for care, and undermines public health.”

The lawsuit contends California, Hawaiʻi, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, and Utah have been completely cut off from Title X family planning grants, while Alaska, Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia have had their access to the funding reduced.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia but hadn’t been assigned to a judge as of Thursday afternoon.

HHS did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

Another suit

The lawsuit is the latest filed by organizations and Democratic state attorneys general challenging the Trump administration’s efforts to freeze funding for dozens of programs.

Some, but not all, of the cases are subject to injunctions from district courts that so far have prevented the spending cuts from taking effect while the cases proceed.

The Impoundment Control Act, a 1970s-era law that requires the president to spend the money Congress appropriates, is the subject of many of the disagreements between those filing lawsuits and the Trump administration.

The National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association wrote in the lawsuit that it represents nearly 900 members, including state, county and local health departments.

Its members “operate or administer more than 3,000 health centers that provide family planning services to more than 2.2 million patients each year.”

HHS sent letters to some of the association’s members in late March, notifying them that their Title X family planning grant funding was “being temporarily withheld based on possible violations of the terms and conditions set forth in the notice of award,” according to the complaint.

The lawsuit alleges HHS’ decision to freeze the funding stems from its members having statements on their websites “indicating support for diversity, equity, and inclusion and opposition to racism, which, HHS claims, ‘suggests’ that the Affected Members are or may be engaged in conduct that violates federal civil rights laws.”

The federal government also chose to withhold the Title X funding over “a single public statement that HHS claims gives it ‘reason to believe’ that some of the Affected Members may be providing care to undocumented immigrants, in violation of Executive Order 14218 ‘Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders.’”

The lawsuit says that HHS never actually told any of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association’s members that they had violated federal regulations, executive orders, or the law. The letters from HHS referenced only “possible violations.” 

The U.S. Supreme Court building. (Photo by Ariana Figueroa/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court Thursday to block a lower court’s decision allowing transgender individuals to continue enlisting and serving in the armed forces.

Administration officials are seeking a stay of a broad district court ruling in late March that applied to all troops rather than only to those who challenged President Donald Trump’s executive order in court. The U.S. Appeals Court for the 9th Circuit upheld the lower court’s ruling Friday.

The government contends its policy does not discriminate against an entire class of people, but rather finds a diagnosis or history of gender dysphoria to be disqualifying. Gender dysphoria is recognized by medical professionals as distress caused by an incongruence between a person’s gender identity and their sex at birth.

In its application to the Supreme Court Thursday afternoon, the Department of Justice argued it’s likely to succeed in the case because the newly adopted policy does not differ widely from those in place under former secretaries of defense.

“The policy was based in part on the findings of a panel of experts convened during the first Trump Administration, which found that service by individuals with gender dysphoria was contrary to ‘military effectiveness and lethality,’” wrote John Sauer, Trump’s solicitor general.

Sauer also argued the district court’s universal order violated the power of the president.

Trump issued an executive order on Jan. 27, asserting the “adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life.” Further, the order said that being transgender is “not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member.”

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued the new policy a month later, reversing former President Joe Biden’s order allowing service members to transition and serve openly under their preferred gender identity.

Trump’s order immediately drew court challenges, including a separate case now in the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia.

A Department of Justice attorney arguing before the D.C. Circuit Tuesday alerted the judges that the administration would “imminently” appeal the 9th Circuit decision to the Supreme Court.

Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Foundation, who are representing plaintiffs in the 9th Circuit case, released a statement in response Tuesday asserting, “Transgender service members have been openly serving our country with honor and distinction for almost a decade and have met and are meeting every neutral service-based standard.”

“The U.S. Supreme Court should reject the invitation to stay the district court’s injunction so that they can impose their discriminatory ban while the litigation proceeds,” the statement said.

The administration’s emergency application to the high court Thursday is just the latest in the administration’s whack-a-mole battle against lower federal court rulings that have blocked White House actions, particularly on immigration.
 

Fort McCoy | Photo by Henry Redman/Wisconsin Examiner

The commander of Fort McCoy, a military base near Sparta, Wisconsin, has been suspended after a controversy over the base not displaying portraits of President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. In a statement, the U.S. Army said that Col. Sheyla Baez Ramirez had been suspended as garrison commander at Fort McCoy. 

The statement said that the suspension “is not related to any misconduct,” though the base drew recent criticism for not displaying pictures of Trump and Hegseth, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. On X, formerly known as Twitter, the Department of Defense posted a picture showing Trump’s portrait missing from  a leadership wall and Hegseth’s turned so only the back of the picture was visible. The post declared: “Regarding the Ft. McCoy Chain of Command wall controversy…. WE FIXED IT! Also, an investigation has begun to figure out exactly what happened.”

Spokespeople from the Department of Defense and Fort McCoy’s 88th Readiness Division declined to comment, but told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that Ramirez has “not been relieved of command.” A subsequent statement on the U.S. Army’s website said that neither Ramirez nor anyone else on the fort’s leadership team had directed the removal of the portraits. After Ramirez was suspended, Hegseth shared a post on X mentioning the commander’s suspension. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Voting booths set up at Madison, Wisconsin's Hawthorne Library on Election Day 2022. (Henry Redman/Wisconsin Examiner)

The Wisconsin Legislature’s Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR) deadlocked Thursday on whether to object to a proposed administrative rule that would guide the conduct of election observers at polling places. 

The 5-5 vote moves the rule one step closer to going into effect because if the committee doesn’t take any action, it will be returned to the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) to be implemented. 

Even though the rule was written by WEC with input from an advisory committee that included members of right-wing election conspiracy groups, election skeptics opposed the rule’s passage at a number of public hearings. 

At a hearing on Monday, 2020 election deniers — including former state Rep. Janel Brandtjen — testified in opposition to the rule because they believed it didn’t do enough to protect the rights of election observers. Lawmakers on the committee, including its co-chair, Rep. Adam Neylon (R-Pewaukee), complained that the rule was written without enough input from legislators. 

Despite that opposition, Rep. Kevin Petersen (R-Waupaca) joined with the committee’s four Democrats, Sens. Melissa Ratcliff (D-Cottage Grove) and Kelda Roys (D-Madison) and Reps. Margaret Arney (D-Wauwatosa) and Lee Snodgrass (D-Appleton) to vote against the motion objecting to the rule’s passage. 

In Monday’s hearing, election commissioner Don Millis said the rule gives the state the best chance to clarify how election observers should conduct themselves while protecting the rights of voters. 

“I don’t agree with everything in the rule, but I don’t want the perfect to be the enemy of the good,” he said. “Without this rule, municipal clerks have wide ranging authorities to manage polling places as they see fit. There’s no reasonable argument that observers are better off without this rule.”

While Thursday’s vote is a step toward implementation, the rule is still in the committee until May 11, according to the office of the committee’s other co-chair, Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater). The committee could vote on the issue again before then.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The Milwaukee County Courthouse. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

The activities of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents around the Milwaukee County Courthouse continue to spur controversy. Late last week, ICE agents arrested Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a 30-year-old Mexican immigrant accused of misdemeanor battery. Flores-Ruiz appeared in Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan’s court on April 18, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. 

Now, the FBI is investigating whether Dugan helped an undocumented immigrant avoid arrest after that immigrant appeared in her courtroom. Although the immigrant hasn’t been identified, Flores-Ruiz, whose immigration status is unclear, “appears to match the description,” the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported.

On April 23, Dugan declined to comment on the investigation or possible legal proceedings. ICE officials referred questions to the FBI’s Milwaukee office, which also declined to comment. The Journal Sentinel reported that an email sent by Chief Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Carly Ashley said that ICE agents came to the Milwaukee County Courthouse on April 18 with an arrest warrant. Dugan wasn’t mentioned in Ashley’s communication, which went on to say that ICE agents arrived in the morning, identified themselves to security, and went to the sixth floor where Dugan’s courtroom is located.

Ashley said that the agents were asked to wait until court proceedings were over, and that their actions were consistent with draft policies. Dugan responded to the email, however, saying “a warrant was not presented in the hallway on the 6th floor,” the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. Instead, unnamed sources in the story said that Dugan didn’t hide a defendant, but rather took the defendant and an attorney to a side door which led to a private hallway into a public area on the sixth floor.

It was the third time since March that ICE agents arrived at the courthouse to conduct arrests. Two arrests were made in March and April, with one of the individuals arrested after appearing  in family court for a hearing on a domestic violence restraining order, which was ultimately dismissed. 

Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee) said that Dugan acted in “defense of due process by preventing ICE from shamefully using her courtroom as an ad hoc holding area for deportations.” Clancy added that “we cannot have a functional legal system if people are justifiably afraid to show up for legal proceedings, especially when ICE agents have already repeatedly grabbed people off the street in retaliation for speech and free association, without even obtaining proper warrants.” 

While Clancy praised Dugan, Rep. Bob Donovan (R-Greenfield) said “I have never seen a more irresponsible act by an officer of the court, let alone a judge, if true.”

U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune and U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson hold a press conference on the Republican budget resolution at the U.S. Capitol on April 10, 2025. The Republican leaders each face a challenge in uniting their divided conferences to pass a massive tax and spending plan supported by President Donald Trump. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Republicans in Congress have a difficult few months ahead of them as they look to broker agreement within their exceptionally narrow majority on policy issues that have already begun to divide centrists from far-right members of the party.

The negotiations will be the first test of the sort for Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, who weren’t in the top posts eight years ago when the GOP passed its last reconciliation package.

Tax law and funding cuts to Medicaid are the issues most likely to prevent one “big, beautiful bill” from moving through both chambers and reaching President Donald Trump’s desk.

Republican leaders will also need to be cautious as the package takes shape about what types of proposals their more vulnerable members vote on, especially if they hope to hold onto at least one chamber of Congress following next year’s midterm elections.

“The swing-district Republicans are in a tougher spot because their voters do want to see some of those tax cuts extended, but they don’t want to see it at the expense of programs like Medicaid,” said Dr. Ben Sommers, Huntley Quelch professor of health care economics at Harvard.

“And so they’re walking a tightrope,” he said. “And at least until there’s a final bill on the floor, a lot of them are going to just keep pushing that final decision down the road and hope that something else happens and that they don’t have to make that tough call.”

The decision to bundle together a permanent extension of the 2017 tax law, hundreds of billions in new spending on border security and defense, a rewrite of the nation’s energy policy and spending cuts means that centrist Republicans will have to cast one take-it-or-leave-it vote.

Breaking up the sweeping package into two or more bills would have given at-risk Republicans the opportunity for more tailored votes, but GOP leaders ultimately rejected that idea — a choice that will put moderates under increasing pressure as the legislation takes shape in the coming weeks.

Democrats in both chambers are expected to unanimously oppose the package.

Normally that would present a challenge in the Senate, where 60 votes are usually needed to limit debate on a bill and move onto final passage. But GOP leaders are using the reconciliation process to pass their bill, meaning they only need the support of a simple majority in the Senate. 

Slim margins

House committee chairs are expected to release and mark up 11 bills after the chamber returns from a two-week break in late April, though that’s only the first step.

Once the pieces are all bundled into one package, it will need to get across the House floor without losing more than three Republican votes, a much narrower threshold than the dozen GOP lawmakers in that chamber who voted against the final version of the 2017 tax law.

Republican leaders will then need to keep the party from making significant changes to the package in the Senate, where lawmakers will be able to offer as many amendments as they want when the bill comes to the floor.

That vote-a-rama will test party unity, with Democrats likely to propose amendments re-writing or eliminating specific sections of the bill — especially those addressing tax provisions benefiting the wealthy or corporations, and Medicaid spending cuts.

If more than three Senate Republicans break from the party to alter various elements, it could endanger final approval. However, if GOP senators from swing states vote to keep unpopular provisions in the bill, it could lead to them losing their next reelection bid to a Democrat.

Difference of opinion on Medicaid

The disagreement between centrist Republicans and far-right lawmakers over potential spending cuts to Medicaid is already on full display.

During floor debate on the budget resolution that cleared the way for Republicans to write the massive reconciliation package, Texas Rep. Chip Roy excoriated the state-federal health program for lower income Americans and some people with disabilities.

“Medicaid is debilitating the vulnerable, not helping them,” Roy said. “We are shoveling money out to the able-bodied on the back of expansion of Obamacare.”

On the other ideological side of the conference, a group of 14 centrist House Republicans sent a letter to GOP leaders a few days after voting to adopt the budget resolution to announce they “cannot and will not support a final reconciliation bill that includes any reduction in Medicaid coverage for vulnerable populations.”

“Cuts to Medicaid also threaten the viability of hospitals, nursing homes, and safety-net providers nationwide,” they wrote. “Many hospitals — particularly in rural and underserved areas — rely heavily on Medicaid funding, with some receiving over half their revenue from the program alone.

“Providers in these areas are especially at risk of closure, with many unable to recover. When hospitals close, it affects all constituents, regardless of healthcare coverage.”

Failed Obamacare repeal

Republican leaders in Congress will want to avoid a repeat of the last time the party tried to overhaul health care in a reconciliation package.

During Trump’s first term, following years of GOP politicians pledging to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, they sought to do just that through the same complex reconciliation process they’re using now.

Ultimately, twenty Republicans voted against the bill in the House and three GOP senators — Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, Arizona’s John McCain and Maine’s Susan Collins — blocked that chamber’s repeal-and-replace bill.

Collins said in a floor speech at the time she voted against the House’s version of the bill for several reasons, including that it would have made “sweeping changes to the Medicaid program — an important safety net that for more than 50 years has helped poor and disabled individuals, including children and low-income seniors, receive health care.”

Murkowski wrote in a statement that she voted against the Senate’s so-called “skinny” repeal bill because “both sides must do better on process and substance.”

“I know that access to affordable care is a challenge for so many. I hear from fishermen who can’t afford the coverage that they have, small business owners who can’t afford insurance at all, and those who have gained coverage for the first time in their life,” Murkowski wrote. “These Alaskans have shared their anxiety that their personal situation may be made worse under the legislation considered this week.”

Medicaid cuts could hurt state budgets

GOP lawmakers in Congress won’t be the only members of the party that leaders need to keep in the fold. Republican governors may not have a vote in either chamber, but they do have considerable sway with their congressional delegations and many red states have a substantial percentage of their Medicaid programs covered by federal dollars.

Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo released a letter last month seeking to assuage fears about potential federal cuts to Medicaid, writing that he was “actively engaged in conversations with the White House and others in the federal government to relay our state’s concerns.”

“An abrupt reduction in federal funding would not only disrupt care for those who rely on Medicaid, but would also destabilize public and private healthcare providers, leading to workforce reductions, service limitations, and financial strain on already overburdened health care facilities,” Lombardo wrote.

National Governors Association Chair Jared Polis, a Colorado Democrat, and Vice Chair Kevin Stitt, an Oklahoma Republican, wrote in a joint statement released in March that the organization is “committed to advocating for a robust and efficient health and human services system, including Medicaid.”

“Without consultation and proper planning, Congressionally proposed reductions to Medicaid would impact state budgets, rural hospitals and health care service providers,” they wrote. “It is necessary for Governors to have a seat at the table when discussing any reforms and cuts to Medicaid funding.”

Federal spending cuts to Medicaid could lead some of the 40 states that have expanded the program under Obamacare to roll it back, though Missouri, Oklahoma and South Dakota have the expansion in their constitutions, making the impact of congressional action more complicated for their budgets and residents.

Leighton Ku, professor of health policy and management at The George Washington University, said during an interview that even though GOP governors aren’t members of Congress, they still hold “powerful influence.”

“We’re talking about deep cuts in federal spending that will have profound effects on state economies and state employment,” Ku said. “Governors, particularly those who expanded Medicaid, should feel fairly nervous about: What are the implications for their states in terms of both their political futures as well as what it will do to their state economies?”

“Again, we’re talking about the possibility of maybe somewhere on the order of a million jobs being lost simply because of the Medicaid cuts,” he added. “And that should cause some trepidation among governors.”

Republicans in Congress, Ku said, are trying to reduce spending. But when it comes to Medicaid, where the cost of administering the program is split between states and the federal government, any change to the federal share will come at the expense of the states.

“So the states end up being losers,” he said. “And this will cause states’ governors some unease. Again, it depends on where they lie politically: They may still be willing to accept cuts if it fits in with their ideologies.”

State and local taxes

Republicans also find themselves in a sticky situation when it comes to a major tax provision set to expire at the end of 2025: a limit on the amount of state and local taxes a taxpayer can deduct on their federal tax return. The limit is often simply referred to as the SALT cap.

Like proposed Medicaid cuts, the SALT debate has potential to change the calculus of Republicans willing to vote for the one large reconciliation bill.

For many years prior to the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, taxpayers were able to take full advantage of deducting state and local taxes from their federal taxable income. But in that law, GOP lawmakers changed course and enacted a $10,000 cap on the SALT deduction to raise revenue to cover some of the law’s massive tax breaks.

The ability to deduct all eligible state and local taxes on federal tax returns was a win for wealthy households located in states and municipalities with steeper taxes.

At the time, Democrats, who wholesale opposed Trump’s tax agenda, saw the SALT cap as an attack on high-earning, high-tax blue states. But the SALT cap drew ire from across the aisle as well, said Kyle Pomerleau, senior fellow and federal tax policy expert for the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.

“The original bill also had a few Republicans that didn’t vote for it because of the cap. So this has been controversial to some degree from the very beginning,” Pomerleau said.

With such a narrow majority in the House, Republicans from high-tax areas, including those representing New York’s Long Island and Staten Island and California’s wealthy suburbs, will have leverage in the coming debate.

“Republicans generally don’t come from those states. There’s only a handful of them. But that brings us back to the vote margin that Republicans have,” Pomerleau said. “They have a lot of power this time around to really get what they want. These lawmakers who represent people that are concerned about this cap are going to want that cap raised.”

The issue is one of the few tax topics not polarized by party because it is defined by location, said Garrett Watson, director of policy analysis at the Tax Foundation, a think tank that generally supports lower taxes.

“It’s an interesting sort of debate, just because a lot of tax policy debates have political, partisan, ideological components, right? That’s somewhat predictable,” Watson said. “What’s interesting about SALT is actually it’s also a strong geographic story.”

Watson published the Tax Foundation’s 2023 county-by-county maps of state and local taxes paid as well as deducted from federal taxes in 2020. The data showed the top reporting counties were concentrated in California and New York.

Raising cap would cost federal government

But many Republicans would be happy if the cap on SALT deductions stayed in place to offset the cost of extending the 2017 tax cuts.

Raising the cap beyond the current $10,000 limit could reduce federal revenue between $200 billion to $1.2 trillion over the next decade, depending on what level Congress decides, according to a January analysis from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan think tank that leans center-left.

In other words, households deducting more from their federal taxable income means the federal government reaping less revenue.

“Just to give you some order of magnitude, we looked at what would happen if you raised the cap from $10,000 to $20,000. That would cost (the federal government) $250 billion over 10 years. That’s a big number,” said Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.

Deficit hawks, like Roy of Texas and Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, have spoken out in recent months against raising the cap.

And while more federal revenue is lost with each dollar the cap increases, the benefit mainly goes to high-income earners, according to another Tax Policy Center analysis.

“We estimated when you raise the (SALT cap) from $10,000 to $20,000, 93% of the benefit goes to the top …20% , which are people making more than $200,000,” Gleckman said. “And half of it goes to people in the top 5% who are people who make more than $400,000.”

Most taxpayers take the standard deduction, which in 2025 sits at $15,000 for single taxpayers or $30,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly.

“That’s why the vast majority of people get no benefit from this. It’s only people who make a lot of money, who itemize, and who pay a lot of tax who get caught up in the cap,” Gleckman said.

But they may have an outsized voice as Congress hammers out its reconciliation bill in the coming months.

Johnson, a Louisiana Republican whose constituents would not benefit from raising the SALT cap, will have a “tough balancing act,” Gleckman said.

“Mike Johnson looks at the narrow majority he has in the House, and he sees if he loses half a dozen seats from places like New York and California because he doesn’t fix the cap then he could not be speaker anymore,” he said.

Republicans in the bipartisan SALT caucus include Reps. Mike Lawler, Nick LaLota, Andrew Garbarino and Nicole Malliotakis, all representing New York, as well as Tom Kean Jr. of New Jersey, and Young Kim of California.

Rachel Snyderman, managing director of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, said “complicated political tetris” is likely to emerge as lawmakers negotiate the reconciliation bill.

“The caucus that has called for (the cap’s) elimination over the past years has only gotten louder and more vocal and see this year as the opportunity to flex their muscle,” Snyderman said.

People move about the Guilford County Democratic Party headquarters in Greensboro, North Carolina, on Nov. 7, 2022. (Photo by Sean Rayford/Getty Images)

The Democratic National Committee will transfer more than $1 million per month to its state and territorial parties over the next four years in an effort to build state-level infrastructure and operations, the DNC announced Thursday.

The agreement marks the DNC’s largest total investment in Democratic state parties to date and comes as Democrats try to rebound from significant losses in the 2024 election cycle.

Each state party is set to receive a minimum of $17,500 per month, a $5,000 increase from the current baseline, the DNC said in materials provided to States Newsroom ahead of the wider announcement.

Republican-controlled states will get an additional $5,000 a month, bringing their monthly total to $22,500. The GOP-controlled states will get that additional investment through the DNC’s Red State Fund.

The DNC’s definition for a GOP-controlled state is one that meets at least two of the three criteria: no Democratic governor or Democratic U.S. Senator; one-quarter or less of the congressional delegation is made up of Democrats; and Republicans hold supermajorities in both state legislative chambers.

As part of the agreement, the DNC said it will host six regional training “bootcamps” for state parties per two-year cycle and will also hire new staff to the Association of State Democratic Committees.

The DNC said the initiative also aims to help Democratic state parties with their infrastructure, staffing, data and tech operations as well as with organizing programs and preparation for future election cycles.

DNC Chair Ken Martin, the former Minnesota party chair who was elected to lead the national party in February, called the initiative “a historic political investment unlike anything Democrats have done in modern times” and said in a statement it is part of a long-term strategy.

“We’re putting our money where our mouth is to equip state parties with what they need to reach working families who deserve better, build long-term success all across the ballot, and gain electoral ground for years to come,” Martin said in the statement.

“Elections are won in states — and that’s exactly where we will be investing our resources,” said Martin.

Last week, Martin laid out the leadership board’s organizing principles, which centered on “organizing early, organizing always, organizing everywhere, and winning everywhere.”

“You’re going to continue to witness a level of aggressive investment and organizing from this DNC that’s unlike anything we’ve done before,” Martin wrote in that memo.

In a Thursday statement, Jane Kleeb, president of the Association of State Democratic Committees and chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party, said “state parties are the backbone of the Democratic Party, and through this investment, our state parties will receive the support they need to show voters that, no matter where they live, there is a strong Democratic Party in their corner, protecting their rights and economic opportunity against Republican attacks.”

20 years later

The strategy bears some resemblance to the 50-state strategy pioneered by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who led the DNC from 2005 to 2009 and appeared on a DNC press call Thursday.

“This is a really critical move that’s being made here,” Dean said. “We have not been anything but a Washington, D.C.-centric party since 2008, and the reason that the Democrats have had a tough time is because if you’re not out there doing the grassroots politics, you don’t win. Period.”

Critics during Dean’s tenure argued that spending in deep-red areas pulled resources away from winnable races in more moderate states and congressional districts.

Asked on the press call whether the push to spread money to more states could lead to a decline in financial support to swing states, Martin said, “No, not at all.”

“I mean, as I said, there’s no such thing as a perpetual blue state or a perpetual red state, and over the years, because there’s been a lack of investment in blue states, as an example, by other partners in the ecosystem, not necessarily the DNC, it’s meant we’ve seen actually our vote share in some of the bluest parts of the country actually starting to decrease,” he said.

“I believe you have to invest everywhere and organize everywhere if you want to win everywhere, and so, that’s what this will do.” 

Green Bay will host the NFL draft from April 24-26. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

Green Bay-area legislators say the city and state are prepared for the “once-in-a-generation” tourism coming to the region when the NFL draft starts in the city Thursday. 

Green Bay is accustomed to hosting at least eight Packers home games each year, but the draft is expected to bring up to four times as many people to the city as a typical game, according to state Rep. David Steffen (R-Howard). Hotels are booked as far south as Milwaukee and as far west as Wausau, he said, and with that comes additional strain on local resources. 

“We heard early on that public safety led by the city of Green Bay had real concerns at the ballooning costs at having this event policed,” state Rep. Amaad Rivera-Wagner (D-Green Bay) said. “So they were inviting the county, the state, other officers from outside of the region to come help with the draft, given that we wanted to make sure it was an incredibly safe event in our incredibly safe community. But you know, we want to be aware of things like human trafficking, other challenges, potentially debaucherous behavior, and that footprint between the downtown and Lambeau Field would require more public safety officials, including EMS services, than we even had on hand.”

In the last biennial budget, state lawmakers set aside $2 million to support the draft and in his budget proposal this year, Gov. Tony Evers requested $1 million to assist the city with additional expenses. While the Republican-controlled Joint Finance Committee rejected Evers’ proposal, Steffen and Rep. Ben Franklin (R-De Pere) have requested $1.25 million in the budget to reimburse public safety departments in Green Bay, Brown County and Ashwaubenon for the added costs incurred in planning for and managing the hundreds of thousands of visitors. 

Steffen told the Wisconsin Examiner his proposal is better because it is specifically carved out for police and fire departments but that the additional $1.25 million — funded out of the state’s nearly $5 billion budget surplus — will help local officials manage the event while still making it a net benefit for the state. He said he anticipates the draft generating $4.5 million in sales tax revenue for the state. 

“So this is still a net financial winner for the state, but having the county, city and village shoulder all those expenses on the property taxpayers for this statewide benefiting event doesn’t seem appropriate,” Steffen said. 

Cleveland, Detroit and Kansas City have all hosted the NFL draft in recent years, but despite the event’s success in other midwestern cities, both Rivera-Wagner and Steffen say Green Bay’s status as the smallest city in the country to be the home of a major professional sports team makes the event here unique. 

“I think a lot of people are going to be coming because of the unique nature of Lambeau Field and Green Bay in professional sports,” Steffen said. “There is nothing like it anywhere else in the nation in terms of an experience.”

Last year, business owners in the Milwaukee area were left frustrated after the city hosted the Republican National Convention because of its muted benefit to local businesses. Rivera-Wagner, who worked as chief of staff for Green Bay Mayor Eric Genrich prior to his election to the Legislature, said the city met with officials from Detroit and Kansas City to learn how to make sure the draft benefits the city at large and not just the area around Lambeau Field. 

“You have to be purposeful to make these large-scale events impact the larger community, because, in and of themselves, if they’re overly contained, they cannot necessarily have the impact that you might anticipate,” he said. 

The city has set up a series of events in its downtown area, including a kringle making competition, a 5k run and an early opening of the city’s normal downtown farmer’s market before its typical May start. These events, according to Rivera-Wagner, are meant to engage locals and visitors while not causing the event to cast such a large footprint that people trying to avoid the crowds can’t do so. 

“We took those lessons to heart and created this entire downtown experience based on the feedback that we learned from Kansas City and Detroit about celebrating our community, making sure this event isn’t just for outsiders, that is also for the residents of our community and make sure that economic footprint is as big, as broad as possible without interfering with the people who want to opt out,” he said. 

Steffen said that even though people visit Green Bay from elsewhere each home-game Sunday during football season, they often fly in and out quickly. But because the draft is a three-day event — with lots of down time before a fan’s team makes its pick each round — the draft gives Green Bay a better opportunity to show itself off. 

“Because this is a multi-day event where the majority of the activity is in the afternoon and evening, there’s going to be lots of opportunity in the early parts of each day for people to experience the rest of Green Bay,” he said. “And so we have free transportation arranged throughout the city, from the various hotels to the draft experience, as well as to places like our vibrant downtown areas and our state renowned amusement park Bay Beach. So these are things that I think we’ll be taking advantage of at a level that far exceeds a typical Packer game.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Universities of Wisconsin President Jay Rothman and UW-Madison Jennifer Mnookin told lawmakers that the DEI practices throughout the system are constantly evolving.

President of the Dane County NAACP chapter Greg Jones was the only member of the public to testify at a Joint Audit Committee hearing Tuesday on two recent audits into the diversity, equity and inclusion practices of state agencies and the Universities of Wisconsin. His message to lawmakers was simple: listen to individuals’ stories about the impact of diversity, equity and inclusion programs and stay away from politicized attacks on DEI. 

“If the question is about whether DEI is functioning or not, whether it’s effective or not, then do it — assess it, examine it and make the case, but don’t let the politicized environment we now face become an issue of concern,” Jones said. 

Jones told lawmakers on the committee about his own experience working in what was then known as the American Ethnic Coordinate office at UW-Eau Claire many years ago. His responsibilities in that “first iteration for the stuff called DEI, belonging and so forth” was ensuring that African-American, Native American, Hispanic American and white students were comfortable on campus. 

“It caused me to do a lot of different things. I worked with them to facilitate transportation back home to Kenosha, Racine when they lost a family member, helped them get that money from the financial aid office, advocated for them with English teachers who wouldn’t accept Black English as a… method of communication in the class, even when writing poetry, short stories, or any other literary form,” Jones said. 

Jones added that these efforts helped students succeed in school and were designed to accomplish similar goals to the many DEI initiatives across UW campuses today. 

“They’re trying to do the same thing: make those students, who don’t live in those communities, are not from those communities, who don’t relate culturally, racially, ethnically, economically to members of that community, [feel] comfortable.”

Jones’ comments came after four hours of back and forth between the leaders of the state Department of Administration (DOA) and the University of Wisconsin system, who defended their DEI practices, and lawmakers on the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. Republicans on the committee pressed the leaders on the results of recent audits and criticized DEI efforts saying they are “racist” and do not benefit the state.

Republican lawmakers launched the audits into DEI practices last year after getting concessions from the UW system on cutting back DEI in 2023. The lawmakers then expressed their intent to continue targeting and trying to eliminate diversity programs. 

The audit results, which were released earlier this month, come as Republican lawmakers have felt emboldened by a U.S. Supreme Court decision that ended consideration of race in admission processes and as the Trump administration has made targeting and eliminating DEI efforts, especially in K-12 and higher education, one of its top priorities. According to a recent poll by Pew Reseach Center, 54% of Americans disapprove of the Trump administration’s actions to end DEI in the federal government, while 44% approve. 

Committee co-chair Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto) opened the hearing on the audits by attacking diversity, equity and inclusion, saying that it “abandons the pursuit of a colorblind society” and demands “stereotyping.” He said the audits “expose the waste and unconstitutionality of rebranded discrimination based on immutable characteristics.”

Wimberger added he would be seeking information from leaders on how the practices would be “abandoned” or how each DEI initiative “satisfies a compelling government interest and is narrowly tailored to accomplish that interest.”

The DOA audit focused on actions that have been taken in accordance with Executive Order 59, which Gov. Tony Evers signed in 2019 to instruct state agencies to create equity and inclusion plans. Auditors analyzed how much is spent by agencies for DEI activities, including for staffing, and reviewed reported outcomes resulting from DEI activities.

The audit found that none of the 24 state agencies tracked the amount they were spending on DEI, though the audit attempts to estimate some of the costs. According to the audit in 2023-24, agencies spent $2.16 million for salary costs for positions with job duties pertaining to DEI, $705,300 for salary costs for time spent attending diversity, equity, and inclusion training required by the executive order, $444,300 on costs for completing certain actions listed in equity and inclusion action plans and $200,200 for salary costs for time spent attending meetings of DEI committees.

It also found that agencies did not consistently document that they had corrected issues of noncompliance that DOA had identified, and that DOA did not consistently require agencies to take corrective action. The audit recommended that DOA improve its monitoring efforts and ensure that it comply with the executive order and other statutory and administrative rules related to affirmative action. 

The UW audit found that UW institutions planned DEI activities and programs mostly at an institutional level, and not across the board. There is no system wide definition of DEI and implementation of DEI activities were left up to the decision of each institution.

The UW audit similarly found that spending related to DEI was not specifically tracked across the system. According to the audit during the 2023-24 fiscal year, there were $40,221,000 in costs for UW offices with duties pertaining to DEI, $12,484,900 in estimated salary costs for positions with duties related to DEI and $7,911,900 in working on certain diversity, equity, and inclusion activities listed in selected strategic plans and diversity, equity, and inclusion plans.

Republicans expressed contempt for DEI related programs and practices repeatedly throughout the hearing.

Sen. Chris Kapenga (R-Delafield) said at one point that he was “encouraged by the lack of implementation” of Evers’ executive order.

“The programs are disgusting. It’s racist,” Kapenga said. 

Democrats on the committee rejected Republicans’ characterizations of DEI — defending the practices and also seeking to understand the cost of the audit itself, which took 10 months to complete and included extensive interviews by the LAB of the agencies and UW institutions to compile the information included.

Rep. Sequanna Taylor (D-Milwaukee) said that DEI practices are not meant to be racist. 

“It is meant to be a step … so that we ensure everyone is successful in their learning opportunities,” Taylor said. 

Sen. Melissa Ratcliff (D-Cottage Grove) asked LAB how much money was spent preparing the report.

State Auditor Joe Chrisman said the LAB spent about $423,000.

DOA says practices help recruit new state employees 

In her testimony, DOA Secretary-designee Kathy Blumenfield said that her agency’s  DEI practices have been beneficial for recruiting and retaining employees. 

Blumenfield also reminded lawmakers that a year ago when lawmakers were launching the audit she told them it would be hard because the work of DEI “isn’t done exclusively by one agency, nor is it a program staffed by specific employees with policies and procedures.” She brought up concerns about the methodology of the audit, saying that the audit likely overstated costs.

One example, Blumenfield said, was in relation to town hall events that were hosted by the Department of Workforce Development. The audit lists the events as costing $165,400 in 2023-24, however, Blumenfield said DEI wasn’t the main focus. 

“The content of these meetings included a wide variety of other topics unrelated to [the executive order]… Only 12% of the town hall meeting could be associated with [the executive order], which would equate to a cost of only $19,800 — reducing [the agency’s] total estimated cost by 86%,” Blumenfield said. 

Blumenfield also said that many of the activities and positions that were covered in the audit existed in previous administrations and were already required by state law — before the Evers executive order. 

Blumenfield said she thinks DEI practices have been beneficial to the state and that “luckily” the audit didn’t opine on whether DEI was good or bad. 

“This was very, very difficult and very, very challenging,” Blumenfield said, adding that she sees the audit as actually “telling us to lean in more to this work.” 

“If you look at the actual recommendations out of the audit, it’s saying do more in this space,” Blumenfield continued. 

Rep. Mark Born (R-Beaver Dam) said he is concerned with whether the audit finds the agency  complies with the law and DEI programs are a good use of state resources. He said he couldn’t “wrap my head around” why the state needs DEI to recruit candidates. 

Blumenfield said that DOA is complying with the law and that the agency is trying to explore ways, including nontraditional ones, to ensure the workforce represents the people of Wisconsin better.

“What you just said there is super important because you didn’t say we want our applicants [to be] a little more diverse,” Born said. “You said you want the workforce… How do you make it look more like the state if you’re not hiring people based on race … gender or whatever?”

DOA legislative advisor Cara Connors responded that outreach is important. 

“Historically, you had folks who didn’t even apply to state jobs,” Connors said. She added that outreach was “not because we need to put a thumb on the scale in the hiring process and look at race. It was that we needed to get these people to apply to jobs in the first place.”

One example they used to illustrate the point is outreach to female engineers. 

“Female engineers are really hard to come by. [The Public Service Commission] has a really hard time just retaining and recruiting engineers, so they’ve sent their female engineers to the career fairs and all of a sudden they’re attracting more female engineers,” Blumenfield said. “This isn’t rocket science.”

In response to a question from Rep. Dan Knodl (R-Germantown), Blumenfield clarified that there are no quotas for these programs. 

“If I’m at a career fair and I’m a woman and I don’t see anyone that looks like me, you know, I might not be as excited to apply with that organization as if I see someone that I can see myself in,” Blumenfield said. 

Knodl asked whether there are any engineer positions currently open.

“Are there male engineers available to fill those spots? Are you keeping them open for female engineers?” Knodl asked.

“No we don’t do that,” Connors responded. Blumenfield asked if he knew any engineers, and Knodl said his son is an engineer.

Wimberger argued that by implementing DEI programs, people are presuming things about people based on “immutable characteristics.” 

“Respectfully, Senator, I think this committee is conflating this idea of what DEI is with what’s actually happening at the state agencies,” Connor said. “What’s happening at the state agencies is what the secretary is describing. It’s this effort to recruit and retain talent in line with [several factors].” She used the example of the American with Disabilities Act, noting that it’s an anti-discrimination law.

“If I’m building a building, and I have multiple floors, I have to have an elevator, I have to have ramps,” Connors said. 

“If I wanted to help people with disabilities, would I build a ramp?” Wimberger asked. 

“If you want them to access your building,” Connors said. 

“Not if their disability isn’t related to mobility,” Wimberger shot back.

Sen. Melissa Ratcliff asked about the time the agencies spent complying with the audit.  

Blumenfield said they spent over 600 hours — or more than 75 eight-hour work days.

“That took us, actually, away from the work that we were doing to try and achieve a lot of the outcomes,” Blumenfield said.

UW leaders say DEI efforts focused on student success

Universities of Wisconsin President Jay Rothman and UW-Madison Jennifer Mnookin told lawmakers that the DEI practices throughout the system are constantly evolving and are  important to student success. 

Rothman said he has come to think of DEI as “a broad concept that includes differences in political ideology and religious beliefs, first generation status, disabled status, veteran status, in addition to those who would come from historically underrepresented groups” and that UW’s  focus is “on each individual student as an individual to ensure their success as a student and to ensure that they leave our universities with enhanced level of cultural competency.” 

Wimberger asked about whether UW-Madison has scholarships that consider race.

 

Mnookin said that while it was considered as a “modest” factor in admissions before the U.S. Supreme Court decision, that is no longer the case. She added that the U.S. Supreme Court decision does not directly speak to scholarships and that there are a few exceptions to this at UW-Madison because of some state statutes.

“Nobody is getting a scholarship from UW Madison on the basis of the racial preference,” Mnookin said. “We also are no longer accepting new scholarships from donors that call out identity characteristics in that way.”  

Some Republican lawmakers also asked about LaVar J. Charlteston, the UW-Madison chief diversity officer who was demoted from his position due to financial concerns including “highly atypical and excessive spending across multiple dimensions — from bonuses to compensation adjustments to travel, supplies and furnishings.” Wimberger asked if UW would fill the position he left vacant. 

Mnookin said she has a new part-time advisor, but it is not the same. 

“It is not at all the same role that Dr. Charlteston had,” Mnookin said. “We were trying to think about what does pluralism look like? How do we create a culture where conversations across our differences, no matter your identity or no matter your beliefs, are something that is happening?”

Mnookin said they are also working on implementing new financial controls with consultation from Deloitte to help prevent further occurrences like this.

“I don’t begrudge you for doing that,” Wimberger said. 

Rep. Robert Wittke (R-Caledonia), who expressed concerns about the variety of DEI definitions on campus, asked Rothman what the system is going to do to work on setting a standard across campuses.

“There was the sense coming out of the audit that we didn’t have a sense of what’s going on. I don’t think that’s a fair characterization,” Rothman said.

During the hearing, Rothman commended Mnookin for her work, particularly naming the Deliberation Dinners she has hosted, which are an opportunity for students to participate in conversations about controversial issues. Mnookin said it is part of their work to make people feel included on campus.

“Part of what we are trying to create — and, Senator, I acknowledge that we have further work to do — is a place where, whatever your background or your identity you can feel comfortable sharing perspectives,” Mnookin said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Stacey and Tenzin Botsford at Red Door Family Farm in Athens.

STEVENS POINT – Red Door Family Farm in Marathon County will probably survive the Trump administration’s latest punch – the failure to honor grower contracts that supported schools, pantries and also boosted local foods in grocery stores. But the owners of Red Door aren’t so sure about some of their fellow local food growers.

The administration recently eliminated the Local Food Purchase Assistance Program and the related Local Food for Schools Program, and in the process reneged on funds already committed for this year, leaving almost 300 farmers across the state holding the bag, or, in many cases, the seeds.

At Red Door, owners Stacey and Tenzin Botsford won’t be planting the carrot seeds they ordered. “It would be bad business for me to do that,” says Stacey. “Some seeds are already planted, all the onions are, but there’s no reason for me to plant all those carrots.”

Like many other local growers, Red Door actually raises food that people eat. They’re the farmers you know at farmers markets all over the state. They’re also the farmers who help stock super markets with local foods. And, until now, they provided nutritious, locally grown fruits and vegetables to food pantries and schools.

What gets under their skin, Stacey Botsford says, is the arbitrary and capricious cutoff of funds already committed, funds that many farmers were promised and that caused many to invest in infrastructure and hire employees. “The part that really bothers me is, if next year they said, ‘We don’t value that program,’ that’s fine, but you can’t break the contract everyone signed. Now I can’t trust government contracts anymore. I cannot imagine the widespread mistrust of government from this.”

Red Door is probably diversified enough to weather the loss of up to $50,000 in anticipated income, but on a recent chilly spring day, rather than planting carrots, Stacey was searching for new markets.

She says she’s angry and heartbroken about the impact on other growers, including many Hmong farmers who invested in hoop houses and in some cases greenhouses based on projected income. “Greenhouses, you don’t own one unless you have enough to fill it. Heating those suckers is a lot of money. The LSP people were encouraging all the Hmong to build hoop houses and greenhouses. Those are huge investments.”

Local and regional foods are mainstream in most parts of Wisconsin and across the country these days. It’s been a success story of remarkable growth in the past few decades, built on the backs of farmers, many of them young, from a variety of  ethnic backgrounds. Some government assistance was available for hoop houses and other improvements, but for the most part, the growth was organic, from the ground up, without commodity payments or other government support. 

And while the local food programs were buffeted by the recent breach of contract, large commodity growers got a big boost from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to buffer them from the impacts of the Trump administration tariffs. USDA recently announced it will provide $10 billion in direct economic assistance to agricultural producers through the Emergency Crop Assistance Program EECAP for the 2024 crop year. The local foods programs were projected to cost $1 billion nationally.

The payments to commodity growers, notes Botsford, will reward farmers not to grow crops like corn and soybeans. “Government has always subsidized farms. We’ve been subsidizing farmers for years – all the commodity crops – and now they’re paying farmers not to grow crops,” while local commodity growers take their losses, she said. “So, they’re making it impossible to sell what you’ve committed to and giving conventional farms $10 billion not to grow.”

Red Door and hundreds of other farms rely on the Wisconsin Food Hub Cooperative in Waupaca to source and transport their produce. The Food Hub Cooperative is a farmer-owned business supporting the local food system. 

Tara Roberts-Turner, general manager of the Food Hub, likened the suspension of the programs and promised funding to a natural disaster. “This almost happened as fast and as crazy as a hailstorm. It pulls the legs right out from under you, and you’re left saying ‘Whoa, did that really happen?’” she says.

The Food Hub serves more than 400 Wisconsin farmers, providing transportation and distribution services, along with other grower assistance. Under the LFPA program and its committed funding, the cooperative rented trucks, expanded staff, and coordinated with farmers for supply in preparation in 2025.

The food hub and its growers are working to get the program restored, but there have been few good signs. “If the LFPA is not restored, years of building the local farmer-to-market infrastructure that the Food Hub Cooperative has built for farmers with government investment will be completely thrown out the window,” says Turner-Roberts. 

The cooperative and farmer members are all businesses, Roberts-Turner says. They have business plans, investments, overhead and bottom lines. The programs eliminated by the Trump administration were built on other government efforts to support local food security, she adds. That was an investment in local businesses and communities. “If you were to look at this from a business perspective, they would realize it’s not a very sound decision. They lose all the investment they put in and cut off a bipartisan plan to make the state’s food systems more stable. I think back to when these programs were kicked off, and it was supported by both sides of the aisle,” she says, adding that their farmer members span the political spectrum.

And it’s not just food pantries and schools. Supermarket chains like Kroger, Roundy’s and other grocers buy local foods produced across the state. “Food Hub growers supply over $3 million of produce to larger grocery stories and grocery distribution in the state,” Turner-Roberts says. If the growers don’t survive, local foods will dissipate. “We’re shipping to them year-round, everything from potatoes and apples to crops like zucchini and yellow squash,” she says. “The local Piggly Wiggly here (in Waupaca) has always been about supporting local. The premise is everyone knows this is important, right? When you ask farmers to buy seeds and implements and hire employees and then cut them off, it’s going to make them less likely to participate in those programs. These farmers are members of their communities, but they’re also business people.”

Like cooperative member Stacey Botsford, Turner-Roberts says it’s a heartbreaking time, even as spring planting is under way across the state. Are there any positives? U.S. Sen. Cory Booker has sponsored legislation to honor farmer contracts. “We have not seen any Republicans who have signed on to that,” Turner-Roberts says. “I find it curious. The food hub is not a political program. Food is not political. It’s not just farmers we’re worried about. We’re two to five years into a seven-year project we have with a bunch of partners in state that have basically created middle-of-the-road infrastructure to sustain ourselves as a state, whether it’s schools, pantries, whatever. What this means is that, next emergency we have that threatens our ability to feed ourselves, we’ll have to start all over. In Wisconsin, Meanwhile, at the Food Hub, “We’ve got truck leases three years out. We have to sign leases and find a way to pay for them and hire staff.”

The food hub has farmer cooperators in all 72 counties in the state. As Botsford at Red Door notes, a lot of them are left scratching their heads. “Margins are so narrow in farming, you don’t plant $50,000 in food and not have anywhere to sell it,” she says. “I’m talking to distributors all over the U.S., in the southeast and in bigger cities. There’s a fairly significant food shortage coming, with the California fires and people who work on farms leaving because they’re scared. People are concerned about the price of food.”

These days, she’s working with neighboring Amish farmers. “I tell them I will sell their food and take a cut.” Those neighbors don’t have coolers for food storage, but Red Door does. “I say, ‘I can move your food, and I have a cooler, so bring it to my house and put it in the cooler.’ I feel very responsible to help these folks …  these people need to sell their produce.”

Tenzin Botsford is on the board of directors for Neighbors Place, a Marathon County nonprofit that was established in 1989 by several churches trying to address needs in the community. “They don’t know what to do now, how to make up the difference,” Stacey Botsford says. 

Red Door does cooperate with Cattail Organics, a neighboring farm, to supply farm-to-family food boxes through the Hunger Coalition, operated by United Way in Marathon County. But the past few weeks have been rough. “The seeds are already in the ground for a lot of the producers. We are diverse enough to pivot, but I am concerned with the smaller farms, especially the Hmong farmers in our area who were encouraged to expand, make investments, and put all their trust in this one basket of eggs. My heart is breaking for all the families who will not get the produce and I’m perplexed at how starving the poor of nutrition and gutting the farmers who are producing food is going to propel the country in a positive way. It’s not good on such a big scale.” 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

President Donald Trump speaks to reporters after signing executive orders in the Oval Office on April 23, 2025. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer and Secretary of Education Linda McMahon look on. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump signed a series of education-focused orders Wednesday related to accreditation in higher education, school discipline policies, historically Black colleges and universities, artificial intelligence in education and workforce development.

The executive orders are the latest in a slew of efforts from Trump to dramatically reshape the federal role in education. Last month, Trump called on U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure” of her own agency.

In one executive order, Trump aims to “overhaul” college accreditation, setting up more of a clash between his administration and higher education as they look to reform the system responsible for ensuring institutions meet quality standards.

The order directs McMahon to hold accreditors accountable by “denial, monitoring, suspension, or termination of accreditation recognition, for accreditors’ poor performance or violations of federal civil rights law,” according to a White House fact sheet.

The order also directs McMahon and Attorney General Pam Bondi to “investigate and take action to terminate unlawful discrimination by American higher education institutions, including law schools and medical schools.”

During his presidential campaign, Trump pledged to fire “radical Left accreditors,” claiming they “have allowed our colleges to become dominated by Marxist Maniacs and lunatics.”

AI in education

Trump also signed an executive order aimed at advancing artificial intelligence in education. The order calls for a White House task force on AI education that will help agencies implement a “Presidential AI Challenge” and establish public-private partnerships to provide resources for AI education in K-12 schools.

The order also directs McMahon to “prioritize the use of AI in discretionary grant programs for teacher training and directs the Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF) to prioritize research on the use of AI in education,” according to a White House fact sheet.

The order also calls for Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer, by collaborating with the director of the National Science Foundation, to “work with State and local workforce organizations and training providers to identify and promote high-quality AI skills education coursework and certifications across the country.”

Job training

Another order directs McMahon, Chavez-DeRemer and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to “modernize American workforce programs to prepare citizens for the high-paying skilled trade jobs of the future,” according to a White House fact sheet.

The order asks the Cabinet members to review federal workforce programs and refocus programs to train workers in industrial manufacturing.

Trump and Lutnick framed the order as part of the administration’s moves this month to place tariffs on every trading partner, with particularly high levies on goods from China.

“All those factories that you’re bringing in because of your trade policy, we’re going to train people” to work in them, Lutnick said.

Following the signings, Trump took several questions on his tariffs policy, acknowledging the rate on China was “high” but saying that was by design to hurt Chinese manufacturers.

“It basically means China is not doing any business with us, essentially, because it’s a very high number,” he said. “So when you add that to the price of a product, you know, a lot of those products aren’t going to sell, but China is not doing any business.”

Other orders

Other education-related executive orders signed Wednesday include: 

• An order that makes school discipline policies centered on “objective behavior;”
• an order mandating “full and timely disclosure of foreign funding by higher education institutions;”
• an order establishing a White House initiative on historically Black colleges and universities, or HBCUs, and a “President’s Board of Advisors on HBCUs” within the Education Department. 

A Social Security Administration field office in San Jose, California. The Trump administration plans to reduce the Social Security Administration’s workforce from 57,000 to 50,000 and close six of its ten regional offices. (Photo: Michael Vi/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A handful of leading U.S. Senate Democrats on Wednesday asked the Social Security Administration’s acting inspector general to examine how reductions in staff, closing some regional offices and other changes implemented by the Trump administration have impacted the safety net program.

“These actions have already created a chilling effect among the agency’s workforce, with several senior SSA officials with centuries’ worth of institutional knowledge and experience having already left the agency,” the five senators wrote in a letter. “We are concerned that this hostile environment will foster burnout, low morale, higher attrition, and worse productivity among employees.

“Collectively, this will undoubtedly lead to disruption in benefit payments and increasing barriers for Americans to access their Social Security benefits.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Special Committee on Aging ranking member Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., signed the letter.

They requested the office look into how the changes have impacted customer service throughout the agency, the speed of disability appeals hearings and how quickly employees can process clearances, among other requests.

The senators asked the acting inspector general to share quarterly updates on the effects “of the agency reorganization and any future workforce reductions” on customer service.

The Social Security Administration’s office of the inspector general didn’t immediately respond to a request from States Newsroom about whether the independent watchdog would respond to the letter.

Staff cuts

The Trump administration released a plan earlier this year to reduce the Social Security Administration’s workforce from 57,000 to 50,000 and close six of its ten regional offices.

The Social Security Administration’s acting commissioner also announced that the agency would reduce its budget by $800 million during the current fiscal year through freezing SSA and Disability Determination Services hiring and “drastically” reducing overtime within that division, canceling Information Technology Systems contracts and closing down office space.

U.S. DOGE Service, led by billionaire Elon Musk, has been spearheading efforts within the Trump administration to cut spending and restructure the executive branch.

Musk, however, plans to shift his attention back toward his businesses starting in May after watching Tesla’s stock drop more than 40% this year, according to news reports.

Nominee pledges to reduce wait times

President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the SSA, Frank Bisignano, hasn’t yet received Senate confirmation but did pledge during his hearing in March that if approved, he would ensure beneficiaries have the option to visit an office, use the website, or speak to a real person after calling the 1-800 number.

“On the phone, I’m committed to reducing wait times and providing beneficiaries with a better experience; waiting 20 minutes-plus to get an answer will be of yesteryear,” Bisignano said at the time. “I also believe we can significantly improve the length of the disability claim process.”

The Senate Finance Committee voted along party lines earlier this month to send Bisignano’s nomination to the floor, though GOP leaders haven’t scheduled a vote.

Democrats have criticized the Trump administration’s actions toward the Social Security Administration for months, arguing that staff cuts and proposed changes to how the agency operates could cause significant issues for recipients.

Former President Joe Biden made changes to the Social Security Administration the subject of his first public address after leaving office, urging the Trump administration to reverse course.

“Social Security is about more than retirement accounts. It’s about honoring a fundamental trust between government and people,” Biden said during the Chicago appearance. “It’s about peace of mind for those who work their whole lives, so they can rest assured they’ll have a chance to get back some of what they earned and what they deserve.”

A nurse gives an MMR vaccine at the Utah County Health Department on April 29, 2019, in Provo, Utah. The vaccine is 97% effective against measles when two doses are administered. (Photo by George Frey/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Americans are increasingly unsure what to believe about measles as an outbreak spreads throughout the country, according to a survey released Wednesday by the nonpartisan health research organization KFF.

The poll shows that nearly a quarter of those asked believe a commonly repeated false claim that getting a child vaccinated against measles could lead to autism. About the same percentage of those surveyed believe it’s either definitely or probably true that vitamin A can prevent someone from contracting measles, even though it cannot.

And 19% of those surveyed believed untrue statements that the vaccine for measles is more dangerous than contracting the virus.

Parents who believed at least one of the three incorrect claims were more likely to have delayed or skipped some vaccinations for their children. Nearly a quarter, 24%, of those surveyed said they haven’t protected their children via vaccination, more than double the 11% of parents who responded that all three of the false statements about measles were definitely or probably untrue.

Ongoing outbreak

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that as of late last week there are more than 800 measles diagnoses throughout at least 25 states.

The infections are spread throughout different age groups with 31% of cases in children under five years old, 38% of diagnoses in those between five and 19 years old, 29% in people above the age of 20 and 2% in those with an unknown age, according to the CDC.

Eighty-five patients have been hospitalized and three have died. Nearly all of the confirmed cases, 96%, are in people who have not received the MMR vaccine or who are unsure about their vaccination status, according to the CDC.

States with confirmed cases include Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont and Washington.

Virginia reported its first case this year over the weekend, though that’s not yet included on the CDC’s website about the ongoing outbreak.

Understanding linked with concern

KFF’s survey shows that even though there are many people who believe untrue claims about measles or the MMR vaccine — which protects against measles, mumps and rubella — there are higher percentages of people who understand basic facts about the virus and who are concerned about the ongoing outbreak.

Seventy-five percent of those polled said it was incorrect that the MMR vaccine leads to autism, 81% responded it was wrong to say the vaccine is more dangerous than contracting the virus and 75% said it was false that vitamin A can prevent someone from getting measles.

About half, or 51%, of those surveyed said they are at least somewhat concerned about the spread of measles. That worry was highest among Hispanic adults, 62%, and Black adults, 61%.

Most of the people surveyed, 56%, knew that the spread of measles was higher this year than during prior years, though that number varied among people of different political leanings.

Seventy-one percent of Democrats knew that diagnoses of measles have spiked in recent months, compared with 54% of independents and 49% of Republicans.

KFF conducted the survey of 1,380 adults between April 8 and April 15 via telephone and online questions. 

Senate President Mary Felzkowski (R-Tomahawk) said extending postpartum Medicaid coverage is morally and fiscally “the right thing to do” for Wisconsin. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

The Wisconsin Senate passed a bill to expand access to health care for postpartum mothers on Tuesday, while Assembly Republicans passed bills to further restrict and implement obstacles to accessing unemployment benefits for Wisconsinites.

The Senate for a second time since the last session passed a bill that would extend Medicaid coverage for postpartum mothers in Wisconsin from 60 days to a full year after childbirth. The measure received almost unanimous support, passing 32-1 with Sen. Chris Kapenga (R-Delafield) casting the only ‘no’ vote. 

Bill author Sen. Jesse James (R-Thorp) said at a press conference that Wisconsin has a responsibility to support mothers and babies. 

Pregnant women in Wisconsin can currently receive Medicaid coverage if they have an annual income of up to 306% of the federal poverty level, however, they risk losing their coverage 60 days after giving birth. Newborns already receive a year of coverage in Wisconsin. 

The bill received an outpouring of support from members of the public during a bill hearing. This included, James noted, support from mothers who dealt with heart failure, preeclampsia and other health issues.  

“That’s why we’re here today,” James said. “Those moms are why we’re here today — their stories of life-threatening heart conditions, postpartum complications and the postpartum depression… Let’s give them the care they need.” 

Senate President Mary Felzkowski (R-Tomahawk) said it is morally and fiscally “the right thing to do” for Wisconsin. 

According to a fiscal estimate by the Department of Health Services, the policy would cost $18.5 million in all funds including $7.3 million in general purpose revenue. If Wisconsin joined other states that have accepted the full federal Medicaid expansion, the cost for the postpartum coverage would be reduced to $15.1 million in all funds including $5.2 million in general purpose revenue.

Wisconsin is one of only two states in the country that haven’t opted to expand Medicaid coverage for postpartum moms, and despite bipartisan support, because of opposition from Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester), the bill continues to face challenges in becoming law. 

“Why is Wisconsin fighting for last place?” Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay) asked during floor debate.

Sen. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee) said he was glad that the proposal was being voted on again, but also said it is “odd” that lawmakers were speaking about extending the benefit in a national political environment where the federal Medicaid program as a whole is under threat.

“I would hope that we could take that initial step beyond [this bill] …  to do our best to ensure that Medicaid overall is protected,” Larson said. “If the feds decide to set fire to Medicaid, as has been happening with other areas of government, there is no way that other states can make up for it.” 

Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein (D-Middleton) noted on the floor that the Senate also passed the bill last session 32-1, and the Assembly is the reason that it was unsuccessful. 

Assembly Speaker Vos was one of the major obstacles to the advancement of the bill in the Assembly last session, and he continues to oppose the bill, having termed it an expansion of “welfare.”

“[Assembly Republicans] sat on it and did nothing and since that time, women and babies have been hurt because they haven’t received the care that they need,” Hesselbein said. “I’m very hopeful after our action again today that we could talk to the Republicans in the state Assembly and get this done.”

Felzkowski told lawmakers to remember that it can take more than one legislative session for a bill to pass and expressed confidence that the Assembly will eventually come around. 

“Sometimes it takes two or three [sessions], sometimes it takes four. We’ll get the Assembly there,” Felzkowski said during the floor session. “I promise.” 

When asked about the bill during a press conference Tuesday, Vos didn’t commit to bringing it up for a vote, saying that his caucus hasn’t discussed it yet, but he said he hasn’t changed his own position.

“My position has been fairly clear from the very beginning. I’ve never supported an expansion of welfare. I can’t imagine that I would ever support one,” Vos said. “But we have to talk about it as a caucus.”

Over 70% of the Assembly are co-sponsors on the bill, including 28 Republicans — who represent over half of the Assembly Republican caucus — and 44 Democrats. It needs a simple majority of 50 votes to pass.

New restrictions, requirements on unemployment insurance 

While the Senate sought to expand the public health care benefits for Wisconsin mothers, Assembly Republicans took action to restrict benefits for Wisconsinites who lose their jobs, passing a slate of bills that would restrict and implement more obstacles to receiving unemployment insurance.

People in Wisconsin are eligible to receive unemployment insurance if they were laid off and must be able, available and actively looking for work and willing to accept suitable work. The state Department of Workforce Development determines the weekly benefit. In Wisconsin, the minimum weekly benefit in Wisconsin is $54 while the maximum benefit is $370 per week.

Vos said the bills ensure that “all the folks who are in Wisconsin, who are able-bodied” and “living off the system wrongly” are “doing their due diligence to find a job as opposed to living off the system.”

Democratic lawmakers slammed the bills, saying they were wrongly seeking to make it more difficult to access public benefits at a time when Wisconsinites may need them more than ever given recent upheaval in the federal government under the Trump administration. 

“While Trump is starting trade wars, pushing the economy off the ledge and laying off droves of federal workers, legislative Republicans are doing nothing to push back,” Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine) said. “In fact, they’ve decided that the best use of our time here today on the floor is to make it harder for Wisconsinites to receive their earned benefits in a very chaotic time.”

Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee), speaking against the bills lawmakers were taking up, said it appeared to be “kick folks while they’re down day” in the Assembly. He said unemployment insurance is a “Wisconsin idea” — noting that Wisconsin was the first state in the country to establish an Unemployment Compensation program — and that the program provides protections for businesses and employees.

“Employers pay into UI and their employees get access to unemployment insurance by working for them, and when someone is laid off or a deeply unfunny billionaire with a chainsaw fires them or a business goes out of business because of deeply unfunny tariffs then the employee… gets a little bit back to help them survive until they get another” job, Clancy said.  

Republican lawmakers defended the bills as making the unemployment programs better for employers and those seeking the benefits. 

One bill — AB 164 — would change Wisconsin’s unemployment insurance program by renaming it the “reemployment assistance” program and expanding requirements for receiving the help. It would also require claimants make “direct” contact with potential employers as a part of their four required work searches weekly — or risk their benefits. The bill passed 53-42.

Rep. Benjamin Franklin said the bill requirements are “not a burden.” 

“It is an opportunity,” Rep. Ben Franklin (R-De Pere) said during floor debate. “Making real connections with hiring managers increases the odds of finding work that aligns with one’s experience, goals and skills.”

Vos said the proposals are “common sense” and accused Democrats of trying to keep people out of work.

“There are people all over the state of Wisconsin who are lying to us, lying to themselves and getting the benefit of the resources that the state of Wisconsin have when there is a job ready and waiting for them to take it,” Vos said. “Why would you want to support people who are scamming a system?”

Lawmakers also passed AB 165, which would ban local governments from using tax money to create guaranteed income programs without a work or training requirement, in a 53-42 party-line vote.

A handful of Wisconsin cities have explored pilot guaranteed income programs, including Madison, Milwaukee and Wausau. Clancy said people benefiting from local guaranteed income programs were being misrepresented by Republicans. 

“Giving cash to people in poverty helps them not to be in poverty,” Clancy said. “As it turns out, most people already know what they need and they make remarkably astute decisions about how to spend these benefits to help themselves and their families by meeting their most urgent needs.” 

Clancy said that in Milwaukee some beneficiaries have used the program to help pay rent, buy a vehicle to help them get to work and to take time off in preparation for the birth of a baby.

AB 167, which would expand the definition of employee misconduct used to deny an unemployment insurance claim and a worker’s compensation claim, passed 53-42.

Under the bill the definition of misconduct would include the unauthorized possession of an employer’s property or theft, unauthorized distribution of an employer’s confidential information, use of an employer’s credit card or other financial instrument for an unauthorized purpose and the violation of a company’s social media policy or absenteeism policy. The bill would also require the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) to conduct random audits of half of the work searches reported by people claiming unemployment benefits. 

Rep. Tip McGuire (D-Kenosha), speaking against the bill, said Republicans will have to “wake up to the reality that there is chaos and confusion in Washington D.C.” at some point. 

“It will hurt working families in Wisconsin and… one of the things that they’re going to need if a recession comes and they are out of work and they are laid off are these unemployment benefits,” McGuire said. “Making it easier to restrict them from those benefits is bad. It’s bad for our economy. It’s bad for our working families. It’s bad for the people of the state.” 

Bill author Rep. Duke Tucker (R-Grantsburg) said that everyone should “strive for efficient and effective government programs” and said the bill would help ensure the unemployment insurance program is “healthy.” 

“Unemployment insurance is for those who lost their job through no fault of their own. What better way can we ensure the possibility of increased benefits [than] by having a solvent fund that’s well managed?” Tucker asked. He added there is no “ill intent” with the bill. 

Evers has previously vetoed bills similar to the unemployment changes and the guaranteed income ban.

Other related bills passed by the Assembly include:

• AB 162 would require state agencies to compile metrics on training and workforce development programs, including the unemployment rates and median earnings of participants six months after they graduate from a program. It passed 53-42.
• AB 168 would allow felony fraud claims related to unemployment to be prosecuted up to eight years after a crime was committed, extending the current statute of limitations of six years. It would also require the DWD to provide information about unemployment — including providing training materials for employers and claimants and expanding its call center hours — and to implement “identity-proofing” measures for unemployment. The bill passed 53-42.
• AB 169 would allow an employer to report to DWD an unemployment recipient who  declines or fails to show up to a job interview or declines a job offer. This would be used to determine benefits. The bill passed 53-42.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Statue of liberty as viewed from Liberty Park | Getty Images

Amid all the poisonous, destructive acts of the second Trump administration, none is more chilling than snatching civilians off the streets of U.S. cities, to be deported without due process or disappeared to a notorious mega prison in El Salvador.

The sheer lawlessness of Trump’s campaign of terror against immigrants is breathtaking. 

On University of Wisconsin campuses, hundreds of international students who had their visas canceled are scrambling. Some are giving up their studies and going home, even though they’ve done nothing wrong and could probably get their visas reinstated through an appeals process. They don’t want to take their chances with this capricious, menacing administration. 

Who can blame them? Maryland father Kilmar Abrego Garcia was dragged from his car and sent to El Salvador due to an “administrative error” — yet the administration still refuses to return him. Sloppy police work and a cavalier attitude toward the law also appear to have landed a Milwaukee beautician with tattoos that had nothing to do with gangs in the same Salvadoran “terrorist” detention center. 

Recently, Wisconsin Public Radio reported that Neenah resident Tom Frantz, a retired college administrator who was born in the U.S., received notifications from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security telling him to leave the country immediately. The letters warned him, “Do not attempt to remain in the United States — the federal government will find you.” Frantz turned to Sen. Tammy Baldwin to help clear up what seems to be a mistake. It’s a bad sign that Franz, with no immigration background at all, felt he had to take the threat seriously.

High-profile black ops against student protesters, a White House visit from the self-described dictator of El Salvador, who thumbed his nose at the U.S. Supreme Court while sitting in the Oval Office, refusing to return the wrongly deported Abrego Garcia, Trump officials mocking due process and flouting the law — all of this is designed to foster fear, hopelessness and despair.

Grant Sovern, an immigration attorney in Madison who helped found the Community Immigration Law Center, is standing up to all of that.

He and his colleagues have been raising money through small donations at house parties to sustain a public defender service for immigrants in Dane County who face the threat of deportation. 

“Not everyone is actually deportable who ICE thinks is deportable,” Sovern says. “Maybe ICE has it wrong. … People don’t know. You need an advocate who knows the rules.”

That’s where the Community Immigration Law Center (CILC) comes in. The group’s mission is to ensure that everyone in Dane County who needs an immigration attorney gets one. It’s a significant step toward upholding the rule of law generally. 

Sovern points to an evaluation of the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project, the nation’s first public defender service for immigrants facing deportation. The project provided lawyers to all low-income immigrants facing deportation proceedings in New York City. Before the project, only 4% of those challenging deportation were successful. Once they were provided with attorneys, the rate of success rose to 48%.

“So half of the people who were being deported shouldn’t be,” Sovern says. “It’s not like these lawyers were getting around the law. They were applying the rules.”

And even under the current administration, applying the rules makes a difference. “At this moment, when everyone feels so hopeless,” Sovern says, CILC is demonstrating that “we can do something.” 

Some of the nonprofit law firm’s clients have been going through immigration court proceedings for years, starting in the first Trump administration. Others are new clients who are challenging deportation orders and winning.

The U.S. Supreme Court has responded cautiously to the Trump administration’s overreach as it deports people without due process. So far it has applied the brakes on Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act only by insisting that deportees’ cases be heard in the courts where they are located. 

For people Trump is targeting with its novel use of that wartime law, “the only due process you have is this habeas corpus petition,” explains Sovern — a petition demanding that the government bring people it has detained before a court and justify their detention.

Sovern knows one of the lawyers who wrote the habeas petition for Rumeysa Ozturk, the Tufts University graduate student who was snatched off the street in Boston by masked federal agents and spirited away to a Louisiana detention center. Ozturk’s lawyers filed a petition on her behalf in Massachusetts within five hours, Sovern says, but it was too late. Neither her attorneys nor her friends and family knew where she was and she was unable to speak to her lawyers until after she was flown out of state.

Last week, a federal judge in Vermont, a state Ozturk traveled through as government agents were taking her to Louisiana, ruled that she must be returned to New England no later than May 1 to determine whether she was illegally detained for co-writing an op-ed piece in her student newspaper supporting Palestinian victims of the war in Gaza.

“It is really dramatic how much it takes,” Sovern says of the struggle against Trump’s war on immigrants, due process and civil liberties. But he and his colleagues are rising to the challenge.

CILC’s goal is to be prepared for anything. “As long as we have some process, we are going to make that available,” Sovern says. “It’s going to cost a lot, and we’ll need expert lawyers to do it. But we’re going to find a way. If the Supreme Court and court system give people any type of due process at all, we have to be ready.”

See CILC’s website for more information about the group’s work and what you can do to help.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Technology is making it easier to pull off financial crimes, and the U.S. is lacking a central agency to track them, experts say. (Getty Images)

It started with a seemingly routine reminder for Nancy Hall to update her Norton antivirus software.

The 69-year-old Philadelphia resident sat down at her laptop to file her taxes recently and was prompted to call a number that was said to be the software company’s customer support. She had been hacked, the message said.

“It said, ‘you must call Microsoft right away, or else, you’re in danger of losing everything,’” Hall said.

A man on the line claimed to be in talks with her bank, saying hackers managed to download child pornography to her computer and transfer $18,000 to Russian accounts overnight.

He told Hall he was transferring her to the fraud department at her bank, where she spoke to someone who knew details about her local branch. After verifying personal details, that person asked her to come in to make a cash withdrawal that she could then use to purchase cryptocurrency at a specific ATM.

The pair told her she was at threat of being arrested by Homeland Security for what was found on her laptop unless she obliged.

After a few stressful hours of trying to sort out the situation, something clicked, Hall said — a friend was scammed out of $800,000 in retirement savings last year after being persuaded to purchase cryptocurrency in an emergency. Hall hung up the phone, then blocked the number when it continually called her back.

Financial crimes, or scams like these, have always been around, experts say. But the rise of artificial intelligence, access to sensitive information on the dark web, and a lack of federal oversight for these crimes means it’s never been easier to be a scammer, security experts say.

“AI has made these things so believable,” said Melissa O’Leary, a Portland, Maine-based partner and chief strategy officer at cybersecurity firm Fortalice Solutions. “Sometimes you can’t tell, ‘is this legitimate or not?’”

Hall’s experience mirrors many of the thousands of well-established attempts at tech-enabled financial crimes currently underway in the U.S. Scammers often pose as trusted corporations, government departments or as someone a victim knows. Many companies that have been spoofed, like Norton, put out warnings about these scams.

They also use heightened emotional responses and a sense of urgency to get you to transfer money or release personal details, cybersecurity experts say.

“Now I look back on it, I’m like, ‘how was I so stupid to say stay on the line that long?’” Hall said. “But then I look at this girl I know, and they managed to get her to go all the way.” 

The business of scamming

The Federal Trade Commission reported the overall loss Americans experienced via financial scams in the 2023-2024 fiscal year to be between $23.7 billion and $158.3 billion. The figures differ so much because so many losses go under or unreported, the FTC said in the report.

Matthew Radolec, D.C.-based vice president of Incident Response and Cloud Operations at data security firm Varonis, said he sees these phishing attempts in two parts; the scam is the technique being used to get access to money, and the actual crime itself is the loss of the money.

Because these crimes are digital, it’s hard to know who to report them to, or how to follow up. Many scammers also ask for cryptocurrency payments, or transfer them to crypto accounts shortly after the transaction.

“There’s no insurance for accidentally wiring someone $10,000,” Radolec said. “If you fall for a ruse, you fall for a ruse. It’s like a carnival trick, a sleight of hand. It’s a digital form of that.”

Kimberly Sutherland, the Alpharetta, Georgia-based vice president of fraud and identity at LexisNexis Risk Solutions, said they’ve seen a 20% year-over-year increase in digital fraud since 2021, affecting as much as 1.5% of all transactions, though many of those attempts are caught before they can go through.

A large part of their efforts are focused on monitoring new account openings and payments, as fraudsters want to either create a fraudulent account at the start, or they want to be able to intercept transactions as they’re happening, Sutherland said. They’ve also had to evolve their monitoring strategies, as over the last few years, there’s been a shift from laptop and desktop targeting to mobile attacks, she said. 

A few decades ago, scammers were focused on getting enough information from a company or individual to pull off a fake transaction. But as data breaches have become more common, the personal data unearthed makes it easier to pose as someone a victim knows, or give them details to become trustworthy.

Sutherland said the concept of synthetic identities — carefully crafted digital profiles of someone who doesn’t actually exist — have also deepened criminal’s abilities to get access inside of a variety of institutions like banks, colleges and corporations.

“You don’t have to steal an identity of someone; why not create a brand new one?” Sutherland said. “It started with jokes like, ‘I can get a credit card in the name of my dog,’ and it became sophisticated fraud rings who could actually create identities and nurture them to be used by others.”

Individuals and companies are not the only ones at risk of financial scams — government institutions have reported an increase in financial crimes in recent years. In California, community colleges have reported at least $5 million in losses to AI-simulated students who applied for financial aid.

One of the most current, wide-spread scams are texts and alerts from toll payment agency E-ZPass, asking a user to pay an outstanding bill at the included link. Last year, E-ZPass said the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center had received more than 2,000 complaints about the texts. Those who had filled out the included form should contact their banks, the company said.

It’s similar to a longstanding scam posing as UPS trying to deliver a package — it plays on our human nature of trust and curiosity, O’Leary said.

How AI is playing a role

AI has lowered the barrier for setting up a scam, O’Leary said. Those looking to lure someone to wire money or purchase cryptocurrency need some space on a server or in the cloud, and some sort of infrastructure to reach out to victims. Many programs that can be used to fake a persona, to send out mass text messages or phishing links are as easy as downloading an app.

“It’s almost a step by step for someone who wants to make a quick buck,” O’Leary said.

Large language models and AI chatbots can easily be prompted to sound like someone else, and give non-English speakers a much easier ability to communicate, O’Leary said.

Radolec has seen an uptick in AI bots being used to gain credentials to company databases or pay systems. Bots can hold legitimate conversations with a target to build rapport, and plant phishing scams to gain passwords in standard documents.

“The next thing you know, you can log in as me,” Radolec said.

From there, scammers can divert paychecks to offshore accounts, sell data on the dark web or plant further phishing attempts in internal systems.

Because of the rapid advancements in AI technologies, phishing attempts and scam strategies are constantly changing. Now, AI tools can help alter legitimate images, and create deepfakes, or likenesses of someone’s image or voice, in just a few minutes. It’s the strategy behind an increasingly common scam on grandparents — they get a call from someone that sounds exactly like their grandchild, saying they need a wire transfer or cash for bail.  

Many digital scams target older people, both because they’re expected to have less technical knowledge to spot a ruse, and because they tend to have larger sums of money accessible, Radolec said. In its report, the FTC estimated between $7.1 billion and $61.5 billion in losses for older adults.

This week, AARP, Amazon, Google and Walmart partnered on a new initiative that will be based out of Pittsburgh, called the National Elder Fraud Coordination Center, an attempt to tap in private companies who have resources in data privacy to assist in national law enforcement investigations. Its founder and CEO, former FBI agent Brady Finta, said that the technical side of these crimes are often partnered with an emotional side, like pretending to be a family member in trouble.

“They’re talking you through the crime,” Finta said. “They’re adding this anxiety and thought process to you and to overcome your normal decision making processes.”

Legislation and enforcement

There are hundreds of thousands of victims of financial scams each year, and they’re reporting them to different places — local police, state organizations, federal agencies, and the tech platforms where the crimes occurred, Finta said. Part of the reason some financial scams go unreported is that there’s not one clear route, government agency or law enforcement agency that has ownership over them.

That was also the consensus of a new report by the Government Accountability Office, FedScoop reported this month. There are 13 federal agencies, including the FBI, CFPB and the FTC, that work to counter scams, but they do not share one overarching strategy.

Finta is hoping that leveraging the private sector data from their partner corporations can help connect some fraud cases across the country and make these investigations more comprehensive.

While the FTC has the Fraud and Scam Reduction Act, which aims to raise awareness of financial scams, there’s no official federal protection or legislation on this topic. Some states are passing consumer protection laws that put some liability on banks to do due diligence on fraud and even reimburse customers for fraudulent transactions.

And the U.S. may be facing less protections than it currently has. Susan Weinstock, CEO of the Consumer Federation of America, said she’s worried that Congress just voted on a resolution under the Congressional Review Act that removed the rule that required digital payment apps like Venmo and Apple Pay to be regulated for fraud.

“Years ago, nobody had heard of Venmo or CashApp, and now these things are ubiquitous,” Weinstock said. “So it puts consumers in a really tough, scary position to be subject to fraud and not have the ability to deal with it.”

Because the strategies behind these financial scams change often and because there are few ways to track these crimes after they happen, a lot of responsibility falls on individuals and institutions to be able to spot them. Radolec’s first piece of advice is to slow down. If it really is your grandson calling from jail? Is it the end of the world if he spends a night in jail, he said.

Adding another person into the loop of communication is another strategy that will usually knock off an impersonator. If it appears to be a higher-up at work making a strange request for access to your finances, there’s no harm in looping in another person to review, Radolec said.

Lastly, the cybersecurity experts all said, it’s always safer to get in contact with the original source. If someone on the phone says they’re with your bank, hang up and call the bank directly to verify information.

“A lot of times they’re trying to create a sense of urgency that’s from a false place, so how can we ground ourselves?” Radolec said. “And can we ask, is this truly like a life or death situation that you have to act on right now? Or can time be in our favor?”

Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary holds up a container of carrot juice as he speaks during a news conference at the Health and Human Services Department headquarters in Washington, D.C., on April 22, 2025. Makary and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. spoke about the FDA's intent to phase out synthetic food dye and offered carrot juice and other juices as possible alternatives. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Trump administration health officials announced Tuesday they hope to eliminate eight petroleum-based synthetic dyes from the nation’s food supply before the end of next year, though they haven’t received guarantees or written agreement from food companies.

Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary detailed efforts to phase out the dyes during a press conference alongside Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at the department’s Washington, D.C., headquarters.

“Let’s be honest, taking petroleum-based food dyes out of the food supply is not a silver bullet that will instantly make America’s children healthy, but it is one important step,” Makary said.

The FDA’s proposal would revoke authorization for Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B while setting up the agency to work “with industry to eliminate” Green No. 3, Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5, Yellow No. 6, Blue No. 1 and Blue No. 2.

FDA will also authorize new, natural food dyes in the months ahead.

Kennedy said the Trump administration has an “understanding,” but not an “agreement” with food companies that use the dyes, before deferring to Makary, who said that “you win more bees with honey than fire.”

“There are a number of tools at our disposal. And so I believe in love, and let’s start in a friendly way and see if we can do this without any statutory or regulatory changes,” Makary said. “But we are exploring every tool in the toolbox to make sure this gets done very quickly. And they want to do it. They want to do it.

“So why go down a complicated road with Congress when they want to do this? They don’t want to deal with the patchwork of 30 different state plans.”

Christopher Gindlesperger, senior vice president of public affairs and communications at the National Confectioners Association, released a written statement that didn’t appear to agree entirely with the FDA’s proposed phase-out, however. 

“FDA and regulatory bodies around the world have deemed our products and ingredients safe, and we look forward to working with the Trump Administration and Congress on this issue,” Gindlesperger wrote. “We are in firm agreement that science-based evaluation of food additives will help eliminate consumer confusion and rebuild trust in our national food safety system.”

Removing additives

During the press conference, Makary held up watermelon, beet and carrot juices in clear containers, encouraging food companies to use those as dye, instead of the ones that may be removed from the market.

“We are simply asking American food companies to replace petroleum-based food dyes with natural ingredients for American children, just as they already do for children in other countries,” he said. “American children deserve good health.”

Makary said he believes there are several health conditions associated with petroleum-based synthetic dyes in food, including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, obesity, diabetes, insulin resistance, cancer, genomic disruption, gastrointestinal issues, and allergic reactions.

Kennedy said his goal as HHS secretary is to remove all additives in food served in schools “that we can legally address.”

The department, Kenedy said, will also work with Congress and President Donald Trump to increase labeling for food ingredients that Kennedy called addictive, including sugar.

“There’s things that we’ll never be able to eliminate, like sugar. And sugar is poison and Americans need to know that,” Kennedy said. “It is poisoning us. Is giving us a diabetes crisis.”

Health effects unclear

Martin Bucknavage, senior food safety extension associate at Penn State University, said during an interview with States Newsroom that petroleum-based synthetic food dyes are derived just to get the color.

“It’s not like it’s just a nasty chemical that they’re putting in there,” he said. “It’s something that’s been taken, it’s been chemically made, modified and then purified, so that it is just that chemical that provides that color. And then those colors have been studied.”

Similar to the complicated nature of nutrition studies — which can have a challenging time separating out a person’s genetics, exercise and environmental factors from one specific part of their diet — research on food dyes hasn’t been conclusive, Bucknavage said.

“In some cases, it does have an impact on hypersensitivity, but not in all cases,” he said. “And not all studies are basically showing the same thing. So there’s a lot of variability that exists out there.

“And I’m not saying, ‘Listen, we shouldn’t go through and study these things more and get better information on them.’ We certainly should. But again, it’s not an easy thing to do. Some of these studies take time and take a lot of money and sometimes the results are kind … more variable in terms of the results.”

States regulating dyes

The FDA’s announcement wasn’t the first time the federal government or state lawmakers have sought to ban food additives or synthetic dyes.

The Biden administration announced in January that the federal government would ban Red No. 3 in food beginning in 2027 and from medicines in 2028. Makary said during the press conference Tuesday the current administration plans to ask companies to phase out that dye sooner.

California lawmakers approved a bill in 2023 that will ban Red No. 3, propylparaben, brominated vegetable oil and potassium bromate from food starting in 2027.

The following year, legislators in the Golden State approved another measure that, starting in 2028, will ban six food dyes — Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Red 40, Yellow 5 and Yellow 6 — from being sold in schools.

Those two state laws followed the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment releasing a report in 2021 that concluded “scientific literature indicates that synthetic food dyes can impact neurobehavior in some children.”

Virginia lawmakers approved legislation earlier this year that Gov. Glenn Youngkin signed in March to ban some artificial food dyes in public schools, starting in July 2027.

In deeply red West Virginia, Republican Gov. Patrick Morrisey signed a bill a few days later that will prevent seven artificial dyes from being sold in grocery stores starting in 2028 or included in school lunches starting in August.

Arizona and Utah have implemented laws of their own addressing food dyes.

The Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization focused on strengthening health standards, reports that legislators in several states, including Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Washington have introduced bills that could ban certain food dyes or chemicals.

Melanie Benesh, EWG vice president for government affairs, wrote in a statement about the FDA announcement that the federal agency “has known for decades that synthetic food dyes are linked to health problems, particularly in children, but has failed to act.”

“We’re pleased the administration is following the lead of states like California and West Virginia by finally announcing their intent to ban dyes,” Benesh wrote. “We’re grateful that states like California and West Virginia have forced the FDA to make food safety a bigger priority.”

Peter Lurie, president and executive director of the self-described food and health watchdog group Center for Science in the Public Interest, wrote in a statement released Monday that Americans “don’t need synthetic dyes in the food supply, and no one will be harmed by their absence.”

“The most important thing to know about food dyes is that their only purpose is to make food companies money,” Lurie wrote. “They are purely cosmetic, serving no nutritional function. In other words, food dyes help make ultra-processed foods more attractive, especially to children, often by masking the absence of a colorful ingredient, like fruit.”

Ashley Murray contributed to this report. 

AG Josh Kaul speaks at a town hall in Green Bay. | Photo by Andrew Kennard/Wisconsin Examiner

Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul spoke to a crowd at Northeast Wisconsin Technical College in Green Bay last Thursday about crime victims’ services and Wisconsin’s response to  actions taken by the Trump administration.

Kaul said Wisconsin is currently involved in 11 multi-state lawsuits challenging various actions of the federal government. Among them are cases related to massive staffing cuts in the U.S. Department of Education, termination of health funding and an executive order to end birthright citizenship.

Kaul said many programs are being changed drastically. He discussed possible impacts of Social Security staff cuts as an example and encouraged people to reach out to the Wisconsin Department of Justice and share how these policy changes are affecting them.

Last month, Kaul unsuccessfully attempted to block Elon Musk from handing out $1 million checks at an event supporting Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel, who lost the recent election to Susan Crawford. The state Supreme Court turned down Kaul’s petition.

In Kaul’s opinion, “having rules that regulate petitions that are circulated right before an election, having rules that make clear that inducements to register to vote are problematic would be helpful,” he said. “And I think having statutes that make clear what it means to induce somebody to vote would be helpful.”

Kaul also described his pitch for money for services for crime victims in the state budget. Lower allocations from the federal Victims of Crime Act left providers scrambling, and Kaul said some providers have cut back on their hours and some have cut back on services. 

“Crime victim services, for those of you who aren’t familiar, can make a critical difference in the lives of people who are victims of crime,” Kaul said. “…They can help ensure that the victim’s rights are protected.”

Crime victim services can also help lead a person “to want to work with law enforcement and hold a perpetrator accountable, and that makes all of us safer,” he said. 

“So, essentially, what we’re talking about at the current level of funding is programs being stretched to the breaking point,” Kaul said. “That’s something I’ve heard from victim advocates.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Lincoln Hills Photo (courtesy of the Department of Corrections)

The court-issued monitor for Lincoln Hills and Copper Lake released a report Friday on conditions at the notorious juvenile facilities. It was the monitor’s 22nd visit to the prisons, and revealed both signs of improvement and lingering or worsening problems for the two facilities. The monitor noted that the populations at Lincoln Hills and Copper Lake were “significantly higher” compared to the last visit in October 2024. As of April 18, there are 78 boys at Lincoln Hills, 34 youth at Mendota, six girls at Copper Lake, and four at the Grow Academy, according to weekly population reports. The total on-grounds juvenile population is currently 122, up from the 95 who were in custody in early January. 

Average staffing vacancies which typically hovered around 16%-40% were lower, and the monitor stressed the need to address youth on administrative confinement, particularly those waiting to be transferred to another facility. 

Despite the issues, the report found that the Department of Corrections (DOC) is in substantial compliance with 45 (or 90%) of the 50 provisions identified in a court-ordered consent decree that resulted from a 2017 lawsuit over conditions at the youth prison. With the new monitoring report, four more provisions of the consent decree were brought into substantial compliance.

“This report showcases the hard work and commitment of our staff at Lincoln Hills and Copper Lake,” said DOC secretary Jared Hoy in a statement. “Tremendous progress has been made over the past seven plus years and we are looking forward to realizing a new model for juvenile corrections in Wisconsin.” The Mendota Juvenile Treatment Center began accepting girls for the first time, allowing the population at Copper Lake to be cut in half. Transfer times for boys were also reduced, and treatment teams have helped youth understand the root causes for anti-social behavior.

The report noted that physical improvements, such as replacing heat exchangers and deck upgrades to training facilities, were made since the last visit. Wifi strength has increased in the school and other living units, making it easier for youth to access recreation and learning programs.

Youth in confinement are provided with a special education teacher, as well as a general education teacher. New classrooms have been added to the Skills Development Programs, and teachers are attending youth growth team meetings and other activities. Some incarcerated youth did complain about teachers not being on the units most of the time, and only receiving paper packet work or chromebooks. A random viewing of video by the monitor showed teachers in the units. Youth also played kickball and were in the music lab during the monitoring visit. The facility still lacks a welding instructor, a program which youth appear to enjoy. The monitor was also concerned about vacancy rates in light of the growing population at Lincoln Hills. 

Living units were clean, and youth interacted with the monitor respectfully. Some housing units weren’t visited because the youth were rambunctious, but all units appeared clean and organized. Youth were calm and talkative with monitoring team members and one another, according to the report. Some played cards, ate lunch, made phone calls or watched television. When interviewed by the monitor, the youth were largely positive. They said they enjoyed new menu items, the music lab, but complained about food portion sizes. They also wished there were more jobs for them to do around the facility, and wanted the kickball unit to be switched to basketball. 

“Some youth stated that staff were abusive, and some youth really liked the staff and said they treated them well,” the monitor wrote. “Youth took pride in how clean their rooms and units were.” There were also complaints about restraints, including  waist belts, that have been used when they are out of their rooms. Youth felt the use of restraints was unfair, and that sometimes they weren’t told when violations were received. 

In 2022, DOC received funding to move forward with a state-run juvenile facility in Milwaukee County. Land was approved on West Clinton Avenue and the design has been  finalized and work began in the summer of 2024. The 32-bed facility is scheduled to be completed in late 2026. Another Type 1 facility is being designed in Dane County. Opening the new facilities will be a major step towards the Legislature’s goal of closing Lincoln Hills and Copper Lake, which have had troubled reputations for abuse and violence against youth housed there as well as staff members. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments at the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse on April 22, 2025, over President Donald Trump's ban on transgender people serving in the military. (U.S. General Services Administration photo)

WASHINGTON — A three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Tuesday grilled the Trump administration and the attorney for transgender service members who won a lower court order reversing President Donald Trump’s ban on transgender troops.

One judge on the panel voiced serious concerns about the lack of evidence the Defense Department cited when instituting the ban, while another expressed skepticism that the lower court’s nationwide order — instead of applying only to the transgender individuals who brought the case — was appropriate.

Administration officials appealed the case to the D.C. Circuit after district Judge Ana Reyes, appointed by former President Joe Biden, granted a broad preliminary injunction blocking Trump’s Jan. 27 executive order.

Eight active-duty service members and transgender individuals who are actively pursuing enlistment in the armed forces brought the case against Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, among other officials and three branches of the U.S. military.

Trump’s January order asserted the “adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life.” Further, the order said that being transgender is “not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member.”

The Trump administration is expected to “imminently” escalate a separate case on the same issue to the Supreme Court, U.S. Department of Justice attorney Jason Manion said in court Tuesday.

Evidence

Judges on the appeals bench queried both sides on whether the government has evidence to prove transgender individuals cannot fulfill military duties, and if the order bans all trans troops or only those diagnosed with gender dysphoria, a clinical diagnosis involving distress when a person’s gender identity differs from their sex at birth.

“If the military said people with red hair are just too fragile and vulnerable, we are going to kick them all out of the military, and we are going to not allow any of them ever to join, and we have no evidence of that, but we think they’re a threat to military preparedness, to unit cohesion, and too costly, and so we’re just going to kick them out?” asked Judge Cornelia Pillard, who was appointed during President Barack Obama’s second term.

Manion replied the transgender ban “policy relies on a condition that is marked by severe clinical distress.”

Under military deference — meaning the courts generally defer to the president and military on national security questions — the judges should accept Trump’s and Hegseth’s word on the policy, Manion said.

“If there are mental conditions that will impair someone’s ability to function in the military, or that the military could rationally judge would impair that, then that’s more than enough to satisfy rational basis review,” he said.

Pillard pushed back: Isn’t that the case for all people wanting to join the military, not just transgender individuals? Thousands of transgender troops are already serving, she said.

“If the concerns are with depression or suicidality, there already are standards that would screen someone out for those things, right?” Pillard said.

Trial court ‘overreach’?

Judge Neomi Rao challenged the plaintiffs’ likelihood to succeed, highlighting that the Supreme Court generally views broad orders from district judges as “overreach.”

Reyes’ order covers all transgender troops and those seeking to enlist, not just the eight plaintiffs who brought the case.

“The district court imposed effectively a universal injunction on this policy, going beyond any relief to these particular plaintiffs. So even putting aside the constitutional question, isn’t the government likely to succeed on challenging this remedy?” asked Rao, who was appointed during Trump’s first term.

Shannon Minter, civil rights attorney for the plaintiffs, said “the very nature of the injury” justifies far-reaching court protection.

“This is one of those cases where the injury alleged resides directly in the categorical nature of the policy itself, which declares that transgender people as a group lack the virtues of honesty, discipline, selflessness, integrity, that as such, they have to be purged from the military because they’re transgender, and because the government has this very negative view of what it means to be a transgender person,” Minter said.

In a separate case, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s ruling that allowed transgender troops to continue serving, denying the government’s appeal.

U.S. Supreme Court case upcoming

Judge Gregory Katsas, appointed during Trump’s first term, asked Manion, “Can you tell us anything about the government’s plans for seeking Supreme Court (review)?”

“I can’t give you an exact date, but it will be very, very quickly, very soon, and I think that may well be quite relevant to this court’s analysis as well,” Manion said.

Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Foundation, who are representing plaintiffs in the 9th Circuit case, released a statement Tuesday afternoon saying they “stand ready to continue to zealously represent our clients as we have at every juncture.”

“Transgender service members have been openly serving our country with honor and distinction for almost a decade and have met and are meeting every neutral service-based standard. The U.S. Supreme Court should reject the invitation to stay the district court’s injunction so that they can impose their discriminatory ban while the litigation proceeds,” the statement said.